McDyver

It's all coming together: Even if an open protocol was developed and published, and everyone would just use AI to create their own app in order to be private, Google is shutting down that path by preventing "unsanctioned" apps from being installed (not to mention Apple, which already does it).

People wouldn't be arrested for writing code, but as it happened in Spain, people with Pixels and GrapheneOS are already treated as drug dealers

As I said in another comment, speaking for myself, I don’t like that he made this donation and I know this view is shared by many of my colleagues.

Maybe there's a case to distance Mullvad from him, then. Not taking a stand is also a political choice.

Maybe not in absolute terms. But if there is no access to the actual SOTA models, it's as if they don't exist.

It goes to show that privacy is not a priority. And it should be.

it saves me 2k a month in taxes. There are also workarounds in avoiding paying the higher EU taxes.

Interesting how in a different comment you say

I want the same for all Spaniards and will gladly pay high taxes if my family, friends, and my neighbors can also have that same opportunity.

They literally bombed a school full of girls.

It's irrelevant whether AI "makes any mistakes" or not, there are no morals either way, and people just seem to be desensitised to all of this

That's good for you!

Isn't that a selfish view, though? "Works for me,so I don't care that systemd is creating dependencies everywhere for everyone else".

I appreciate that it simplifies some things, but I can't understand that you can't choose which parts of it to install, or even replace parts of it with alternatives.

Isn't linux about choice? It feels we're going on a downwards spiral where choice is being taken away from us in every domain

I see a "top-down" approach, actually.

Government and public services change to (ideally) open source, and "impose"/"require" downstream compatibility.

This would create the incentive and make change easier

I'm using Pipepipe. I believe it's a fork from NewPipe, and has more features, namely skipping sponsor block, and intros

So now you are still the product, even if you're paying.

Again, that's an internal affair. It would be up to the Native Americans to decide. It's their country after all

It's very black and white. It's an internal affair, and no one elected the USA to be the police of the world.

We could also argue that even internally in the US, the current president was not democratically elected. Maybe you agree that another state should go there and remove him, just because.

I for one would support a Native American take over of the White House, and giving them back their country. You seem to support this logic

I agree with your 2nd statement, but people should bring up things that should be discussed.

Otherwise, at some point, one of the 10000 [0] won't know there are alternatives and different ways of doing things.

[0] https://xkcd.com/1053/

It makes a lot of sense. Whoever wants to continue developing "these apps" will do it privately, and sell the service to those who want to keep doing things in hiding. Well done, watchdog!

So again, it just harms the general public, while making it harder to catch criminals.

You're actually making the exact point you want to attack.

That's why Europe needs that push to get their act together and start being self-sufficient, digital services-wise.

Until the next update, when they conveniently have a "bug" that enables it by default

I understand your point, but my argument is in the more generic aspect.

Consider how whoever complains about blacklist/whitelist would eventually complain about about allow/deny and say they are non-inclusive. Where would this stop?

I would say that as long as the term in unequivocal (and not meant to be offensive) in the context, then there's no need to self-censor

Would those people care about the word "hit"?

Is a zebra people with people stripes, or people with people stripes? :)

The more we avoid terms, the more negative their connotations become, and the more we forget about history.

I would argue, without any evidence, that when terms are used and embraced, they lose their negative connotations. Because in the end, you want to fight the negativity they represent, not the term itself.

They make it really difficult to fight any of this.

You have to, individually - find a representative, their contact info, state your case, hope it's the correct person, hope your mail doesn't go unnoticed, hope that it will be properly read, hope it changes their mind.

This is "lobbying" by the people in a disorganised way, trying to fight organised lobbying.

This is a barrier that puts lots of people off, even if they have strong feelings about it.

I wish there was an easier way for people to say they are against this

The moment politics influences search results is the moment we stop being a search engine.

Everything is politics, whether you acknowledge it or not. And right now you are taking a political stance.

There are many comments from people wanting to pay for Firefox, but not to Mozilla.

As an independent alternative, the Ladybird browser (https://ladybird.org/) is being developed and could possibly benefit from more financial support.

What I did was remove my comment :)

Obviously there is no straightforward solution, and I don't want to fuel this anymore.

That's exactly true, and it's very sad.

I had removed the comment, but you replied in the meantime. I didn't want to add further fuel to this.

But since you only picked up on that: what the Israeli government is doing to Palestinians, is exactly what you are describing, but from the other side. It's not hypothetical. It's happening. When will they stop?

Is it okay to take their land?

Of course not! It's not OK to take anyone's anything.

Edit: removing further comments. It would be ideal if everyone could just live in peace

I assume children queuing for food are not soldiers. Yes, yes I do.

If they are killed while they are in uniform and holding a gun during a gunfight, then they are soldiers.

Indeed. But what is a country? Is it a place where people live and have their identity, or does it need to be "ratified" by the UN? Before 1945 were there no "countries"?

Does it legitimise the invasion of someone's land? I don't think so

Exactly, what's a country?

Israel never existed either, until it was administratively created in 1948. Maybe it shouldn't have been created where other people were already living?