I had a sony xperia go about a decade ago. One time I decided to see if I could even break it. I threw it up in the air in a concrete parking lot as high as I could (about 50-70 feet I think) and it landed on the concrete, nothing but some scratching on the plastic.
But I will say that today I have a Pixel 8 and I dropped quite a few times, some of which left me scared to look, and it is holding up amazingly.
Oh, you sound so optimistic, my bank has a mandatory 4 digit code as login with 2fa sms for new devices. I sometimes consider going to shoot the cto there but I don't own a gun.
"toddlers" makes it so much worse... Teen is fucking terrible, pre-teen is horrifying, but toddlers?? I don't know a word to describe how fucked up that is...
MAGA are essentially having turf wars on pedophilia and assume that anyone with a sexual deviation from the majority must also share their own sexual depravity.
What is more secure, a secret knock or an actual lock?
The lock is something that everyone can lookup, research and learn about. Sure, it means that people can learn to lockpick, but a well designed lock can stumble even the best lockpicks.
A secret knock is not secure at all, it sounds secure but in reality it is just obscure, and if anyone learns it or it's simple enough to guess, it becomes meaningless. Even a bad lock will show signs that it was picked.
So that's an analogy, here is the actual explanation:
Let's assume we have a closed source product named C and an open source product named O and that the security and quality of the code is the same. Both products are compiled and have been in active development for years. Both products have a total of 2 different people going over the code change of each new version, one person writes it, another reviews the code and approves it. After years of development you probably have about 10 people in total who have actually seen the code, anything that they missed will go unnoticed, any corners that they decided to cut will be approved, any bad decisions that they made will not be criticized. Here is where C and O differ: C will forever stay in this situation, only getting feedback rarely from researchers who found vulnerabilities and decided to report them. O will get small parts of it reviewed by hundreds of developers, and maybe even fully reviewed by a few people. Any corners that O cuts will be criticized, any backdoor that O tries to implemented will be clear to see. C on the other hand has one small advantage, bad actors will have a harder time finding vulnerabilities in it because it is compiled and they would have to reverse engineer it, while O is clear for the bad actors to read. But, bad actors are a very small minority, any vulnerability in O is far more likely to be caught by good actors, while C is very unlikely to be reversed by any good actors at all and so if it has any vulnerabilities, they are far more likely to be found by bad actors first.
And it is important to note the conflict of interests that often exists in closed source software. A company that sells a product for profit and believes that its code is hidden, has very little interest in security and almost no interest in end user security, but if the code is not hidden, the company has an interest to produce reasonably secure code to maintain a reputation.
So almost always, open source leads to safer code for all parties involved.
You have to be careful, if you smack hard but not hard enough it can actually make new fascists!