I daily drive Fedora because RHEL is what my industry uses and it's good to stay on top of the technology.
I use all three. I have Windows on one of my machines that I use occasionally for gaming. I use Macs for work since that's what all my corporate machines comes with and I daily drive Linux and use it for all my home servers.
Well you still haven't addressed the most important problem that I've mentioned which is the fact currently no one seems to want to watch these news and that's why they are asking for government funding in the first place. Consumers clearly wants corporate news for whatever reason. What's the point in funding something that no one wants? This is a chicken and egg problem, if most people in the country actually wants unbiased source of news then they will seek for such sources over the biased ones. As a result advertisers would change their behaviour to favour news that's more unbiased. Unfortunately people has voted with their viewership that they don't actually want unbiased news, but ones that are scary, outrageous, or tells them exactly what they want to hear. I can't see how adding more government funding to the equation is gonna change people's behaviour.
Government funded news are not inherently unbiased. But hypothetically let's say it is unbiased. The whole reason why a bailout is needed in the first place is because not enough people voluntarily watches these news. Is the next step to ban all other sources of news and make government news the only source of information? That doesn't sound like a great path to venture down to.
Keep in mine not everyone uses TOR to evade the three letter agencies. I'm a TOR relay operator and the main reason I'm running it is to give people in oppressive regimes a better chance at exchanging free information. To these people getting spied on by western intelligence agencies is probably the lesser evil compared to their own tinpot dictatorship governments.
Another main reason why I took off my hat back then was because I was a broke college kid with garbage internet speed and my only computer was a laptop. Torrenting shows sometimes means I need to have my laptop on for days. Now I have an entire homelab setup with a dedicated VM on one of my servers for torrenting and I can afford fast internet. I was pleasantly surprised how efficiently I can torrent when I got back sailing recently.
They already do this. I was offered to plug some kind of monitoring device into my car for a period of time to determine my driving behavior for potential lower rates. I went for higher rates.
For me it's just more power efficient to run a VM on my TrueNAS for this purpose if I need to download very large files over night. It also speeds up file transfer / storage.
As someone who works in the tech industry. I can tell you people here are not tech illiterate, but most just dgaf about privacy when they can trade it in for convenience. That's why most of them are okay with designing apps that have zero respect to user privacy and they see nothing wrong with it.
Some malicious users do use VPNs to send spams and many websites automatically bans these IPs. Normally switching to a different VPN server will resolve the issue.
Donated $20 to GrapheneOS when I first installed it. $5/mo to Signal. Local charities in my hometown.
I wouldn't call going from mad profits to okay profits a sign of downfall. Having decentralized technology doesn't mean decentralization will actually happen. For instance look at E-mail. It is technically a decentralized service, but most people still uses services provided by big tech vs operating their own servers. Such a system does give you more choices, but don't expect this future will be without big tech.
replying to you on lemmy discussing perfectly legal topics, so I have the it pointed to a node in my city for best performance
If you're not using the wifi functionality perhaps putting the device in a Faraday cage would prevent anyone from accessing it.
To me the entire article seems to be establishment propaganda that tries to convince people that the current system is working fine and we just need to dump more money in it, which is not a real solution as we don't have infinite money. Keep in mind a reform doesn't mean we automatically turns into the US overnight. It might not even include any private component at all. But any reform that cuts waste will impact the various interest groups benefiting from the waste and inefficiencies in the current system and that seems to be what is article is defending against.
See here the problem is when any kind of healthcare conversation starts in Canada the US always gets brought up as a sledgehammer to shutdown any further discussion. I live in the US and nobody thinks the US system is the solution for anything. But there are dozens of working examples in Europe and Asia that are worth learning from. Canadians need to look beyond this continent.
Not trying to dismiss your sufferings but I still think our generation had it way better than our grandparents, and probably better than 90% of the people in the world if you live in an advanced economy. For instance my grandfather went through the bloodiest war in human history, a bloody civil war, and a famine that killed millions of people. The problem right now is getting all the negative information that you have no control over from the internet, that's why I stay away from tuning into any news these days.
The closest country with the friendliest law of what I'm currently trying to do
Thank you for the explanation. To me it still seems to be a case of expanding the terminology beyond it's original meaning given the context. The situation today is more of a country occupying part of another country while laying siege on another part of the said country. If this can be referred to as apartheid I don't see why it can't be used on most invasions and occupational wars in human history. Furthermore, I'm too young know what people thinks of South Africa back then, but as far as I can remember South Africa has been seen as a single unit in my lifetime. Hence, referring to Israel as an apartheid state in my mind has the implication of Israel somehow has the right and responsibility of ruling over Palestinian territory. Treating the citizens of an occupied country poorly is bad but shouldn't automatically qualify as apartheid, even though I agree there are some resemblance in practice.
The case with Israel proper is more interesting because you can make the case that there are some apartheid elements such as the fact only Jews enjoys the right to automatically become Israeli citizens which isn't available to other ethnic groups that currently resides in Israel. However to my knowledge Israel proper isn't what most people think of when they make the case that Israel is an apartheid state, even tho imo it makes a more compelling case per definition.
Asking a genuine question regarding the apartheid terminology here. When someone refers to Israel as a apartheid state with regards to Palestinian civilians it always doesn't make sense to me. Because for that to be true, one needs to consider Gaza and Westbank to be Israeli territory, which I don't think is a concept that anyone who makes this claim agrees with. To me, that's like saying North America is an apartheid continent because Canadians and Mexicans don't get the same rights as Americans in America.
