I'm just not buying their explanation, that's just an excuse. Why? Well my wifes grandmother (80ish woman living alone) showed us something on her phone a few months ago: Big red flashing text that her phone was somehow infected and she urgently needs to call x and do y. Now how did this scam get full screen access to her phone? She installed a card game app from the Google Play Store, which showed this scam as an ad. And the little logo in the bottom gave away one more detail: The ad was delivered via Google.
IMHO Google just wants to ensure Android stays under their control and they can make lots of money with it. They don't care if average Joe gets scamed (they even get a cut) and the measures they pretend to protect average Joe just don't work.
P.S.: Some speciation from my side: That ad was probably even targeted to less techsavy people power by Google.
Assuming the Anti-Cheat won't be GPL licensed (which would probably make it useless), the Linux kernel does indeed refuse to cooperate: https://lwn.net/Articles/939842/
Sure, there are technical solution around this, but they are legally questionable.
Power Shell is not a terminal, it is a shell (hence the name). Yes, you are using Power Shell in a terminal window, but that is a different program. And it is called a terminal emulator because what we now call a terminal or terminal window is in fact a software emulation of a hardware terminal: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_terminal
Edit:
To make it a bit clearer: You can access your shell of choice (Bash, Fish, Power Shell, Cmd, ...) in different terminal emulators (Windows Console, GNOME Terminal, Visual Studio Code, Kitty, Forceterm, ...). The drawing of the characters to the screen, scrolling, menus and other UI parts are handeled by the terminal, but the actual logic (processing the commands you type) is done by the shell. The shell decides WHAT to display and the terminal emulator decides HOW it is displayed.
The important catch here is "paying attention".
I guess the way Tesla is marketing their "Full Self Driving" technology leads to people paying less attention. If you market your technology as "Emergency Breaking System" people will be less likely to pay less attention.
Also, an emergency breaking system doesn't have to be better than humans in general. It is sufficient to beat humans in certain facets like reaction time (kid jumping onto the road) or tough lighting. LiDAR has it's own weaknesses I guess. But if the driver and LiDAR can hit the breaks we get best of both worlds.
This could be placebo, but it could also be "self-healing" effects or just natural variation over time (which would cause a similar amount of patients with worse results) or a combination of this or something completely else.
Maybe you can rule out some of this, but I'm asking the question: Is the placebo effect the only plausible explanation for this numbers? I don't think so.
Ignoring the ridiculous trajectory the world (well mostly the USA) has taken here and just assume it is a necessity to always be able to GPS locate your kids: Kids are smarter than some of the involved parties here seem to think. And they also value their freedom (maybe because the want to do something forbidden, but also just "because"). So, if you force install tracking apps on kids phones, what will happen? They will get creative. Maybe they will just leave their phone at home, maybe they find more involved strategies to fake their location, but they will find ways. Now in a real emergency, they can't call for help. Good job.
See also: Simpsons Episode 422 "Lost Verizon" from 2008.
Sounds like some OS dependency / shared library problem. Maybe caused by MUSL libc vs Glibc or different versions of e.g. libpcre2.
At least if it is not something as simple as an uncomitted file.
Disclaimer: I have never used CloudFlare Pages or Netlify.
I guess that dependends on your definition of a power user. Some might see someone spending multiple hours a day with a given software sufficient to be called a "power user".
If I had to make up a definition right now, I'd go for something like: Someone who invests a small(er) amount of time to e.g. configure the software to their needs or learns some keyboard shortcuts knowing it will save them a large(r) amount of time in the long run, by tiny savings spread over weeks (or decades). It's more about the mindset. With that definition it becomes clear why vi is often considered "power user only".
With the frequency of product redesigns the commercial software sees, I can understand why many people hesitante to invest upfront.
If you want to be extra cursed, you can also place a bunch of 1x1 `<rect>`s next to each other and color them individually.
For extra points, you can combine consecutive pixel of the same color into a say 2x1 or 1x5 rects. Or make use of `<use>` tags to implement a color pallete.
In both these cases the search engine provider could easily store your identity together with your token while issuing it and recover the identity once the token is used without any way to prove this from the outside. They could even issue tokens in the form AES_ENC("SOME KEY ONLY THEY HAVE", USER_ID | counter) and you would not notice.
You would have to trust them that they won't do this, which is no improvement to the current thing Kagi does (saying they won't collect any data, while admitting they can't prove it, you just have to trust them).
One example: `apt install firefox` installs the snap variant (which the user probably just uninstalled to replace it with the apt variant, as it is installed by default.)
P.S.: Some speciation from my side: That ad was probably even targeted to less techsavy people power by Google.