antibuddy

I still try to find the advantage over Whatsapp in the long-term. I get that Signal is not Facebook, so it has that going for it, however beside that it leaks the same data (which Signal says it is not storing however). You could probably compare it to Whatsapp before it was sold to Facebook.

So I have to ask myself: What happens if Signal has financial issues?

edit: Signal is open-source and non-profit as commenters pointed out. That's indeed advantageous.

I agree with the basics and also that Signal is pretty much designed like Whatsapp and so the switch is rather easy. The article however also includes the setup process which is important to many. Just take Element (aka Riot/RiotX) as an example for a long-winded and offputting setup process.

That being said, I still prefer Element over Signal.

What a good write-up and attention to detail for seemingly unimportant stuff.

> I often find myself repeating the following: if you’re asking the user to set a password, tell them all the password rules.

And also on login please.

If you have any evidence that Trump called for violence, come forward with it.

PS.: And also how Parler is responsible for any of this would be interesting.

How is the video in Georgia debunked? They sent observers home (even a big newslet posted this on Twitter at that time), counted the ballots afterwards and Biden had a spike.

And btw I am from Germany, so I am on neither "camp".

However, what if the election really was fraudulent? I mean the video in Georgia after the election observer were sent home, were pretty incriminating.

Also seeing how BLM got backing and did way more damage, makes this all look pretty one-sided. It's only okay if they do it.

My first instinct is to think, that you never believed in free speech in the first place, however I'd like to hear some examples of what shook you to the core.

With that attitude you're already part of the alt-right and you didn't notice.

Or we should stop taking (everything) published by <take your publisher/site of choice> as gospel.

The lockdown is not a consequence of COVID. The fact that (especially) young people were affected means you need to compare the lethality of these younger groups and that one is below 0.1% (under the age of 60 in Sweden).

Is it still worth the risk then for these groups?

>What are you proposing as an alternative?

Testing the vaccine and the new approaches properly. The average age of COVID deaths is around 82 years (at least in Germany), so I'd say many of these people would have died in the next few months anyway.

Also COVID is not the only cause of death and act in panic might cause more deaths than not acting at all. With a lethality of around 0.4% and the average age of death, COVID is no reason to hurry a vaccine that might have abysmal side effects. You could maybe argue that the spanish flu was (at that time), but COVID is really several orders of magnitude less lethal and also not with as prevalent and severe side effects as the measles (especially among the young and otherwise healthy).

We learned nothing of the Pandemrix fiasco.

You are always rolling the dice when you get a cold. The important part is how likely the side effects really are and this is proven for neither.

In addition to this, vaccine side effects can be way more severe than that especially for otherwise healthy people. Given the lethality is <0.1% for people under 60 and sterile immunity (with the vaccine) is neither proven nor targeted, there doesn't seem to be a hurry to get the vaccine really.

That's okay. We need guinea pigs. Let's just hope it's not the next Pandemrix (whatever you are getting).

This article is pure fearmongering.

What's your point?

I am supposed to know what nobody does. Nobody knows the long-term side effects of either vaccines against COVID and that is exactly my point.

Btw: What was not tested at all was if this leads to sterile immunity. So vaccinated ppl could still be transmitting COVID.

Using a vaccine which is tested exclusively on young men (which is the normal procedure) on elderly first is yet another inconsistency in the "holy vaccine"-narrative.

A vaccine that is tested for around 6 months. Actually it's multiple vaccines with two new approaches which are not tested at all for long-term side effects.

From that perspective it's not really desirable to get "people" vaccinated as quickly as possible.

PS.: Was the validation somehow 4 years? You can't cope with facts.

I did ignore the part where you redefined the term, because if you redefine the term, you mean something different. Which is my point.

Aspergers seems to mean a personality for most (even researchers), altho it was intended to describe a disorder. But given the bad definition it's rather clear how we ended up like this.

Homosexuality has no characteristics of a disorder in the first place, thus the example is not equivalent.

>In anticipation of some pseudoarguments in the vein of, ‘a disorder causes trouble for the individual; homosexuality does not while autism does,’ ...

Actual autistic people suffer because of everyday stimuli. Not being socially accepted is just a different problem, but it shows how "spectrum" autism is often used as an excuse.

PS.: Homosexuality was never defined as a disorder. It was labelled a disorder after the fact, because the definition is not the impairment but your preference for the same sex.

Autism is a disorder. Having a different brain structure is (not necessarily) a disorder but an observation. Having different traits is also not a disorder.

>>Summary: New autism theory is consistent with the current science on the genetics of the disorder but shifts the focus to the positive traits of ASD and historical events that altered the prevalence of autism in society.

Step 1: Redefine term (so autism is a trait); Step 2: Based on that definition make a research; Result: Devoid the original meaning of the term

Autism was a disorder and now it is a trait. Instead of a disorder with certain obvious/extreme traits.

>>McDonald’s theory, titled ‘The Broader Autism Phenotype Constellation-Disability Matrix Paradigm (BAPCO-DMAP) Theory,’ is consistent with the current science on the genetics of autism but shifts the focus to positive traits of autism and to historical events that changed the prevalence of autism in society.

Let me define the "The Broader Schizophrenia Phenotype Constellation-Disability Matrix Paradigm" and redefine Schizophrenia as being moody and day-dreaming kind of person. It also stands for creativity and thinking out-of-the-box.

>>McDonald’s theory also highlights how the prevalence of autism has increased in higher income countries due to societal changes that increase freedoms in education, employment and other opportunities for both men and women.

Now I go on and explain why it is more prevalent in higher income countries, where the meaning of autism is different and is researched to oblivion.

>>McDonald said she now knows what causes autism but it is not something that could be cured and, honestly, she wouldn’t want to do that.

We usually (medically) treat disorders (not cure them) and we certainly neither treat nor cure traits. In that context it makes sense, but one has to see the shift of disorder to trait.

What did Trump say/do that called for violence? Why could rioters just go to the capitol?

Seeing a dozen news articles the best argument seems to be that the mention of not attending the inauguration was a call for violence. I don't buy it.

You would be right, if Wikipedia would not cover the opinions/subjective topics as well. Nowadays it is often used as a column for some higher-up contributors/journalists.

It is still valuable for the scientific topics and I would not call that superficial at all, but you need to be very critical of anything that goes further than that. And actually even for the scientific topics you need to be aware if PR is involved with the article, because then you have to take anything with a grain of salt as well.

> I don't think the idea that Jack Ma is being targeted by the CCP is just a plausible theory, not a conspiracy theory (in the colloquial sense). You have a group with the motive, means, and MO to do so, you just need to find the proof.

Which is the definition of a conspiracy theory. Words have meaning and this is a technical term; and altho it is common knowledge that it is being used as a smear word, this doesn't mean we have to play the same game here as well.

There is also no reason to pretend that the colloquial usage of conspiracy theory is more than opinion.

It is in fact a conspiracy theory. But a small reminder that conspiracy theory doesn't tell you anything about the truthfulness, e.g. that the Iraq War was based on made-up evidence was a conspiracy theory.

That being said: Your explanation makes more sense to me. It is often enough to anger the wrong person to get a bad treatment (well, even assassination). And looking at history this is exponentiated in dictatorships, where power is concentrated on few ppl, who can act with impunity.

Isn't that just another point for shameless lying tho? I mean China just pretends it's over and is done with it for example. Other countries did the same and I kinda see the point, while not exactly agreeing with the approach.

The only thing you win with authoritarianism is that you can make the lie true in the public image.

Video material is going to lose its value, like many other kinds of evidence before. Just think about your own judgement about pictures nowadays and you can probably apply it to videos in 10-20 years. Neither of them will lose all of their value as evidence, but they will be adjusted as technology is going forward.

Nobody says they are the same. However false or even only what one might consider false or misleading is a very low bar for censorship.

I agree with your sentiment that there is no absolute here; however there is a difference if the whole machine is a blackbox or just the CPU and is sold by a listed corporation that is only accountable to their shareholders.

They see privacy as a marketing advantage, however they collect data as they see fit. It is also important to note, that they are indeed in the ad business and even if it is no match to their hardware business they are profit maximizing. So even if they don't sell your data now this can change and your record on that big corp will become known to whoever pays enough.

Side question: Does Google directly sell personal data to advertisers? (For Google applies what I said above anyway)