That is literally the only thing keeping me from installing Graphene on my phone.

I stated there wasn’t a law.

You can’t prove a negative. You cite the law that says you need to use a turn signal in a turn only lane. Or are you full of shit?

Ah, OK might be a Canadian thing then. There is no law in the US that requires usage of a turn signal in a turn only lane. I didn’t pull a law from my ass, you’re pulling one from yours, or rather I’m talking about US law and it seems you’re talking about Canadian.

What law, that’s the point, no law requires usage of a turn signal in a turn only lane. There is no law that requires that and a driving test is testing that you’re following the laws. It’s the same as if you turned on your turn signal in a straight lane and then didn’t change lanes.

No it isn’t, you’re not required by law to use a turn signal in a turn only lane. If I was giving a driving test I’d fail you for using a turn signal in the turn only lane as it demonstrates you don’t know the law.

You don’t need them in turn only lanes, but otherwise yes, use the damn turn signals.

Same difference. If someone has a Windows 10 device and got rid of it, but didn’t purchase a Windows 11 device to replace it, they’re no longer a Windows user. Sure they could have had multiple Windows devices for some reason, but it’s rare for someone to own more computers than they have potential users to operate them (barring things like schools or companies that maintain a fixed pool of devices, although even they try to avoid having significant excess inventory). So yes, fewer Windows devices is to within a certain margin of error fewer Windows users.

Yes, as I said, most went to mobile or tablet, so Android or iOS. Basically Windows users went to one of Android, iOS, OS X, or Linux. Some OS X users meanwhile went to iOS or Android.

MS also recently shared that they lost 400 million Windows users. I bet most of them were Windows 10 users. This isn’t “people finally moved from 10 to 11”, this is “people finally got so fed up with Windows that they abandoned it for other options” (mostly mobile/tablet but also some Linux and OS X).

It will almost certainly pull some votes from Trump but whether that’s enough to make a difference or not will depend on if the DNC can get out of the way long enough to find a candidate anybody actually wants to vote for or if they’ll run another “we’ll change nothing and you’ll like it” candidate.

In a normal military this would be a pretty big deal, but Russia has long used the strategy of “keep throwing bodies at them until you win”. That’s also likely the reason their navy and air force are a joke as that strategy doesn’t work so well when you have a finite number of craft to send those bodies on. There’s a reason that Ukraine’s tiny well trained military has been able to use guerrilla tactics to wipe the floor with Russia’s military.

So unfortunately this is likely to make little if any difference, Putin will just find a new piece of meat to stuff into that uniform and then kick him towards the front line. What does make a huge difference though is every time they manage to destroy a piece of Russian hardware (be that a boat, plane, tank, or artillery) as Russia has a very hard time replacing those unlike their practically unlimited supply of cannon fodder.

The problem is that the biggest service Cloudflare provides is DDoS protection, and doing that requires that you have more bandwidth available than your attacker. Having enough bandwidth to withstand modern botnet powered DDoS attacks is ridiculously expensive (and it’s also a finite resource, there’s only so much backbone infrastructure). Basically it’s economically infeasible to have multiple companies providing the service Cloudflare does. You might be able to get away with two companies doing so, but it’s unlikely you could manage more than that without some of them starting to go bankrupt.

I dove into their FAQ which explains it. I don’t agree with their logic, but the core idea seems to be that in order to run their equivalent of a TOR relay you have to stake a certain amount of their crypto, and you periodically receive some of the crypto as a reward for running the node. The theory is that the more nodes there are, the less crypto is available on the market and the more expensive it will become to acquire enough crypto to create new nodes. It’s all supposed to make it prohibitively expensive to control a significant amount of the network.

The fatal flaw in the reasoning is the assumption that anyone will actually care enough about their crypto to drive the price up. With no central authority setting a price for the crypto the price becomes whatever anyone is willing to buy or sell it for. Their fatal assumption is that scarcity automatically generates value. It does not. A thing needs some kind of value in addition to scarcity to become valuable.

TACO.

You might have a point if those people had no choice, but there are several good or at least better alternatives to TeamViewer and at least one of them is free. Nobody has any excuse for being negatively impacted by this change. Hopefully this is a wakeup call to those people that have been either too lazy or too incompetent to replace TeamViewer to finally do so. TeamViewer is a shit company making a shit product that has just made yet another shit anti-consumer decision (and potentially illegal but I’m sure there’s some sneaky license clause they claim makes this legal).

If they’re not using it, why does it matter what happens to the license? There’s a “it’s the principle of the thing” argument sure, but practically speaking this is irrelevant. Shitty company does shitty thing that should have no practical impact on anyone because nobody should be using their product. What exactly would change for people not using TeamViewer if they hadn’t revoked those licences? The argument is that anyone still using TeamViewer deserves this, and anyone who isn’t isn’t actually impacted by this change so it’s irrelevant.

And you missed my actual point. It doesn’t matter when they purchased the license because the fact they’re still using it means they deserve it. Nobody should be using Teamviewer today because they’re a terrible company, and if you aren’t then this license change doesn’t impact you at all.

It’s not really about the data breaches themselves but rather the way the company responded to them. The fact they tried to cover it up and gaslight their customers about it shows how terrible they are, and remote access is a highly sensitive thing that should be treated the same as handing the keys to your house over to someone. Anyone that isn’t deeply investigating the company or individual making a remote access product prior to using it does deserve what they get in the same way someone handing the keys to their house to a complete stranger they know nothing about would deserve whatever happened to them.

At the end of the day Teamviewer has a history of screwing over their customers for their own profit and in that regard this move is very much on brand for them and entirely predictable. Nobody that has looked into the company’s history should be surprised that they’ve done this at all.

You’re technically right but only because Taiwan (despite what China fervently wants) is a separate country from China. If you follow the official Chinese party line that they aren’t then yes you could make a modern phone entirely from parts made in “China”. It would at a minimum be more “made in China” than anything Trump is peddling as “made in USA”.