There are currently 120 comments, of which I can see one person suggested “violent protest” and one person suggested “blood”. Most of the comments which give any suggestions say unionisation, protest, and reform. If you see those as inherently violent that says a lot more about you than it does the other commenters.
There’s a lot of replies here about why US citizens are in the situation they are but not how to fix it, which was the question you asked. You have two political parties in a first past the post system with largely similar corporate focussed policies, people primarily vote against a party rather than for one that represents them. If you really want to change things you’ll need to overhaul your voting system to break up your two party system and encourage competition from parties that actually represent what people want.
Unfortunately there is no safe and easy way to do this; it means the two parties in power giving up that power which they will not do willingly. You’ll need large scale consistent and actually disruptive protests, ie not just meeting up for a day then returning to life as nornal, but the US has a history of responding to protests the same way they do everything; with violence.
So more practically, you can contact your representative at the appropriate level of government and hope they don’t completely ignore you this time.
I’m not sure I follow that analogy, if you get a ride to a hospital you don’t expect it to lock off all other destinations. What happens in the hospital is irrelevant.
From reading the article, this is more like if you walk into a hotel and they burn down your house so you have no choice but to stay. I suppose in theory you could argue in very bad faith that this is a problem with the house since it’s the house that burned, but in reality the problem is the fact they’re the ones who started the fire.
Ads. Specifically, a popup served by the OS about chrome and switching to bing or edge or something like that. I didn’t even use chrome, just having it installed was enough for them. Any ads baked into the OS is unacceptable, but that’s just so far over the line that I find it insane anyone still uses Windows at all.
I contacted support to complain and their “solution” was to reinstall the OS, so I installed a better one instead.
I’m not really sure what you’re asking since your post is a but unfocused, but if your problem is that you have too many addresses with different providers you could simply redirect mail from alternate addresses to whichever one you actually check. When I switched to proton I didn’t delete my old gmail account, I simply imported my old emails and set up email forwarding (see here for Proton’s migration instructions from Gmail). If you want to completely de-Google you don’t need to do it all at once, just migrate accounts to your new addresses as needed.
If you want a separate account for your PC then this does of course require a separate account. There isn’t really a solution there since your problem is also your requirement. You could set up separate folders or aliases for your PC and phone but that might not have the same level of separation you want.
I’d recommend switching away from Chrome-based browsers entirely anyway due to Google forcing through questionable standards by throwing their near-monopoly around, but using one Google service doesn’t mean it’s pointless to switch away from others. You don’t need to do everything at once.
It’s possible to factually accurate with heavy bias, but since that would require selective reporting to enforce a single worldview I wouldn’t consider that “highly trustworthy”.
Consider the following hypothetical headlines:
“Teen Killed by Islamic Group During Shooting”
“Terrorist Shooting at Mosque, 20 Dead”
Both are technically factually accurate ways to describe a hypothetical scenario where a teen shoots up a place of worship before being stopped by one of the victims, but they both paint very different pictures. Would you consider both sources “highly trustworthy”?
Sounds like snake oil. Their website says you need to sip water through their straw for 3 seconds two/three times, then repeat those 3 sips up to 2 more times so that puts the effectiveness at somewhere around that of pretty much any other free home remedy. The way those instructions are written seems like it’s meant to intentionally obfuscate that fact too, it’s incredibly unnatural to say “do this thing two to three times, up to three times”.
That’s an understatement, PayPal will pretty much always side with the buyer no matter how ridiculous and outlandish their claim. I even had one “dispute” where the scammer changed the dispute reason which caused PayPal to ignore what I’d already submitted and close it in their favour by default as “no response”. PayPal is very much pro-scammer, avoid if possible.
It’s been a few years since I’ve had to deal with clients directly, I don’t think I’ll ever miss it.
Because that would be the same quality. This is the internet, if an image is still recognisable after being shared five times you’re doing something wrong.
I feel like someone not releasing anything but squatting IP rights for 13 years is a poor argument for longer copyright terms.
Your security is only as good as the weakest link, which is usually people. If your password policy encourages users to stick a note to their screen then your weakest link is anyone in the office deciding to take a selfie or joining a call with their camera on. Best practices balance security with what users are actually willing to do.
Good luck remembering them all, also change them all every 30 days, so here are my secrets.
Password expiry hasn’t been considered best practice for a long time (must be at least a decade now?) largely because of the other points you mentioned; it leads to weak easily memorable passwords written somewhere easily accessible. Even when it was considered good 30 days would have been an unusually short time.
Current advice is to change passwords whenever there’s a chance it’s been compromised, not on a schedule.
Bicycles more dangerous than cars? I guess I must have missed all the stories about people being run over by bikes.
It might not necessarily be that the instances are stricter, it could also simply be that those instances are targeted more often by hate/trolls so interact with those instances more often. Admins are less likely to defederate from an instance they’ve never seen or heard of. I see a lot of obviously LGBT-related names in this list which likely get more hate than average.
If someone said they were concerned about their sugar intake would you tell them to just stop eating entirely? It’s possible to take steps towards privacy-friendly services without cutting yourself off from the modern world in the same way as you can cut back on sugar and still eat food.
You absolutely do not need to “burn all your devices” to improve your privacy, suggesting so is unhelpful at best.
There’s no point looking for logic. These people truly believe granting a licence restricts the rights of people who don’t agree to the licence, which is the exact opposite of what licenses do. It’s blatant misinformation but if you call them out on it (even by quoting their own link) they literally think you’re an astroturfer for AI, because that makes more sense to them than the fact they’re obviously wrong.
The problem with your argument is everyone’s only telling you exactly what your own link also says; the licence only applies if someone needs your permission anyway. If they don’t need permission the licence doesn’t matter. You don’t need to be a lawyer, you only need to be literate.
If the licensor’s permission is not necessary for any reason–for example, because of any applicable exception or limitation to copyright–then that use is not regulated by the license.
And all that’s still ignoring the fact you’re putting a higher bar to refute the claim than to make it in the first place which is nonsense; anything which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
It’s ironic because you demand someone be a lawyer to refute an obviously incorrect claim made by a non-lawyer. If you consider me answering the question you asked directly of me “irony” then I suppose I can see how you might consider that comment ironic.
It’s definitely worth noting that you’ve attempted to shift the topic well away from the absurdity of using an open licence to do the opposite of what licences do and instead onto the topic of who is a lawyer and the definition of irony.
Ironic, considering you are undoubtedly not a lawyer and have evidently never even dealt with copyright issues.
CC licences are handy copyleft licences to allow others to use your work with minimal effort. Using them to restrict what others can do is a fundamental misunderstanding of how copyright works. If you want to restrict others’ use of your work copyright already handles that, a licence can only be more permissive than default copyright law. You can sign a contract with another party if you want to further restrict their use of your work, but you’ll generally also have to give them something in return for the contract to be valid (known as “consideration”). If you wish to do so you can include a copyright notice (eg “Copyright © 2024 onlinepersona. All rights reserved.”) but that hasn’t been a requirement for a long time.
I leave on time, how is that an insult? I’d be much more insulted if someone asked me to work for them for free. That’s what unpaid overtime is.