According to AndroidAuthority, the Linux kernel used by Android devices is mostly derived from Google's Android Universal Kernel (ACK) branch, which is created from the Android mainline kernel branch when new LTS versions are released upstream. For example, when kernel version 6.6 is announced as the latest LTS release, an ACK branch for Android15-6.6 appears shortly after, with the "android15" in the name referring to the Android version of the kernel (in this case, Android 15). Google maintains its own set of LTS kernel branches for three main reasons. First, Google can integrate upstream features that have not yet been released into the ACK branch by backporting or picking, so as to meet the specific needs of Android. Second, Google can include some features that are being developed upstream in the ACK branch ahead of time, making it available for Android devices as early as possible. Finally, Google can add some vendor or original equipment manufacturer (OEM) features for other Android partners to use. Once created, Google continues to update the ACK branch to include not only bug fixes for Android specific code, but also to integrate the LTS merge content of the upstream kernel branch. For example, the Linux kernel vulnerability disclosed in the July 2024 Android security bulletin will be fixed through these updates. However, it is not easy to distinguish a bug fix from other bug fixes, as a patch that fixes a bug may also accidentally plug a security vulnerability that the submitter did not know about or chose not to disclose. Google does its best to recognize this, but it inevitably misses the mark, resulting in bug fixes for the upstream Linux kernel being released months before Android devices. As a result, Google has been urging Android vendors to regularly update the LTS kernel to avoid being caught off guard by unexpectedly disclosed security vulnerabilities. Clearly, the LTS version of the Linux kernel is critical to the security of Android devices, helping Google and vendors deal with known and unknown security vulnerabilities. The longer the support period, the more timely security updates Google and vendors can provide to devices.

A couple of days ago, a Quad summit meeting in Sydney scheduled for May 24 was abruptly canceled. The US president had to pull out of his long-anticipated trip to Australia and Papua New Guinea. Instead, the heads of the four Quad member states got together on the margins of the G7 Summit in Hiroshima on May 20. The main reason for the change of plans was the continuous struggle between the White House and Republicans on the Hill over the national debt ceiling. If no compromise is reached, the US federal government might fail to meet its financial commitments already in June; such a technical default would have multiple negative repercussions for the US, as well as for the global economy and finance at large. Let us hope that a compromise between the two branches of US power will be found and that the ceiling of the national debt will be raised once again. However, this rather awkward last-minute cancellation of the Quad summit reflects a fundamental US problem - a growing imbalance between the US geopolitical ambitions and the fragility of the national financial foundation to serve these ambitions. The Biden administration appears to be fully committed to bringing humankind back to the unipolar world that existed right after the end of the Cold War some 30 years ago, but the White House no longer has enough resources at its disposal to sustain such an undertaking. As they say in America: You cannot not have champagne on a beer budget. The growing gap between the ends that the US seeks in international relations and the means that it has available is particularly striking in the case of the so-called dual containment policy that Washington now pursues toward Russia and China. Even half a century ago, when the US was much stronger in relative terms than it is today, the Nixon administration realized that containing both Moscow and Beijing simultaneously was not a good idea: "Dual containment" would imply prohibitively high economic costs for the US and would result in too many unpredictable political risks. The Nixon administration decided to focus on containing the Soviet Union as the most important US strategic adversary of the time. This is why Henry Kissinger flew to Beijing in July 1971 to arrange the first US-China summit in February 1972 leading to a subsequent rapid rapprochement between the two nations. In the early days of the Biden administration, it seemed that the White House was once again trying to avoid the unattractive "dual containment" option. The White House rushed to extend the New START in January 2021 and held an early US-Russia summit meeting five months later in Geneva. At that point many analysts predicted that Biden would play Henry Kissinger in reverse - that is he would try to peace with the relatively weaker opponent (Moscow) in order to focus on containing the stronger one (Beijing). However, after the beginning of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, it became clear that no accommodation with the Kremlin was on Biden's mind any longer. Still, having decided to take a hard-line stance toward Moscow and to lead a broad Western coalition in providing military and economic assistance to Kiev, Washington has not opted for a more accommodative or at least a more flexible policy toward Beijing. On the contrary, over last year one could observe a continuous hardening of the US' China policy - including granting more political and military support to the Taiwan island, encouraging US allies and partners in Asia to increase their defense spending, engaging in more navel activities in the Pacific and imposing more technology sanctions on China. In the meantime, economic and social problems within the US are mounting. The national debt ceiling is only the tip of an iceberg - the future of the American economy is now clouded by high US Federal Reserve interest rates that slow down growth, feed unemployment and might well lead to a recession. Moreover, the US society remains split along the same lines it was during the presidency of Donald Trump. The Biden administration has clearly failed to reunite America: Many of the social, political, regional, ethnic and even generational divisions have got only deeper since January 2021. It is hard to imagine how a nation divided so deeply and along so many lines could demonstrate continuity and strategic vision in its foreign policy, or to allocate financial resources needed to sustain a visionary and consistent global leadership. Of course, the "dual containment" policy is not the only illustration of the gap between the US ambitions and its resources. The same gap inevitably pops up at every major forum that the US conducts with select groups of countries from the Global South - Africa, Southeast Asia, Latin America or the Middle East. The Biden administration has no shortage of arguments warning these countries about potential perils of cooperating with Moscow or Beijing, but it does not offer too many plausible alternatives that would showcase the US generosity, its strategic vision, and its true commitment to the burning needs of the US interlocutors. To cut it short, Uncle Sam brings lots of sticks to such meetings, but not enough carrots to win the audience. In sum, US foreign policy under President Joe Biden reminds people of a very advanced and highly sophisticated smartphone that has a rather weak battery, which is not really energy efficient. The proud owner of the gadget has to look perennially for a power socket in order not to have the phone running out of power at any inappropriate moment. Maybe the time has come for the smartphone owner to look for another model that would have fewer fancy apps, but a stronger and a more efficient battery, which will make the appliance more convenient and reliable.

US politicians are advocating for steep tariffs, echoing the protectionist Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922. Despite potential international retaliation, risks to global economic rules and a shift from post-World War II principles, US politicians have promised to increase trade barriers against China, causing concerns for the sustainability of global economic harmony. A century ago, the Republican Congress passed the Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922. This post-World War-I effort to protect the US from German competition and rescue America's own businesses from falling prices sparked a global wave of tariff hikes. While long forgotten, echoes of Fordney-McCumber now reverberate across the US political landscape. Once again, politicians are grasping the tariff as a magic talisman against its own economic ills and to contain the rise of China. The Democratic Party of the 1920s opposed tariffs, because duties are harmful to consumers and farmers, but today both President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump favor national delivery through protectionism. Trump promised that his second term, if elected, would impose 60-percent tariffs on everything arriving from China and 10-percent tariffs on imports from the rest of the world, apparently including the imports covered by 14 free trade agreements with America's 20 partners. He initially promised 100-percent tariffs on electric vehicles (EVs), but when Biden declared that he was hiking tariffs on EVs from China to 100-percent, Trump raised the ante to 200-percent. On May 14, 2024, the White House imposed tariffs ranging from 25 percent (on items such as steel, aluminum and lithium batteries) to 50 percent (semiconductors, solar cells, syringes and needles) and 100 percent (electric vehicles) on Chinese imports. US government officials offer "national security" and "supply chain vulnerability" as the justification for levying high tariffs. To deflect worries about inflation, US Trade Representative Katherine Tai declared, "first of all, I think that that link, in terms of tariffs to prices, has been largely debunked." Contrary findings by the United States International Trade Commission and a number of distinguished economists, as well as Biden's own 2019 statement criticizing Trump's tariffs - "Trump doesn't get the basics. He thinks tariffs are being paid by China… [but] the American people are paying his tariffs" - forced Tai's office to wind back her declaration. The fact that prohibitive barriers to imports of solar cells, batteries and EVs will delay the green economy carries zero political weight with Trump and little with Biden. Nor does either of them worry about the prospects of Chinese retaliation and damage to the fabric of global economic rules. Historical lessons - unanticipated consequences of the foolish Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922 and the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930 - are seen as irrelevant by the candidates and their advisers. The US' lurch from its post-World War II free trade principles offers China a golden opportunity. On the world stage, China will espouse open free trade and investment. China will encourage EV and battery firms to establish plants in Europe, Brazil, Mexico and elsewhere, essentially daring the US to damage its own alliances by restricting third country imports containing Chinese components. Whether the fabric of global economic rules that has delivered astounding prosperity to the world will survive through the 21st century remains to be seen. Much will depend on the decisions of other large economic powers, not only China but also the European Union and Japan, as well as middle powers, such as Australia, Brazil, Chile, ASEAN and South Korea. Their actions and reactions will reshape the rules of the 21st century. If others follow America down this costly path, the world will become less prosperous and vastly more unpredictable. If they resist, the US risks being diminished and more isolated. The author is a non-resident Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute of International Economics. bizopinion@globaltimes.com.cn

July 8 (Reuters) - Microsoft (MSFT.O), opens new tab intends to offer Apple's (AAPL.O), opens new tab iOS-based devices to its employees in China to access authentication apps, a company spokesperson said on Monday, citing absence of Google's (GOOGL.O), opens new tab Android services in the country. Microsoft has been under increased scrutiny after a series of security breaches, the latest being that of Russian hackers who spied and accessed emails of the company's employees and customers earlier this year. The development was first reported by Bloomberg News, which, citing an internal memo, said the Windows OS-maker instructed its employees in China to use Apple devices at workplace from September. As a part of Microsoft's global Secure Future Initiative, the move to switch to iOS-devices stems from the lack of availability of Google Play Store in China that limits its employees' access to security apps such as Microsoft Authenticator and Identity Pass, the report added. "Due to the lack of availability of Google Mobile Services in this region, we look to offer employees a means of accessing these required apps, such as an iOS device," a company spokesperson told Reuters in an email. Microsoft is among those U.S. companies that have a strong presence in China. It entered the Chinese market in 1992 and also operates a large research and development center in the country. The company will provide iPhone 15 models to employees, currently using Android handsets across China, including Hong Kong, the Bloomberg report said.

Japan and the Philippines signed an important defense agreement, and the two sides became "quasi-allies". On July 8, local time, Japan and the Philippines signed the "Reciprocal Access Agreement" in Manila. The agreement will relax restrictions on the movement of personnel between the Japanese Self-Defense Forces and the Philippine military during joint exercises, mutual visits and other operations in each other's countries. In response, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian responded at a regular press conference on the 8th that exchanges and cooperation between countries should not undermine mutual understanding and trust between regional countries, should not undermine regional peace and stability, and should not target third parties or undermine the interests of third parties. The Asia-Pacific region does not need military groups, let alone "small circles" that provoke camp confrontation and instigate a "new Cold War". Any actions that undermine peace and stability in the region and undermine unity and cooperation in the region will arouse the vigilance and common opposition of the people in the region. Japan and the Philippines upgraded to a "quasi-alliance" relationship On the same day, a "2+2" meeting attended by the foreign ministers and defense ministers of Japan and the Philippines was held in Manila. Japanese Defense Minister Minoru Kihara and Foreign Minister Yoko Kamikawa attended the talks with Philippine Defense Minister Gilbert Teodoro and Foreign Minister Enrique Manalo. This is the second Japan-Philippines "2+2" meeting. The last one was held in Tokyo in April 2022. Witnessed by Philippine President Marcos, the two sides signed the "Reciprocal Access Agreement". Marcos expressed the hope that the bilateral relations between the Philippines and Japan and the trilateral cooperation between the Philippines, Japan and the United States will be further deepened. The "Reciprocal Access Agreement" is also known as the "Military Visits Agreement". Military and defense cooperation between sovereign states, especially sending troops into each other's territory, usually faces complicated procedures and other problems. In order to simplify the procedures, the two countries will reach relevant agreements to simplify the approval procedures for the entry of troops from both sides into each other's countries, and facilitate mutual visits and joint military activities between the two countries' troops. The "Reciprocal Access Agreement" was born. Take the "Reciprocal Access Agreement" signed by Japan and Australia (full name "Agreement between Japan and Australia on Promoting Mutual Access and Cooperation Facilitation between the Japanese Self-Defense Forces and the Australian Defense Force") as an example. The agreement has 29 articles, covering many areas such as entry and exit procedures for troops, jurisdiction, taxation, cost burden and compensation. The key is to simplify the entry and exit procedures for visiting troops and their members, ships, aircraft, etc., relax restrictions on the transportation of weapons, ammunition and materials carried by visiting troops, and provide a legal basis for the two countries' troops and weapons and equipment to enter each other's territory. Japan and the Philippines signed the "Reciprocal Access Agreement", making the Philippines the third country to conclude this agreement with Japan after Australia and the United Kingdom. Cai Liang, Secretary-General and Researcher of the China-Japan Relations Research Center of the Shanghai Institute for International Studies, analyzed to The Paper (www.thepaper.cn) that Japan and the Philippines have their own strategic considerations for signing the "Reciprocal Access Agreement". As for the Philippines, due to its limited strength, it does not exclude any foreign power willing to strengthen military cooperation with the Philippines from intervening in the South China Sea situation. Therefore, it can be seen that in the past two years, the Philippines has actively promoted Australia, France, India and other countries to intervene in the South China Sea and strengthen military cooperation with them, involving intelligence, weapons and equipment, and training and exercises. "Japan's purpose is very simple. Strengthening military cooperation with the Philippines is to strategically balance China. The United States and the Philippines are allies, and the US-Japan alliance has been upgraded to a 'quasi-alliance'. The military cooperation between the United States, Japan and the Philippines has been upgraded to a new level." Cai Liang said, "The signing of an important defense agreement between Japan and the Philippines will make it easier for Japan to intervene in the South China Sea situation and seek the 'three seas linkage' of the East China Sea, the South China Sea, and the Taiwan Strait, in order to better respond to China's strategy and enhance its international influence." As for whether the signing of the "Reciprocal Access Agreement" means that Japan will deploy the Self-Defense Forces in the Philippines, Cai Liang pointed out that this agreement only simplifies the procedures for the troops of both sides to enter each other's territory, and is more suitable for short-term training, military exercises, etc., and is not a long-term deployment of the Self-Defense Forces in the Philippines. The two countries deepen military cooperation The Philippine presidential office also said in a statement that Japan is one of the four major strategic partners of the Philippines, and the two countries have established a strategic partnership for more than ten years. It seems no coincidence that Japan and the Philippines signed the "Reciprocal Access Agreement" at this time. Recently, China-Philippines relations have become tense around the situation in the South China Sea. The Global Times quoted Japan's Kyodo News Agency as saying that the two sides are seeking to strengthen cooperation against China. Minoru Kihara said last week: "The Philippines is located in a strategically important region, occupies a key position on Japan's sea lanes, and is also an ally of the United States. Joint training and strengthening cooperation with the Philippines are of great significance to the realization of a 'free and open Indo-Pacific region'." Cai Liang said that Japan's intervention in the South China Sea situation is mainly to reduce strategic pressure in the East China Sea and southwest of Japan, but it is not conducive to peace and stability in the South China Sea. It is reported that Japan and the Philippines began negotiations on the agreement in November last year. The signing of the "Reciprocal Access Agreement" by the two sides lays the foundation for the two countries to strengthen bilateral and even multilateral military cooperation in the future. The Japanese government intends to allow the Self-Defense Forces to formally participate in the annual US-Philippines "Shoulder to Shoulder" joint exercises around the Philippines after the agreement comes into effect. The Self-Defense Forces previously participated in the "Shoulder to Shoulder" exercises as observers, and will be able to formally participate after signing the agreement. In April this year, the United States and the Philippines held the largest "Shoulder to Shoulder" exercise to date, involving 5,000 Philippine personnel and 11,000 US personnel. The military exercise also included about 150 Australian military personnel and 100 French naval personnel. According to the plan, 14 countries including Japan and India sent personnel as observers. The "Typhon" medium-range missile launch system deployed by the US military on Luzon Island in the Philippines for the first time participated in the exercise, which aroused great attention from all walks of life. In terms of weapons and equipment exports, Japan and the Philippines have gradually strengthened military cooperation in recent years. The Philippines recently agreed to purchase five Coast Guard patrol ships from Japan to enhance its patrol capabilities in the South China Sea. Defense News reported in November last year that the Philippines had received an early warning radar system from Japan in 2023, the first major equipment transfer since the Japanese government lifted the postwar defense export ban in 2014. The Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that Kamikawa mentioned topics such as defense equipment transfer, "government security capability enhancement support" (OSA), and economic and trade cooperation. The OSA project was created by the Kishida government and plans to allocate billions of yen in budget to assist the military construction of the Philippines and other countries, including providing the Philippines with 5 sets of coastal surveillance radars. Regarding Japan's relaxation of restrictions on defense equipment exports, the Chinese Ministry of Defense previously responded that Japan has continuously broken through the constraints of the "peace constitution" and the principle of "exclusive defense", and has been making small moves in the field of military security, which has aroused high vigilance and strong concern from the international community. China requires Japan to deeply reflect on its history of aggression, attach importance to the security concerns of its Asian neighbors, adhere to the path of peaceful development, and win the trust of its Asian neighbors and the international community with practical actions.