Oh I see what you mean, control in the leftmost place in the bottom row. Yeah, that's not possible. I don't use the lily58 to play the games where I have years of muscle memory to be honest.
sudneo
joined 2 years ago
Yes, but it depends really on what you want to bind where.
In my case, I have no capslock and I have ESC, TAB, shift, ctlr (on the outermost column) and alt, super, lower, space (on the bottom row/thumb. Obviously with qmk (or similar) you can change what you want, but I assumed it was pretty standard layout (in fact, I changed very little from stock keymaps in qmk).
It does have (space for) a control key. At least my 2 lily58 do.
This is not completely true. Try to look at email from shops (for campaigns etc.), and you will see tons of click-tracking links that go through HTTP. Any of that gets hijacked, and you have an avenue to be phished. DNS integrity is key, and a VPN being a layer 3 control (i.e., at the network level, not the application level) helps preventing some of these attack vectors.
The point is that if you can refuse to communicate with WhatsApp users, they have no more data compared to when your interlocutor simply added your phone to their contact list. They only have more data if you actually carry out conversations, which you are not forced to do.
Well, I am assuming interoperability actually works, if it's only done from one side, it's not really interoperability. As a signal user I would be perfectly fine with an opt-in flag (which Iwouldn't use). But yeah, you are right.
Meta knows that a valid number exists, and at most that your number is a part of that social circle. It doesn't know anything about you just yet. If the association between public number and person is public, your problem is beyond whatsapp, of course. Also, I give you a bad news, but all meta applications request access to contacts. If your contact has your number (to contact you), meta already has your number, possibly very conveniently associated with your name, as this is out of your control.
I think interoperability is a net positive, even privacy wise. Mostly because if we level the playing field and remove the network effect, people who care a little might as well use "better" apps, where "better" stops being "all my friends are there".
The problem you raise is real, but also avoidable. Nobody forces you to actually communicate via signal with people on WhatsApp. In fact, if you do have people on WhatsApp you want to talk to, you already have an account on WhatsApp and you can keep using that. However, some people might appreciate the possibility to have this bridged communication, especially because it allows for much easier migration to signal (and similar) from people who "everyone is on WhatsApp". The more people move over, the more signal-to-signal communication can happen, etc.
Ultimately it is exactly like email. I think it's still worth using proton, even though 80% of your emails will be coming from or going to a gmail account.
The crux is having the ability to:
- know when you are talking with a user on WhatsApp
- block or refuse to talk with a user on WhatsApp.
Once you can choose, hardcore privacy people can keep talking only between signal users, but the interoperability can help more people moving over in the meanwhile.
Lungi dal fare polemica, tuttavia la motivazione principale è la mancanza di tool di moderazione. Ora, hanno 4.5k dollari di bilancio, per ora. Mettere 1000$ come bounty per chi sviluppa la funzionalità richiesta (magari ce ne sono più di una) mi sembra più ragionevole che cercare un altro posto (che avrà anch'esso problemi), oltretutto così tutti potrebbero beneficiare delle funzionalità.
Not OP but:
- population control (is hard but) can be done in a way that in 20-30 years starts having effect. Genocide is not the only way to reduce population?
- reducing the consumption of individuals does not amount necessarily to starvation and poverty either. Right now we produce too much and too poorly. Reducing consumption might mean less conspicuous consumption from the top 50% of the population but also less "things" that last more.
In both these examples unfortunately the main obstacle is economic.
A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Not sure what your "lesson" was referring to, but your old comment is exactly the definition of a strawman.
Let me remind it to you:
But yeah, sure just make it like all Muslims are fanatical terrorists, that will include them well in the society. Do we ban metal heads then because they’re satanist worshipers?
Nobody made any argument about making all muslims like fanatical terrorists, nobody mentioned anything about metal heads (we were talking about religion), but you wanted to use the refusal of these ridiculous made-up arguments because you couldn't anymore defend your main thesis (I assume), which is "Except it’s not a religious dress.".
So your "comparisons" are strawman because they have nothing to do with the other comparison term.
This said, I argued my way to every comment, you moved the goalpost 10000km now, moving from "they are not religious dresses" to "the whole topic is a strategy from the government to distract from..." (which might also be true, but it's completely unrelated as we are already discussing of this particular subject), and now you call me names for the sake of using basic logic in my conversation. Well, this lesson is free as well, it's called learn to fucking discuss like an adult. I am blocking you in the meanwhile because it's now obvious that you have absolutely no argument and you argue in bad faith as well.
They are not common everywhere in Europe sadly! But they are not just for protection, they are also used instead of thick curtains for darkening the room (my gut feeling tells me that they are more common in the southern European countries).