GrapheneOS has been ported to Android 17

It's quite a big phone compared to the S10e.

I didn't miss the context.

You can't simultaneously claim (incorrectly) that they're incapable of shipping secure hardware while claiming that they intend to ship a secure and private device. (Maybe Fairphone 7 will be the one.) Even if that is is their intention, they're doing a good job keeping it a secret, as their site's main traffic drivers talk solely about environmental ethics and the climate.

Several companies are shipping devices with worthwhile hardware security, and the standards are fairly well enumerated at the link I provided. If Fairphone's intention is to ship reasonably secure hardware then they're failing miserably at it. Same goes for their choice of OS.

Again, that link wasn't for you. You've been told all this stuff for many years. It's for anyone who trips over the thread without already knowing the sheer tonnage of misleading and often downright factually false statements you continually dump in these threads.

Again, you're misreading. He stated that security is a necessary condition for privacy, you assumed that he's conflating the two things (he clearly doesn't), then...essentially agreed with his point. It's just totally defective.

My comment, which you accuse of not advancing the conversation, was that your comment was internally incoherent. Like some (not all) of your comments, it sets discourse back significantly and the discussion would be much better off without such things.

You admit to holding a preconceived notion that he thinks security and privacy are the same things, which might have something to do with why you consistently fail to interpret some of even the simplest comments. You'd already reached your conclusion about him and didn't truly read his comment, but responded to your preconceived notion of it as soon as you saw the slightest opening. You do that a lot. It doesn't advance discussion.

You're in the second half of your first decade doing exactly the same thing here year after year with an absolute litany of people, including multiple elite developers who are doing incredibly difficult and important work, highly qualified people whose opinions you completely disregard repeatedly. Searching this site for your old threads shows a certain imperviousness of thought. You already have your talking points and you're not budging from them.

Which is fine, some people are just like that, and I'll continue to weigh in on high-traffic threads to make sure you don't harm important projects with your usual comments, but engaging directly with you is as tedious as it is pointless and I won't be doing that much.

I'm not sure what your motives are, but either way there's no upside to doing anything beyond making sure casual readers of high-traffic discussions won't see your more defective comments go mostly unchallenged (as many others have already wisely moved on from engaging with you).

You can't call comprehensive replies "disingenuous walls of text" and then later complain about a lack of thoroughness when people stop finding it worth the time. You've done it extensively with me and others. That's not an attack or accusation, it's there to see with years of history of you doing the same things to people from casual observers (me) to some of the most qualified participants in the industry.

I'm comfortable with others taking in everything and drawing their own conclusions. That's my only motivation for engaging at this point.

For example, Fairphone has something approaching 200 employees. They're punching well below their weight on the security side, both in terms of hardware and software. Defend them all you want but their approach to security is objectively poor. Repairability and sustainability are good concepts, but not if the device fails at being a decently secure device, which it does. If there's a good reason they can't spec out a better device to be made for them and properly support it, I haven't seen them state it. I wish they would because they've made some pretty neat devices over the years. But a neat device with poor hardware security is an absurd build target to burn finite dev hours on. Something which has been explained to you many times.

Purism, on the other hand, likely can't produce a phone that has security remotely approaching any one of a number of contemporary phone options (beyond just Apple/Google). As you say, they're too small and probably spread too thin. They could stand to dial back their claims to match their reality. They still haven't made a dent on significant issues they themselves flagged more than a half decade ago. Its modem runs on a bus so untrustworthy you probably run a disposable sys-usb Qube on your computer. But that's OK, because you only run trusted software, etc. To each their own.

I've gone through about 5 USB-C adapters which eventually broke inexplicably. They also have extra noise in the audio when the volume is low for some reason.