FutileRecipe

or randos on the internet then?

I mean isn't that practically everyone on the Internet that you don't know personally? Or do you actually know the Firefox and/or Librewolf team, and audit their code as well?

If no to both...sounds like you are putting some measure of trust into "randos on the Internet." Which is not abnormal. Trust is required at some point in most processes.

My thing against Firefox/Librewolf is lack of security...unless it's improved?

Avoid Gecko-based browsers like Firefox as they're currently much more vulnerable to exploitation and inherently add a huge amount of attack surface. Gecko doesn't have a WebView implementation (GeckoView is not a WebView implementation), so it has to be used alongside the Chromium-based WebView rather than instead of Chromium, which means having the remote attack surface of two separate browser engines instead of only one. Firefox / Gecko also bypass or cripple a fair bit of the upstream and GrapheneOS hardening work for apps. Worst of all, Firefox does not have internal sandboxing on Android. This is despite the fact that Chromium semantic sandbox layer on Android is implemented via the OS isolatedProcess feature, which is a very easy to use boolean property for app service processes to provide strong isolation with only the ability to communicate with the app running them via the standard service API. Even in the desktop version, Firefox's sandbox is still substantially weaker (especially on Linux) and lacks full support for isolating sites from each other rather than only containing content as a whole. The sandbox has been gradually improving on the desktop but it isn't happening for their Android browser yet.

Ref: https://grapheneos.org/usage#web-browsing

old system of writing them down on paper

That's harder to steal/hack by someone across the globe.

The Human Cannonball? He got launched out of the cannon and did one flip before getting caught by the net.

That's what it looks like to the untrained eye. But they're not really going to fire a person out of a cannon. That's not safe. So he just huddles in the cannon, they light a decoy fuse, it makes a bang (with no projectile), and he spring out and jumps that distance by himself. Requires a lot of core and leg strength.

If I choose a US server, I want to know I'm going to get the US version of a site.

Which is not necessarily something that Proton (or any other VPN provider) can impact.

I'm here so I won't get fined.

I'm not on Debian, but a quick search led me to this wiki link from Arch. Give it a whirl:

https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/GDM#Hide_user_from_login_list

Edit: context of the Arch wiki link, in case better answers can be gleaned from it, I found it on AskUbuntu: https://askubuntu.com/questions/2471/how-to-hide-users-from-the-gdm-login-screen

all media organisations use X

NPR quits Twitter after being falsely labeled as 'state-affiliated media'

Your data has monetary value to google. Giving them access, without getting any money from them (or even knowing what ways it will be used) is not something you must do.

To be fair, while you may not be getting money in its direct form (cash, bank deposit, etc) from Google, they are providing you a service which costs them money for free. So they are providing something of monetary value.

Only the individual can determine if their data is worth that free (to the individual, not free to Google) service. I'm assuming that most people in a privacy community would be against that, though.

If we're including fantasy, my vote is for the Wheel of Time series.

Clickbaity, sure. But this is one of the justifiable clickbaity times. They said the meat of the article, while clickbait, that was the essence of the problem. "I'll give you a child." That's the issue. It doesn't really matter if he's randomly setting his sights on her, or if she said she was childless. That part does not matter. They could've left everything out but the quote. The part that does matter, is he said he'll give her a child without being asked.

You agree it's a terrible thing for him to say. Is it less terrible for him to say it because she signed as childless? No? Then context does not matter. Yes, it's less terrible because she said it? Well, then there's the hiccup as we disagree on that part and we'll disagree on the context, too.