Intercepting a verification code with signal does not allow reading messages.

Because sometimes, people are not online 24/7 and messages still need to reach them when possible.

Except they had to get the keys, at least for Signal, as described in the article. Only you can allow a new device. If you get a notification for a new device and you go “sure, let me flash that code for you”, you’re giving the key. And a moron.

Can’t say about the other services.

When what passes for the leader of the “free world” is a spearhead for pedophilia it’s kind of a bit late to be safe talking about “normalizing” stuff.

Better pull the plug on that bell, because “it’s here to stay”, some people says proudly.

What kind of distro does that?

One that does not care at all about having maintaining a sane and open ecosystem. Where there’s money to make, they will prey down quickly. Now that people are somewhat convinced that Linux based systems can work and actually attract the general public, a whole new market is ripe for reaping.

Except for the very last part (I hope…), it’s the case of most “funky crazy distro” out there.

You think if the developer bails out, the software will magically disappear from everywhere, leaving you with no way of recovery whatsoever?

Let’s say they decide to pull the plug. Everything you have that’s already running will keep running. Code can be forked (in fact with keepass, it already happened). Data can be exported after the fact. Other software can actually open keepass database file.

You really don’t see the difference between this and “the server stopped sending you your own data, oops”?

• Buy game you want
• Install game
• Play
• There is no game
• Complain
• “Consumers are a little petty these days”

Dude.

The USA’s death throes are going to cause a lot of collateral damage across the globe.

The collateral damages have already started a while ago, no?

Now imagine if instead of recommending vaccination during an outbreak, it was recommended before anything happened. Crazy thought, I know. Only way this could have happened is by not having a complete moron obsessed with his countless delusions as the fucking head of the health department of one of the largest country in the world, is all.

I wonder if this have anything to do with moving quickly from “we must all limit our energy consumption” to “we must burn as much energy possible for no real purpose”.

I guess we’ll never know /s

The intense interest some politician have for everyone else’s crotch is fascinating, if not a bit weird.

Vance criticizing something tells me the thing in question is probably correct one way or another.

It’s not an idol, it’s just a gold-looking representation of something a large group of people fervently honor and pray to, and according to their own chit-chat, hold in higher respect than jesus or god. And nothing more.

Remember people, in today’s USA, it’s better to be a sex offender than literally anything else. It’s even better if you meddle with kids; that could secure you a position in the government. But girls liking girls? Big no-no.

But I thought super capitalism would allow markets to self regulate, motivate competition, and weed out low performer. Isn’t that a good thing anymore?

Also, I’m laughing at “unless things change, we will not survive”. That might be the change happening, buddy.

I generally agree that prohibition doesn’t work, and is bad, but having an absolutist position like this is usually problematic.

Hence the immediate follow-up sentence: “I can see the point for some of these restrictions, to provide a safe basis for other people around”. Basically, the old saying “one person’s freedom ends where another’s begins”.

Laws should be around to protect other people from external nuisance/danger, not for the express purpose of prohibition.

The parts about not being a nuisance for other/imposing onto them is nice. It will take forever to become a new society standard, though. In France, it’s been forbidden to smoke in public places like subway stations and bars for decades, but there’s still a lot of people doing it. But we’re slowly moving there.

However, forbidding people to smoke, period, will not prevent them from smoking, it just makes it illegal. That’s the part I’m not strongly agreeing with. There was the nuance.

And to be clear, my personal opinion on this topic is that smoking is batshit crazy and why would anyone do this to themselves, but I’d rather we go the education route and work toward a better environment for people to live in than going the “NO” route. Unfortunately, that’s not the way we’re going.

I have no idea how that would change thing. I just base myself on previous (and current) attempts at banning things. It never goes well.

Prohibition is never good, removing individual freedom is never good. I can see the point for some of these restrictions, to provide a safe basis for other people around (because we can’t ask people to simply be nice), but more than that… meh.

I will not be up in arms to defend smoking rights, but that’s probably not the way to do it.