My point. We don't have code so we have to trust them blindly.
Telegram was never safe. All anyone ever had was their word that some chats are end-to-end encrypted.
I am using a Samsung phone
Well, don't. I know that's not immediately helpful, but Samsung is well known for shipping tons of useless bloatware in their Android ROM and not giving a shit about user privacy.
I think it was their CEO who suggested simply not having sensitive conversations within earshot of their Smart-TVs, when it became known that they're always listening.
Throwing Fairphone into the pot. They're well supported by LineageOS and have the additional advantage of being user-repairable.
But they only ship inside Europe.
Fermented with black cardamom and garlic (which I'm just noticing I forgot to put on the label 🤷) and puréed with mango and pear.
Added a little rice vinegar and salt to balance the fruit.
It's a little spicier than Sriracha, but not at all unpleasant. Nicely sweet and spicy. You can taste it with a spoon without regretting it.
Really simple. Just ask it to point out the error. Also maybe tell it how the code is wrong. And then hope that the new code didn't introduce new errors in formerly working sections. And that it understood what you meant. In a language that is inherently vague.
Flohmarkt? Seems simple enough.
Yes.
There used to be a service where you set an amount you paid each month and you could then mark pages/services for donation. At the end of the month your money would be split between all the pages/services you marked.
It was called flattr.
The elegance of this system is that you can set aside an amount of money you're comfortable spending on art, or whatever you wanna categorise it as. So you're fully in control of your spending. If videos/songs/articles/things cost a flat amount it's easy to lose track of the total.
Here's the complete list of ads I find acceptable:
That is for any and all media.
Almost like ecosystems make sense 🤔
In an attempt to weasel out of the liability for the woman's death Disney's lawyers pulled out the forced arbitration clause of the widower's Disney+ subscription.
Meaning they're effectively arguing that because he gives them money to use their service they should be allowed to get away with murder or at least criminal negligence.
I don't think they've realised yet, what a foot-gun this argument is. On top of the obvious moral issues with this line of argument. I mean, this has "give us your firstborn" vibes.
It's honestly disgusting.
USA says "jump" and every country goes "Yes, daddy. How high, daddy?"
No. If there's no way to verify anything then all we have to go on is their word.
The word of a company generally isn't worth a whole lot. Same with Telegram.