I do have an idea how “a difficult to kill, unwanted growth” could be put into relation to a war fueled by hatred.
I do have an idea how “a difficult to kill, unwanted growth” could be put into relation to a war fueled by hatred.
I do think it’s desirable. It’s unnecessary for users to keep track of which tool is best for which purpose if one tool can do it all. There’s no reason why one tool wouldn’t be able to; even in the worst case it could just automatically choose the best tool to answer your prompt, saving you the trouble of doing so.
A single tool isn’t going to meet all those needs yet
Proton uses their own Stealth Protocol, which puts a TCP/TLS wrapper around the Wireguard protocol.
All 3 systems use openssl and get attacked using Heartbleed.
(And even if they don’t reuse even a single piece of code, attackers can still just use multiple exploits.)
Why is there a “Nothing” under the beliefs? Wouldn’t that fall under “Agnostic”?
My comments on lemmy are completely anonymous. Would you claim they are private?
Signal could be more private indeed. But:
Being anonymous is the highest achievable level of privacy.
is obviously a misguided statement.
doesn’t want to mess with what she is familiar with
That does make change difficult.
claiming the GDPR is good =/= claiming the GDPR is flawless
They didn’t say that either. Where do you get this idea from that they’re talking about (all) US news sites?
They said “American propaganda websites”. That may include some news sites. It may also not include some news sites.
The most you could infer from their statement is that only American propaganda websites violate the GDPR.
Of course websites exist that violate the GDPR and are not American propaganda websites.
But the vast majority of websites commiting severe violations of the GDPR that an average European encounters will be American propaganda websites.
(Believe it or not, Europeans don’t often visit websites written in Russian or Chinese.)
why would a noun have a past tense
Many projects take a long time to become profitable. The workers would starve until then.
Because of that, they need to borrow wealth to be able to keep working on the project until it becomes profitable.
The concept of lending wealth is therefore necessary.
Noone is gonna accept the risk of lending out wealth unless they expect some gain, some profit.
Therefore the workers promise to not only repay the lent wealth but to also pay on top of that, perhaps a share of the project’s profit.
Hence the concept of profitable investment is necessary.
How about a fully state-controlled economy?
Not capitalism, since there’s no private capital; not communism, since there’s a state.