z'gok thunderbolt

z'gok thunderbolt Texas has nation's top recruiting class after landing elite defensive lineman from GeorgiaIn an era when information travels at breakneck speed across vast digital networks, the very act of trying to hide certain data often paradoxically ensures its broader dissemination. This ironic dynamic, known as the “Streisand effect,” encapsulates a critical tension at the heart of contemporary media ecosystems: attempts to suppress or censor information frequently result in that information being shared more widely and gaining even greater cultural resonance. Conceptually, the Streisand effect aligns with a set of interrelated theories from communication studies, media ethics, political science, and sociology that explore how power, secrecy, and transparency collide in the digital sphere. The naming of this effect traces back to a high-profile incident involving the American singer and actress Barbra Streisand, who sought to remove an innocuous aerial photograph of her home from a public online archive. Her attempt at legal action not only failed to conceal the image but also propelled it into public consciousness, transforming an obscure photo into a widely recognized symbol of the futility of certain censorship efforts. In the years since, the Streisand effect has been invoked to describe countless scenarios in which a suppression attempt has had precisely the opposite outcome, inadvertently amplifying the visibility of the contested information. The Streisand effect has long-since moved beyond a cultural anecdote into a conceptual lens through which we can examine the interplay between censorship, digital activism, and networked people. It resonates with theoretical frameworks in media studies and cyberlaw that explain how information—once digitized—does not simply vanish at the behest of a single authority figure. Instead, the attempt to stifle speech often triggers counterforces that intensify attention and circulation. More than a curiosity or quirk of the internet age, the Streisand effect raises profound questions about control, audience psychology, viral mechanisms, trust in authoritative institutions, and the ethics of public communication. The Streisand effect sits at the intersection of several core ideas in the study of media and communication. On one side, classical theories of censorship and propaganda have long held that efforts to control what the public sees, hears, and reads run the risk of sparking resistance and curiosity. J.S. Mill’s philosophical arguments about the importance of free speech and John Milton’s “Areopagitica” both highlight that suppressing ideas can inadvertently make them more appealing. Even a five-year-old child interacting with their parents embodies that. While these thinkers operated in pre-digital worlds, their observations resonate powerfully in an internet-driven context. In the digital era, communication occurs within a decentralized web of platforms, forums, and social media channels, allowing information to ricochet from one node to countless others at lightning speed. This distributed network structure makes it inherently more difficult to control narratives. Here, the Streisand effect can be seen as a manifestation of network theory principles, where attempts to remove content from a node can trigger attention from multiple connected nodes. Information becomes replicated and mirrored, spreading like wildfire, often beyond the jurisdictional reach of the initial censor. Conceptually, the effect is in dialogue with ideas about “forbidden fruit” and psychological reactance: when individuals perceive that certain knowledge is being withheld from them, their desire to access and disseminate it intensifies. The cognitive interplay between scarcity, curiosity, and the innate human impetus to resist perceived control fosters conditions ripe for the Streisand effect. Likewise, within political communication and digital activism, the effect dovetails with notions of “information cascades,” wherein social proof and the bandwagon effect drive people to share content precisely because it is being suppressed. In 2003, environmental photographer Kenneth Adelman took thousands of aerial images of the California coastline for the California Coastal Records Project, a public initiative to document coastal erosion. Among these images was a photograph of Barbra Streisand’s home. Although the image was not initially singled out or widely circulated, Streisand’s attempt to sue Adelman and the associated website for $50 million to have the photograph removed brought widespread media attention to it. Before the lawsuit, the image had been downloaded only a handful of times; in the aftermath, its visibility soared as global news outlets covered the story and internet users flocked to view what Streisand wanted hidden. The Streisand effect quickly transcended its origin story. Since then, it has been referenced in relation to a host of incidents spanning entertainment, politics, corporate branding, social justice campaigns, and beyond. WikiLeaks, for example, became a lightning rod for the Streisand effect: when governments and corporations attempted to block access to leaked documents, supporters and activists replicated and redistributed those files across mirror sites, magnifying their reach. Similarly, efforts by authoritarian regimes to tamp down dissenting voices often trigger widespread international attention, human rights reporting, and solidarity campaigns that amplify the suppressed message. More recently, attempts by political figures to remove incriminating tweets or videos have ignited the Streisand effect. The internet’s permanent memory—embodied in archiving tools like the Wayback Machine—thwarts erasure. Efforts to edit history, conceal past statements, or disappear embarrassing content often lead to journalists and activists spotlighting these very attempts at suppression. The effect has even extended into celebrity culture: attempts by public relations teams to quash rumors or scandalous images can inadvertently accelerate their spread, turning minor gossip into major controversy. Moreover, as social media algorithms privilege engagement—likes, shares, and comments—censorship attempts can become their own form of viral currency. The more a piece of content is framed as “secret” or “forbidden,” the more likely users are to engage with it, share it, and comment on its significance. In this environment, trying to stifle discourse can resemble tossing gasoline onto a smoldering fire. Human psychology lies at the heart of the Streisand effect. One key ingredient is the principle of psychological reactance, identified by psychologist Jack Brehm in the 1960s. Reactance posits that when individuals perceive their freedom of choice or access to information is threatened, they experience an emotional drive to restore that freedom. Attempts at censorship, particularly in open societies accustomed to broad speech protections, often ignite a collective reactance. Audiences do not merely consume information passively; they become motivated participants seeking to undermine the censors and affirm their autonomy. Another psychological dimension is the “forbidden fruit” phenomenon, where information labeled as suppressed or secretively removed attains a heightened allure. Social beings are drawn to that which is hidden, as uncovering secrets promises insider knowledge, prestige, or the thrill of rebellion. This dynamic is supercharged in digital spaces, where communities form around discovery, investigation, and sharing. The democratization of communication tools means anyone can become a whistleblower, archivist, or curator of hidden truths. These psychological drivers interact with group identities and in-group/out-group dynamics. When people identify as part of an information community—be it Reddit sleuths, political dissidents, or fandom collectors—they take collective pride in outsmarting suppression efforts. The Streisand effect can thus catalyze a sense of camaraderie and mission. The very networks that censorship attempts aim to disrupt become even tighter-knit and more determined to keep the contested information in circulation. The digital architecture underlying modern communication amplifies the Streisand effect. Unlike traditional, top-down broadcast models, digital platforms function as decentralized, user-driven networks. The spread of information is often organic, fueled by peer-to-peer sharing. However, it is also algorithmically orchestrated, as platforms like Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube use recommendation engines designed to boost user engagement. When content is “forbidden,” engagement often skyrockets. Users rush to view, share, and debate it. The algorithms notice this surge and respond by pushing it into more feeds, magnifying its visibility. Each attempt to remove or block the content may prompt a new wave of re-uploads, mirrors, and commentary, ensuring that it remains accessible through a variety of back channels. The Streisand effect also intersects with the darker realms of information warfare. State actors, intelligence agencies, and strategically motivated hackers might plant controversial documents or misinformation online precisely to lure their targets into attempts at suppression. By prompting heavy-handed takedowns, they trigger a wave of viral attention and inadvertently legitimize the content’s significance. In this sense, the Streisand effect can be weaponized as a strategic tool: provoking an opponent into censorial overreach that backfires spectacularly. Through this lens, controlling the narrative in digital spaces becomes an intricate game of psychological manipulation, platform maneuvering, and memetic spread. Corporate entities are increasingly aware of the Streisand effect’s implications. In attempts to manage reputational crises, companies sometimes try to remove negative reviews, unflattering images, or damaging press. Ironically, these efforts can escalate minor issues into public-relations catastrophes. The brand, which intended to appear protective of its image and values, comes across as secretive, manipulative, or untrustworthy. In contrast, some brands have learned to embrace transparent communication policies. Rather than hiding criticism, they publicly address concerns, provide context, and invite dialogue. By doing so, they can transform potential scandals into opportunities for authenticity and trust-building. When customers see that a company is not trying to suppress information, they are more likely to view that company as accountable and honest. The Streisand effect, in this sense, serves as a cautionary tale: attempting censorship in the age of digital empowerment can do more harm than good. Politically, the Streisand effect often plays out when authoritarian regimes try to silence dissent or democratic leaders attempt to manage controversies behind closed doors. For instance, efforts to censor media outlets or online platforms to hide state-sanctioned abuses, leaked corruption files, or embarrassing diplomatic cables can unleash a torrent of attention from international media, human rights organizations, and activist networks. The result is often the opposite of what the censor intended: global scrutiny, condemnation, and sustained coverage of the originally suppressed information. After the French government tried to remove Wikipedia's article on the military radio station Pierre-sur-Haute, the article rocketed to the top of French Wikipedia (attribution: S. RIMBAUD). The Streisand effect is not solely the domain of corporate or political players. Grassroots social justice movements and marginalized communities sometimes leverage the effect to draw attention to issues that powerful actors attempt to hide. When police departments try to suppress video evidence of misconduct, activists seize upon the censorship attempt to highlight systemic issues, circulate the suppressed evidence more widely, and mobilize public outrage. The initial attempt at concealing wrongdoing ironically strengthens the movement’s moral leverage, showing how even clumsy censorship can serve as a catalyst for greater awareness and calls for reform. Social justice campaigns can thus find tactical advantage in understanding how the Streisand effect functions. It encourages a strategic approach: activists anticipate censorship, set traps for attempted suppression, and design their messaging so that any blocking attempt backfires into broader coverage. Here, the effect aligns with the broader ecology of digital activism, where information asymmetries and suppressive tactics often energize rather than deter reformist energies. Academics and thought leaders in communications, cyberlaw, and sociology have helped frame and elaborate the Streisand effect in more formal theoretical terms. Scholars like Ethan Zuckerman have discussed how digital networks facilitate the rapid spread of information in unexpected ways, highlighting the “cute cats” theory of internet content—meaning that platforms designed for innocuous sharing can become powerful tools for political mobilization once censorship attempts occur. Legal theorists such as Lawrence Lessig have pointed to how intellectual property law and content takedown notices can trigger counterproductive amplification. Sociologist Manuel Castells’ theory of networked society also provides a framework for understanding the decentralized power dynamics that foster the Streisand effect. Critical voices in media ethics have explored how content moderation efforts on large platforms can backfire. They emphasize that while some moderation is necessary, overly secretive or draconian measures can lead to a sense of disenfranchisement and erode public trust. Meanwhile, journalists and media watchdogs document case studies that illustrate the Streisand effect’s ubiquity. By cataloging these instances, they contribute to a growing body of evidence that suppression attempts often yield unintended consequences. At its core, the Streisand effect raises pressing moral questions about communication in the digital age. Should all information be freely accessible, regardless of its context or harm potential? What responsibilities do individuals, platforms, and institutions have in shaping the knowledge landscape? On one hand, the effect underscores the value of transparency and openness. It discourages paternalistic attempts to manage public discourse behind closed doors. When the public learns that certain truths are being hidden, trust in those concealing the truth erodes, and skepticism toward authority grows. This dynamic serves as a check on corporate and governmental overreach, potentially strengthening democratic ideals. On the other hand, not all information is innocuous. Certain data might infringe on privacy, promote hate, or endanger vulnerable populations. Complex moral dilemmas arise when preventing the spread of harmful content unintentionally boosts its profile. The Streisand effect forces communicators and regulators to navigate a precarious tightrope, balancing the public’s right to know with the moral imperative to avoid spreading damaging or false information. It also implicates the role of technology platforms, which must decide how to respond to takedown requests without unintentionally fanning the flames of controversy. These moral dimensions invite a reevaluation of censorship policies. If attempts at suppression often fail or backfire, perhaps a more nuanced approach—founded on contextualization, critical literacy, and open debate—is necessary. The Streisand effect nudges us toward transparency as a virtue, but transparency alone is not a panacea. An informed public must be equipped with the media literacy skills to analyze and contextualize the information they encounter. The reality of the Streisand effect means institutions and individuals must be prepared to engage with it. This means: Transparent Communication Policies: Institutions should adopt policies that favor openness and clarity over secrecy. When confronted with unflattering facts, addressing them head-on rather than attempting concealment can build trust. For corporations facing a scandal, a prompt and honest statement acknowledging mistakes and outlining remediation steps is often more effective than a covert takedown strategy. Contextualizing Controversial Content: Instead of deleting or blocking information, communicators can provide context, fact-checking, and expert commentary. By reframing potentially damaging material within a broader narrative, they reduce its allure as “forbidden knowledge.” This approach empowers audiences to engage critically rather than sensationalizing the hidden. Media Literacy Education: An informed public is less susceptible to knee-jerk reactions and the allure of secrecy. By equipping citizens with the tools to evaluate sources, understand media ecosystems, and recognize disinformation tactics, media literacy education can minimize the effectiveness of both censorship and the counterproductive effects of censorship attempts. Proactive Crisis Management: Anticipating controversies before they arise and having a roadmap for ethical, transparent responses can help organizations avoid overreactions. Strategists can rehearse crisis scenarios, developing responses that reduce panic and minimize the temptation to suppress information in the heat of the moment. Critical Discourse Forums: Encouraging open discussion and debate in moderated forums allows contentious topics to be aired without resorting to deletion. By fostering respectful dialogue, platforms and organizations create a public sphere where misinformation can be challenged, and harmful content can be contextualized or debunked. Leveraging the Effect for Good: Activists and social justice groups, aware of the Streisand effect, can leverage suppression attempts to draw attention to critical issues. By documenting censorship attempts and highlighting them as evidence of wrongdoing, they can rally public support and galvanize meaningful change. The Streisand effect also symbolizes a broader cultural shift in how power operates in networked publics. Traditional gatekeepers—governments, mainstream media outlets, powerful companies—no longer enjoy uncontested control over narratives. Instead, networked citizens possess a heightened ability to counter attempts at censorship. The Streisand effect emphasizes that information is not a single, discrete commodity that can be centrally managed. It is a fluid, replicable, crowd-driven phenomenon. The Streisand effect is more than an internet curiosity. It stands as a crucial case study in understanding the unpredictability, interconnectedness, and evolving power relations of the global information landscape. From its origin in a legal battle over a single photograph, this phenomenon has grown into a robust conceptual framework for examining how efforts to silence information can result in louder, more widespread conversation. The effect bridges multiple disciplines—communications theory, psychology, sociology, cyberlaw, political science—and resonates with thinkers who have long warned about the unintended consequences of censorship. In a world where information flows at unprecedented volumes and speeds, attempts to control that flow are often counterproductive. Instead, the Streisand effect encourages a pivot toward transparency, dialogue, and critical engagement. As we navigate a future rife with challenges—misinformation wars, authoritarian clampdowns, corporate PR disasters, and the struggle for digital rights—the Streisand effect remains instructive. It teaches us that the networks we have built thrive on the interplay of curiosity, resistance, and shared identity. Censorship often triggers rebellion, and secrecy can breed discovery. The moral imperative is not merely to acknowledge the effect but to engage thoughtfully with what it implies about power, ethics, and the responsibilities of all communicators, from individual citizens to multinational platforms. The Streisand effect is, at its core, a reminder that information ecosystems have personalities and patterns of their own. Attempts to shape these ecosystems through force or concealment frequently backfire. The more you try to hide something in the digital age, the more it demands to be found. And once found, it spreads uncontrollably, carried along by human curiosity, algorithmic affinities, and the moral heartbeat of a public that will not be kept in the dark. Alex Cooke is a Cleveland-based portrait, events, and landscape photographer. He holds an M.S. in Applied Mathematics and a doctorate in Music Composition. He is also an avid equestrian.

MPs who backed assisted dying Bill suggest concerns could see them change stanceNone

'Alternativ fur Deutschland" (AfD) means "The Alternative for Germany", and the alternative on offer is fascism. Not actual Naziism, but the AfD uses fascist rhetoric and tactics to attract German voters. It has also attracted some improbable foreign admirers. One of those admirers is Talib al-Abdulmohsen, the Saudi Arabian psychiatrist who has now been charged with five murders and 200 attempted murders after deliberately driving into a holiday crowd at high speed in the Christmas market in the German city of Magdeburg last Saturday. Another admirer of the AfD is Elon Musk, the tech billionaire and, in his own mind at least, the true co-president-elect of the United States. Last week Mr Musk reposted a video by Naomi Seibt, a German extreme right-wing influencer close to the AfD, posting at the top "Only the AfD can save Germany!" AfD leader Alice Weidel excitedly replied "Yes! You are perfectly right @elonmusk!" But how did these two fans of the AfD reach the same conclusions? Their conclusions are pretty standard on the not-quite-fascist right: extremely nationalist, anti-immigrant, racist, climate-change-denying, and so forth. Perhaps we should start with the fact that both Dr Abdulmohsen and Mr Musk chose to live a long way from where they grew up. Mr Musk was born into a wealthy South African family, went to university in Canada, and only moved to the United States when he was 20. Dr Abdulmohsen grew up in a Shia Muslim family (deeply unfashionable in Sunni Saudi Arabia) and moved to Germany in his mid-30s. They both uprooted themselves, although Mr Musk doesn't talk about it. Dr Abdulmohsen is that rare thing, an ex-Muslim Arab who is a self-declared atheist. The "rare" bit in that sentence is "self-declared": of all the Muslims I have known, only two close friends have ever revealed to me that they no longer believed in their birth faith -- but they both said that many others just keep their lack of belief to themselves. That made perfect sense to me, because I grew up in a place and time where publicly rejecting Christian belief would have had dire consequences for me: expulsion from school, conflict with my family, and a fair amount of casual violence whenever the topic came up. Even at the age of 13, when I stopped believing, I knew enough to tell nobody about it. Things are very different in the "post-Christian" West now, but it's still about 1960 on religious matters even in the better-educated parts of the Muslim world. The older generation are still in power and overwhelmingly still believers, but quite a few of the young have silently, secretly moved on. Only a tiny minority, like Talib al-Abdulmohsen, stand up and declare their disbelief. In Saudi Arabia, as in most Muslim countries, apostasy from Islam is a crime. So he became a refugee, was granted asylum by Germany, and devoted his life to helping other Saudi Arabians being persecuted for abandoning their religion to follow his example. Some did, but not many, and Dr Abdulmohsen grew progressively angrier at the German state for letting in so many Muslim believers. He was a man of strong right-wing convictions -- atheists are not always leftists -- so the AfD was a good match for his beliefs and values. The only point on which they differ (at least publicly) is the legitimacy of violence. The case of Elon Musk, like the man himself, is much simpler. Being the richest person in the world would distort anybody's judgement, and Mr Musk also brings an autistic disorder to the table. He attributes his success at least in part to this condition, but it has clearly grown over the years. Mr Musk used to be a typically apolitical tech bro. When he did talk politics, he deplored Mr Trump's views on climate change and most other topics. As recently as 2022, he said that "It's time for Trump to hang up his hat & sail into the sunset." Now, he supports even Mr Trump's most ignorant statements, although at some level, he still clearly knows them to be wrong. The date gives it away as 2022 was when Mr Musk's oldest surviving child, "transitioning" from male to female, went to court at 18 to change her name from Xavier Musk to Vivian Jenna Wilson (her mother's surname). He had been brutally intolerant about her gender difficulties, she said, and she wanted no further contact with her father. And Mr Musk lost the plot. Entirely. "I lost my son, essentially," he said. His son was now dead to him, "killed by the woke mind virus". Any explanation will do when you're furious and desperate, and that is one that serves his purposes. Both Mr Trump's Republicans and the AfD serve it up for free. Gwynne Dyer is an independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries. His latest book is 'Intervention Earth: Life-Saving Ideas from the World's Climate Engineers'. Last year's book, 'The Shortest History of War', is also still available.

Exploring Space and Neurotherapeutics at the 2025 Ultrasound Event: A Journey into the Future of Medical UltrasoundTaking a look back at this week’s news and headlines across the Android world, including Google’s Pixel Drop of new features, the latest Galaxy S25 leaks, OneUI 7 beta launch, the cancelled Pixel Tablet 2 specs, OnePlus confirming global rollout for OnePlus 13, Qualcomms 8s Gen 3 benchmarks, and a Pixel 6 surprise. Android Circuit is here to remind you of a few of the many discussions around Android in the last seven days. You can also read my weekly digest of Apple news here on Forbes . The new Google Pixel 9, Pixel 9 Pro and Pixel 9 Pro XL phones are displayed during the Made By ... [+] Google event at Google headquarters on August 13, 2024 (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images) The Pixel Drop In addition to new Android features for Android , Google has released December’s Pixel Drop this week. It sounds more like a loot box than a software upgrade, yet it brings new experiences and tools to its Pixel smartphones over and above the regular Android updates. Gemini AI is the focus, but several areas have been updated, including the Screenshots search facility, AI-powered call screening, and new software to search through your photos and videos: "The latest Pixel Drop1 brings more intelligent, helpful and intuitive features to your devices, with new ways to use Gemini, camera improvements and security updates. Better yet, it brings some favorite features to more countries." Full details on the new apps and services can be found on Google’s Keyword Blog . FBI Warns iPhone And Android Users—Stop Sending Texts FBI Warns Smartphone Users—Hang Up And Create A Secret Word Now Gmail Takeover Hack Attack—Google Warns You Have Just 7 Days To Act The Color Of The Galaxy While many are watching for leaks on the specifications and software of the upcoming Galaxy S25 smartphones, more are hoping that the S25’s fashion characteristics will fit in with their own sensibilities. While we wait on some clearer shots of the full handsets, the new SIM trays have just enough color on the end caps to get a feel of the shoes on offer: "As you might expect, there is a dark grey option that is as close to black as possible, a deep dark blue, pastel tones of purple and green, and a silver option that will likely be seen as the white option. No doubt Samsung’s marketing team will come up with some snappy descriptions that we’ll find out closer to the time." ( Forbes ). OneUI 7 Beta Rolls Out Samsung has launched a public beta for OueUNi 7, it’s implementation of Android for the Galaxy smartphone family. Like many manufacturers, Samsung is doubting down on the capabilities of generative AI to improve the user experience... alongside the usual raft of bug fixes, updates, and software tweaks. The latter includes more personalisation options, a new user interface for the camera, and a simplified home screen. As for the former, Samsung is highlighting two: Advanced writing assist tools, with AI-powered content summarising, spelling and grammar checks, and notes formatting. Call transcript eliminates the need to take notes manually while multi-tasking, as recorded calls can be transcribed in 20 languages." ( Samsung ) The Pixel Tablet That Was Reports of the cancellation of the long-awaited Pixel Tablet 2 have been building over the week and the community has accepted that, while there may be a Pixel Tablet 2 released in late 2025 or beyond, it’s not the Pixel Tablet that’s sitting inside Google right now. So the leaked specs are less “what comes next” but “what could have been.” A bigger question than the cancellation is what the ipact will be on Android’s tablet ecosystem: "impact of the Pixel Tablet 2 cancellation is in the ecosystem. Android’s support of large-screened devices falls behind Apple’s efforts to keep iPad hardware tightly connected. With the Pixel Tablet launch, Google made a strong statement of support to its Android partners that tablets were part of its consideration. The cancellation of the Pixel Tablet 2 diminishes that commitment." ( Forbes ). Happy Ten Plus One, OnePlus In an extensive post that looks back at its eleven-year history, OnePlus has confirmed that the latest OnePlus 13 handsets will have a global launch in January 2025: "As we look forward to 2025, I’m excited about what’s ahead. We’re diving deeper into AI integration within OxygenOS, collaborating with Google to create a super personal assistant that’s not only intuitive but also secure, tailored to make your OnePlus experience even more seamless. And, as always, we are committed to sustainability, ensuring that our products remain as eco-friendly as they are innovative." ( OnePlus Forum ). Qualcomm's New Mid-Range Benchmark Just as Qualcomm’s Snapdragon 8 Elite chipset is driving the next generation of Android smartphones, the soon-to-be-launched and presumptively named Snapdragon 8s Elite could offer a similar step up in performance to the mid-range handsets currently running the 8s Gen 2 and 8s Gen 3 chipsets: "we thought the Snapdragon 8s Gen 3 was a great upper mid-range processor. Our own testing revealed that the POCO F6 (Snapdragon 8s Gen 3) was able to beat the POCO F6 Pro (Snapdragon 8 Gen 2) for single-core CPU performance while staying competitive during GPU stress tests. So don’t be surprised if the Snapdragon 8s Elite takes the fight to phones like the Galaxy S24 series." ( Android Authority ). And Finally... During the launch of the Pixel 9 family, Google confirmed that the four handsets woudl recieve seven years of software and security updates. That’s a far cry form the three years offered to the Pixel 6. Those years expired in October with the release of Android 15, but an update to its support pages shows that Google has handed the Pixel 6 an additional two years: “[Pixel 7a, Pixel 7, Pixel 7 Pro, Pixel 6a, Pixel 6, Pixel 6 Pro & Pixel Fold] will get updates for 5 years starting from when the device first became available on the Google Store in the US. This includes 5 years of OS and security updates, and may also include new and upgraded features with Pixel Drops. ( Google Support ). Android Circuit rounds up the news from the Android world every weekend here on Forbes. Don’t forget to follow me so you don’t miss any coverage in the future, and of course, read the sister column in Apple Loop! Last week’s Android Circuit can be found here , and if you have any news and links you’d like to see featured in Android Circuit, get in touch!Brock Purdy participated in the start of Thursday's practice with the 49ers but the San Francisco starting quarterback was not on the field for the majority of the workout, casting doubt over his availability to play Sunday at Green Bay. Purdy is dealing with a right shoulder injury and the 49ers are also potentially without left tackle Trent Williams and Nick Bosa due to injuries. Bosa was listed as out of Thursday's practice with an oblique injury. Williams also didn't suit up Thursday. He played through an ankle injury last week after being listed as questionable. Purdy's typical Thursday post-practice media session was scrapped until Friday as the 49ers did not make any quarterback available. Kyle Allen would step in for Purdy as the starter if he can't play against the Packers. Run game coordinator Chris Foerster said the 49ers aren't where they want to be at 5-5 because they haven't won close games, not because of injuries. "Seven games left is like an eternity," Foerster said. "So much can happen. Do the math. What was our record last year? It was 12-5. I was on a 13-win team that was nowhere near as good as the team last year." With or without Purdy, Foerster said the challenge for the 49ers is not to give up the ball to a defense that has 19 takeaways. The 49ers have 13 giveaways this season. --Field Level MediaLegal Battle Ensues as Mike Tyson Faces $1.6 Million Lawsuit Following Jake Paul Bout