Don’t know and sadly my Pixel got stolen recently, but you can see if Offi or Transportr meet your needs, they’re available on fdroid.
I guess I have bad news for you regarding the government app: https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/253-compatibility-for-austria-e-government-app
Anyway depending on your threat model keeping a normiephone as a decoy and mainlining something like graphene os can be a good opsec decision.
also as a former driver I just want to say DOWN WITH THEIR ECONOMIC TERRORISM!
It stopped working in April or May I think so that’s interesting
What public transport apps if I may ask? Most of Western Europe and especially Germany present no issues and even have OSS options, same with Finland.
Yes as somebody with correct opinions 98% of the time I should write a book
Yes and now probably Rojava is going to get slaughtered by Erdogan
Yes he fucking is, as is every bourgeois politician, including putin. And don’t forget the gratitude HTS expressed towards the Zionists. The Syrian revolution had an immense progressive potential in 2011-13 but nowadays I’m just glad the war is over but at the same time I’m concerned about what happens next to Kurds, since HTS also had a substantial backing from the genocidal irredentist Ankara government.
Your wishes don’t come true from shooting stars, they come true from shooting tsars
Yes I do. Therefore I would never use it in front of state authorities, but I doubt a hotel receptionist would make use of a pubkey cryptography.
But they have one advantage: They are way easier to counterfeit. Meaning that with a few months of programming at most, if you ever find yourself on a run, you’ll be able to ID yourself on trains or buses or check in to hotels with fake personal info.
deleted by creator
Wow you’re such a master of sophistry and purveyor of strawman arguments! I told myself to not to venture anymore into this thread but I wanted to read other comments and was too taken aback by your ingenious reasoning: dripping with sarcasm, devoid of substance, and utterly unmoored from reality.
You reduce centuries of historical struggle to a juvenile caricature of violence as if proponents of revolutionary change are advocating bar brawls over policy disputes. Congratulations, you’ve managed to completely miss the point and simultaneously belittle the historical sacrifices of countless movements that fought for the very freedoms you enjoy today.
Let’s start with your dismissal of violence as a foundation for human society. “Mutually beneficial coexistence” and “strong democratic rule of law,” you say? Cute. But how exactly do you think those came about? Did kings one day wake up and declare, “Let’s dissolve feudalism in favor of liberal democracy because it’s the right thing to do”? No, those changes were wrested from their cold, greedy hands by uprisings, revolutions, and organized struggles.
Your idyllic “coexistence” is not a natural state of humanity but a negotiated truce born from the fear of revolutionary upheaval.
Jefferson’s statement about the “tree of liberty” needing the blood of patriots and tyrants was not a call to violence for violence’s sake. It was an acknowledgment of the historical truth: oppressive systems do not voluntarily cede power. Pretending that systemic change can occur without disrupting the status quo is like believing you can dismantle a factory while it’s still running without turning off the machines.
When despots—be they monarchs or capitalists—cling to power, they do so with violence. You see it in the police repression of labor strikes, the brutal crackdowns on colonial uprisings, and the militarized responses to civil rights protests. The violence of the oppressed is not the instigator but the response to the entrenched violence of the ruling class.
You mockingly equate violence with fixing mundane issues like car troubles and crop failures. How clever! But let’s reframe this nonsense for clarity. Violence in the context of systemic change is not some crude hammer smashing individual problems; it’s the lever that dislodges entrenched structures of oppression. To illustrate with a few examples:
Your whimsical alternatives ignore the brutal reality of oppression: power concedes nothing without a fight.
You extol the virtues of specialization, rule of law, and coexistence as if these are unassailable constants of human civilization. But under capitalism, these “pillars” are subverted to serve profit, not people.
Your appeal to these ideals is as hollow as your argument.
le violence bad, peace good moral tailspinning
You frame violence as inherently immoral, but your selective moral outrage ignores the structural violence baked into capitalism. The daily grind of exploitation, poverty, and systemic inequality kills far more people than any revolution ever could.
Revolutionary violence, by contrast, seeks to dismantle these systems of oppression and exploitation. It is not a love of violence but the recognition of necessity.
In conclusion
Your snarky deflections and idealistic appeals to a nonexistent utopia betray your deep misunderstanding of history and the nature of power. The world you describe—a harmonious democracy where disputes are settled through mutual benefit and rule of law—has never existed without the threat or use of force to make it so.
You ridicule the idea of revolution while sitting atop the very achievements that violence has secured: your rights, your freedoms, your comforts. To dismiss the utility of revolutionary struggle is to deny history itself, a luxury only afforded to those insulated from the realities of oppression.
You might enjoy your quips, but history won’t judge you for your wit. It will judge you for your cowardice.
USSR was a degenerate workers state, though the degeneration didn’t fully take hold until 1930s. The concept of socialism in one country was a revisionist drivel against which Lenin fought his entire life. The Hungarian Revolution of 1956 established soviets (worker and peasant councils) with direct democracy without privilege all over the country. it’s a shame that the political upheaval in the USSR didn’t go further and the calls to not only criticize Stalin but also Khrushchev didn’t materialize, as well as his plan to return at least some democracy to the party for which he got ousted.
ok dear agent, you cannot admit losing the discussion so you’ll just resort to namecalling, so vice versa 💅
the fuck are you talking about
I finally feel like agreeing with you here. Yes we need to build such a system. But it won’t be built by complacency and idle talk while the billionaires rob us in broad daylight. It requires struggle. The law is only an ideal but it’s interpretation and execution depends on the material reality whether you like it or not and that was recognized even by people you wouldn’t call materialists and who made great contributions to the modern philosophy of the law, such as Hegel.
Hegel also had this concept of Sittlichkeit, which is closely linked to the teleological interpretation of the law, namely that what matters is the intent and purpose of the laws and that the purpose of the law should be the greatest common good.
But that is just a beautiful vision that is not realisitically attainable in a system controlled by a tiny minority which can afford better lawyers, bribe the lawmakers and even the justice system at times, essentially to rig the system to fit their needs.
We do need a system that does not perpetuate violence against anyone. But that system is irreconcilable with class society where the antagonisms between the exploiters and the exploited will sooner or later lead to one eruption or another. Social peace is over. The question is how we secure a system truly fit for the needs of many against the attacks by the deposed few furious at the lost comforts attained at the expense of their fellow human beings with as little bloodshed as possible and establish a society where the antagonisms and stratification of yore are no longer relevant.
But before the working class firmly secures it’s power, it will have every right to defend itself, even if it involves such counterattacks for the suffering caused by the other party. Sitting idly and flinching at the very thought of violence will end to the same tragedies as those that happened in Chile in 1973 and in countless other places.
I dream a world where man
No other man will scorn,
Where love will bless the earth
And peace its paths adorn
I dream a world where all
Will know sweet freedom’s way,
Where greed no longer saps the soul
Nor avarice blights our day.
A world I dream where black or white,
Whatever race you be,
Will share the bounties of the earth
And every man is free,
Where wretchedness will hang its head
And joy, like a pearl,
Attends the needs of all mankind-
Of such I dream, my world!
But dreams are nothing without a clear and uncompromising strategy for making them a reality.
yes because those parasitic companies need to be expropriated without compensation and healthcare put under democratic control of the real stakeholders: frontilne medical workers and patients
Well you can use Calyx instead, which supports microG instead of Graphene, at the expense of somewhat lower security level. Or wait until sandboxes google services gets patched accordingly.