[Shared404]

It doesn't read to me that the author is stating it's specific to pinephone, I read it as them just saying "hey guys, look out for this."

If they use the license wording to help get it across, well, I don't necessarily agree but as they state in the article:

> I'm trying to be a bit inflamatory here, to start the conversation.

[0zymandiass]

If the conversation is

> Software engineering does not put safety first

I'm 100% agreed.

If the conversation is

> The PinePhone has less quality control than Android/iOS

It's patently false

I would parse the article as the second, as it's referring to a specific phone throughout

[Shared404]

I read it as the first, with a side of "We need to do this or FL/OSS hardware is going to look bad".

And I concur about the second being patently false. I would guess that it has more overall tbh.

[megous]

>> The PinePhone has less quality control than Android/iOS

> It's patently false

PinePhone is just HW. Android/iOS is SW. Comparison doesn't make sense. Maybe compare PinePhone to Huawei Honor, or Xiaomi and their HW testing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvRTY6sBPeE

[sangnoir]

> It's patently false

That's a strawman: author never compared to Android/iOS. What they did spell out,is that some of the code they found is unsafe (e.g. commented-out code to prevent false alerts, that was never being reimplemented in a safer way).

[SahAssar]

But the article does not mention that other phones might have similar challenges. If the article is about the whole industry then say that, if it is specific to the pinephone say that. Currently it's in that weird middle zone where it sounds like it is specific but all the facts would probably be applicable to many phones.