AFAIK, Signal does not want anyone to use alternative clients, has that changed?
As far as I know moxie, signals lead dev, considers only the use of the officially build and distributed client authorized to use their servers.
So if they ever manage to detect someone using their services with an alternative client, they might delete your account.
Well, you can still insert client side decryption into the app.
But it isn't really about the messages, it is about the control of the servers and the accounts. You cannot easily move away from their servers, because you will lose your contacts. This gives the people controlling the servers power over you. A sort of vendor lockin.
The company (Signal Messenger LLC) is fully owned by Signal Foundation, a 501(c)3 non profit organization.
OpenAI is also non-profit. Not really an argument.
Probably around 80-90% of Matrix users are on the matrix.org homeserver, so it's absolutely not as decentralized and resilient as you think it is.
Well, the goal is that moving to your own server, will not mean that you will loose access to all your contacts. Which makes moving instances much simpler. If Matrix gets a hostile take-over, your don't really need to reach a critical mass for an alternative server.
But you should also be aware that Signal does not federate, so the company can be bought. They have control over all accounts and the servers, without easy way to migrate away again. So it might just be another trap.
Try to use federated services (like matrix), they are more robust against hostile take overs.
If ARM is a small market, RISC-V is even smaller.
I personally like when boundaries are pushed, and welcome more independence on x86.
I would argue that it is about incentives. A market economy is about maximizing profit, so that (the class of) shareholders get more money out of it, than they put into it. Incentivising making money means you incentives a race to the bottom, producing lots of expensive and addicting crap that easily breaks for as little cost as possible. And you incentivise massive consumption of it.
A socialist economy should instead incentivise improving the world for all the people that live in it. Produce stuff that is robust, adaptable, sustainable and so on. Incentivise the mindfulness of the social and ecological impact of each product. And if someone needs something special, incentivise local makerspaces etc. that allows people to produce custom stuff in low quantities.
China is not communist, they are market-captialistic, one-party highly authoritarian state. "socialism" and "cmmunism" is just used to make them sound better and more legitimate than they are.
Matrix is federated, Signal is not.
OSM also uses localized names for places. So there might be name changes happening there as well.
Not sure exactly how they do it for international names, they probably have a system, but if Trump starts renaming towns and states in the US like "State of Pu**ygrab", "State of Hillaries-emails" or whatever, everyone has to adapt, in order to not be disrespectful of the people and culture of the united states as is making any kind of fun about these cultural and historic differences. People from outside just do not understand them and their need to validate their place in the world as deeply as the people living there.
Genau diese Interviews hatte ich mir auch schon angesehen, daher kam mein "Staatssozialismus hat halt nicht geklappt" position.
Beide Interviews sind mehr darauf gerichtet was halt bei der Wiedervereinigung gemacht werden soll, als richtig ein Schuldeingestendnis.
Und ja, klar CDU und FDP sind noch unwählbarer, aber über die rede ich ja ganicht.
Now they will likely spin any critique and demonstrations against the AfD&CDU as "influenced by russia".
And long term CDU voters will eat it up, since "russia is on the extreme left" or whatever.
We live in an inverted world it seems. It looks like making stuff up is more difficult then just inverting facts.