Yeah, because it’s the loophole around the charade that the gov doesn’t surveil the population. By paying companies, they can easily do what is forbidden by the constituency. Effectively, the constitution is a marketing exercise, barely existing in practice.

However, if you pay someone to murder someone, its a crime, if you pay a company to break a law, you should be held responsible. Weird shit like companies being like humans and having rights is insane and if they are treated as beings, they should be held accountable legally and that includes the CEO and board who drive them.

I hear India and some other Asian countries are very high.

It’s been learning from github in terms of downtime. Still winning though.

I don’t know. Don’t use a VPN for browsing Lemmy.

sh.itjust.works is pretty good. Not as weirdly moderated as Lemmy.world which seems weirdly right wing with very odd moderation decisions.

Though they’re the only instance UK folk cannot access.

That’s quite vague and speculative. Unless you know a law, it’s like saying, in Honduras it could be legally challenging to eat an orange on a Tuesday. I don’t know for sure as I’m not a lawyer. As you can see, I just made that up, but unless you know a law, you’re just excusing the donation on speculation. I’m in Europe and the speculation sounds like absolute poppycock.

Is Proton not better than Gmail?

What law?

Good share. Not seen this context before.

But he profits from mullvad and your purchase contributes to these policies…

Oooh, Runelite on Linux <3.

Finally.

Trash is subjective. Luanti can run on potatoes without an SSD. Worth a try: https://www.luanti.org/en/

All because they throw it into b2b with teams and ado and windows and whatever other shit they call software.

The signal one suggests it’s a phone OS hack that can open apps so could probably do threema too.

The article you shared suggested it’s likely the result of lobbying by the company so they use a company inside the country.

Fossify photos is also good.

Unfortunately, you’re wrong.

Nobody cares about your stuff. Some care about the quality of their work, but they’re hard to find. Best approach is word of mouth. Find folk family, friends, neighbours recommend. If none, local Facebook groups are an option. Good trades folk come recommended by many.

Secondly, here in the UK, we never pay up front. Best way to lose your money. Why work 100% of a job for 40% of the money, when you can work 0% for 60% of the money.

Only exception is if expensive materials are needed. Usually you’d pay for that part up front if they’re legit and you trust them, otherwise, they can order the mats from trade place and you can phone up and pay them. It isn’t unreasonable to ask for an invoice. Massive jobs can be gated behind a 30% of money after x progrss, 40% after y progress and the rest on satisfactory conclusion. That way, they have incentive to work and finish. Only cowboys would usually demand most up front. How can you pay for something you didn’t receive and they didn’t earn?

Never offer more money for correct work, state clearly what you want, and how, and verify that is in price. Verify, and check done correctly. If you don’t know correct way, ask someone who does or research / watch videos on YouTube etc.

You’ll be less disappointed if you don’t let people walk over you following some bullshit philosophy only you believe. Don’t try to place unrealistic values on the world, understand how it works and learn how to operate within it.

My issue is that corporate folk behind this attempted to do this. IMHO, the stewardship of the project is all wrong, and the motives questionable. It did feel like you were defending their actions. Corporate influence is not a defining aspect of open source for me. Its an unfortunate problem that ultimately leads to the true dilemma. Open source is about sharing and giving your time freely, corporate goals is how can we profit from our position in this project.

Through pushing through user antagonistic changes completely at odds with users wants and hoping people are pliable enough to forget all about trying to be screwed so you can bide time until the next at attempt to screw users?

Well, that’s the vibe I’m getting from you. I naively assumed open source was based on trust, shared effort and contributions to benefit users so they can install software on their machine that they know is reliable/trustworthy and privacy focussed because anyone can scrutinise it. Silly me.

So they raised a PR with the intention to do this?

Are you saying the only reason they backtracked is because users weren’t happy?