Does "pay for privacy" mean "pay to not be tracked on Facebook and Instagram" or "pay to not be tracked on the whole internet"? I can somewhat see a reasoning for the former, but the latter is absolutely inexcusable: Meta doesn't own the internet, and it never should be allowed to.

Also, I'm pretty sure the argument is more about the unequal enforcement of the law. Copyright should be either enforced fairly or not at all. If AI is allowed to scrape content and regurgitate it, piracy should also be legal.

That's one thing, but I think regurgitating it and claiming it as your own is a completely different thing.

Even with XWayland?

Wait, how does Google make money off of paywalled contents?

This sounds egregious. I don't really have any knowledge on the subject, but to play the devil's advocate, could it be possible that the train was bricked because while it can technically still run, it might have some things broken that could lead to hazardous consequences? Again, I have no knowledge on this, I would love if someone who knows more about trains could shed light on this.

Ah, so effectively the standard installation. Alright, thanks!

My general approach to this tends to be to identify what makes me happy in life, splurge on those, save on everything else. For example, I love computers, so I'd splurge on parts, but religiously meal prep to save on food.

Install cameras in their bedroom that streams to YouTube or Twitch 24/7. See if they really have nothing to hide.

It doesn't make sense too, like it's bad enough even if just one died.

Say it louder for the people at the back: adblock is a basic cybersecurity measurs

Even ignoring the surveillance aspect of ads, which I could go on a massive rant about, Google and other ad platforms themselves doesn't seem to care about harming people with malvertising and scam ads. Why should I care about their revenue?

Same. I'd rather they not exist, but if they must, better that it isn't under big tech's grubby palms.

Technically true, but in practice, it's very vulnerable to conglomeration of power by a few. Social media, for one: it's not exactly a matter of quality to get users to use your platform. Beyond a certain threshold of minimum quality, people use and stay on a certain platform because the people they know are on it, such that it becomes a chicken and egg problem. Other than that, Google have such a ludicrous market share of web advertising (which unfortunately remains the primary method of monetising the web) that it's very difficult to not use Google's advertising, giving them immense power to surveil and monitor people. Google Chrome, which remains the most popular browser for reasons that elude me, has so much sway over the internet that it had the courage to even propose the idea of WEI. The infrastructure on which the entite internet runs are controlled by just a handful of massive ISPs, yet another centralisation of power.

I'd imagine if, say Signal, refuses to comply and gets banned from the EU, one could always use a VPN. I think that nothing short of either a full global ban or implementing a version of The Great Wall of China would allow these ridiculous laws to be enforced. Even then, there will always be ways around it for those willing to go the extra mile.

Honestly, they could at least wait and see what happens in the UK before proposing something similar. They literally have a free guinea pig next door.

It's such a shame though, since as far as I know, the EU have had such an amazing track record. I'd expect no less from big tech, but not the EU.

I wish people who proposes laws and regulations that violates human rights with provable intent to do just that would be fined or imprisoned.

Even more reason for me to never get a car!

Are adblockers even illegal? I didn't think it was.

I know that some manufacturers ship QubesOS, those are intended for people with high threat models afaik.

I tend to think of it this way, personally: stealing is wrong, but it's more acceptable to steal when you're poor than when you're rich. Both sides are committing attrocities, but one does so to opress while the other to liberate themselves from opression. I will acknowledge that my understanding of the conflict is very limited though, so this might be oversimplified or outright incorrect.

Don't forget about malvertising, that's probably a more imminent danger. If Google and other ad companies don't give enough of a shit about user to actually filter out malware ads, why should I give enough of a shit about their revenue to not use uBO?

Time to poison their data, I guess.

Ah, that's understandable. My native tongue doesn't really have gendered pronouns so they/them feels right at home for me (though ironically, the people in my country are mostly conservative and bigoted and wouldn't accept nonbinary)

I keep it simple and default to they/them unless they mention some specific preference. Doesn't matter if they appear to be very traditionally masculine or feminine, or anything in between.

I agree, but I don't think the studies themselves are to blame though, they're simply reporting the facts. OP just simply misinterpreted it, knowingly or otherwise. The studies back up the point that 'vaccine injuries exist' which I don't think anyone is arguing against. The important point is rather that 'Covid is significantly worse than any vaccine injury, and our system can take care of the latter but not the former'.

Neat, thanks! Makes me even more grateful that I decided to switch.

Thanks! I'll be copypasting all of these to my notes haha

I don't think the point is that it's not a threat. I think it's more like if you set fire to a house before robbing the neighbouring house, if that makes sense. It's not that the house on fire isn't important, but more so that it was meant to distract everyone.

I only did a quick skim through the abstracts so I might miss some important details, but from what I can tell, they're all rare/one-off events. Sure, they exist, but the rate at which these vaccine injuries exist is eclipsed by that of Covid itself; there's a reason why the hospitals were overloaded by Covid and not vaccine injuries. The point is not that the vaccine is 100% safe, it's that the downsides of Covid far outweigh that of the vaccine (not to mention that, at least from what I understand, vaccine injuries are not contagious, unlike Covid, and hence you are protecting others who are immunocompromised). Tl:dr is that unlike what you see with the overloading of hospitals during covid, they have no problem handling a couple of vaccine injuries here and there.

Is GrapheneOS affected?

I should start marketing cyanide as a painkiller too, goddamn.

What a coincidence, I'm trying to learn SELinux too! Any tips?

Wayland have worked flawlessly for me, but I do understand that I have a very simple use case, so ymmv.

Fair enough, I was being too idealistic. I just wish we can have them see reason instead, but if we can't, making them shut up and not spread their idiocy would perhaps make for the next best thing.

Really fasttracked my Linux learning experience too. If you're starting out Linux and are predisposed to masochism like I am, using Gentoo as your first distro really catalysed my understanding of Linux (at the cost of a week's worth of crying and self-loathing lmao).

That is very much a plausible argument, but I did start out by drinking tea instead of coffee when I was younger because my parents fearmongered me about coffee. Stayed a morning person throughout.

I drink black coffee and am a morning person

A Tater Tot is a mindless follower of some very punchable asshole called Andrew Tate. Also in regards to your second point, while that is true, they will and already do have that stupid stereotype ingrained in their racist minds anyways. Might as well take advantage of it.