We don’t need to presume anything, OP can speak for themselves.

Sure they can! Until they do, there’s my helpful take for the meantime.
But don’t take my word for it, you could also piece together their intent by them thanking all the other helpful responses in this thread that happen to elaborate on legal obligations 😄

Asking the real questions! 😄

What do you mean by this?

Many things in life come with legal, moral or financial requirements and obligations. The OP presumably wishes to know whether there are any that they might not yet have considered in their situation.

Could you elaborate?

Their leader calls journalists vermin and they go on about the ‘Lugenpresse’, his followers shoot up synagogues, allied media spread Nazi/far right inspired anti-semitic canards like Cultural Marxism (‘Kulturbolshewismus’), they go on about how the ‘’‘left wing intellectual elite’‘’ are trying to undermine western values and cause a decline of morals and degeneracy (‘Entartung’), they’re afraid of difference, they hold the weak in contempt, they abhor nuance so use a limited newspeak vocabulary to limit critical reasoning, they’re obsessed with plots, and on social media many of his followers spread the Q-anon conspiracy which is a reworking of the antisemtic blood libel canard.

Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, is a duck.

I presume we’re no longer talking about the movie’s marketing department…?

Here’s a Sartre quote that’s also increasingly relevant (again):

“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

What I’m reading here are things in the lines of “Good faith anti-Semitism doesn’t exist” or “anti-Semitism is intrinsically confrontational and quarrelsome”. I don’t quite think that’s a tenable position as it would be trivial to disprove. Am I misreading this? What is your take?
Are you sure the line is concerned with anti-Semitism in general and not only with a very specific kind of anti-Semite (e.g. mid-century, mid-Europe, Bierkellerputsch-y types)?

What you write on argumentative strategy absolutely pertains to the topic and I’d say it also holds true. I just don’t really see what it has to do with fascism. Aren’t you conflating a couple of things here?
Even when “Fascism traditionally employs that rhetoric” holds true, there’s no way that “Someone employing that rhetoric must be a fascist” can ever follow from that. A fascist might be a very special kind of moron, but it’s dangerous to then start calling every moron “fascist”, because it lessens the impact of that term, devalues it, if that makes sense. It makes undermining actual fascism much harder.

i absolutely disagree. the way insurance works is you all pay into it and they use that money for claims. it’s literally our money.

Again, you do not “pay into” anything. There’s no pool or fund or growing personal account. You buy a service. There is an exchange of goods and services here. As you receive the service, the money ceases to be yours.
Whether or not other people file claims with the insurance doesn’t matter, just like it doesn’t matter whether or not the baker buys new furniture after selling bread to you. They’re not paying the furniture store with your money, they’re paying the furniture store with their own money that became theirs as soon as you relinquished it to them in exchange for the bread.

On every single professional sports game I’ve ever seen, every single show, every single channel. Isn’t this our fucking money you’re meant to give out should, god forbid, something happen?

While there’s certainly no redeeming feature to be found in the advertising industry, I feel like you might be missing the point of insurance. An insurance does not safe-keep “your” money. You pay insurance for a service, you then receive the service and your money is gone, spent, as if you had bought groceries. The service you receive is what is called “coverage” but what is more easily thought of as “immunity against bankruptcy due to X”, X being the insurance case. That’s what you buy.

Figuring out how to best allocate the money is up to the insurance - it’s their money, after all.

It’s the content, presumably in order to maintain exclusivity of the little private club. That’s part of the problem, I suppose. Private trackers aren’t just an anonymous one-stop supermarket like some public trackers, they’re often small personal hangouts, actual communities. In of itself that sounds great, but it always carries the danger of content being held hostage for what - at least in my eyes - amounts to pointless, snobby elitism.

I strongly disapprove of private trackers. I’m forced to take part in some only because the content isn’t available anywhere else. And the private trackers generally forbid re-sharing their content on public trackers, which unnecessarily gatekeeps the content and perpetuates the problem.
If it doen’t help to make everything accessible to everybody then it’s not a valuable part of the sharing ecosystem.

Unless it can natively run all the existing ready-to-go Pi images and software packages and will also receive community support when I ask for help in a Pi-adjacent forum it’s not really going to be a competitor to the Pi. The hardware is pretty much irrelevant.

Privacy sentiments are subjective beliefs, not an objective fact like nature.

I genuinely don’t see a point in engaging with you, even just based on what I stated above where you use your personal beliefs in line with objective, provable elements of the natural world. So I’ll choose not to. Cheers. 👍

While I obviously cannot force you to continue a conversation you do not wish to have, I’m a bit perplexed by what you’re saying here and at what point “belief” entered the conversation. If you’re saying that data, personal and otherwise, has no real, objective, provable value then surely that would go against all physical evidence? There must be some kind of misunderstanding here. Well, cheers ✋

Is that just something that’s intrinsically missing from some distros due to technical constraints or is it a regular type of feature the simply hasn’t been implemented (yet) due to… human constraints?

I wouldn’t mind you finding out any information about me. I would mind you feeling entitled to me putting in effort and time to answer you. I’ve read all the suggestions people here posted and none made me reflect or get anywhere near changing my mind. Privacy centric people just have to accept not everyone is like them. I respect your need for privacy. I don’t understand why you obsessively require me to hold the same belief.

I don’t think anyone requires you to hold any specific beliefs, nobody within this comment chain anyway.

It’s a bit akin to meeting someone on the street and being told “It’s nighttime!” while the sun is out. I’d definitely be interested in understanding why that other person considers it to be nighttime and I would at the very least be disappointed not to get a conversation out of it.

Three different fictitious requests:

1. “Can you spare some change?”
2. “Would you let me skip ahead of the queue please? I have an urgent appointment later on.”
3. “Will you let us share your user data with our partners in order to improve our services?”

I’m assuming here - and please correct me if I am wrong - that you would be likely to acquiesce to 3. in most contexts, maybe even more likely than to acquiesce to 1. or 2.?

You unfortunately can’t teach something like this to someone who doesn’t even understand the consequences of it. Or care.

You can absolutely explain it and teach it and make people care. It’s just not easy. I’ve only ever encountered uninformed “I have nothing to hide”-responses to equally lackluster throwaway explanations . It’s a very difficult and abstract topic, it doesn’t come naturally! Don’t treat privacy concerns as equivalent to pointing out dirt on someone’s clothes, treat it like calculus. Successfully conveying it requires time, conversation and didactics.

I am literally this. Just let us be tbh.

Are you absolutely sure that you flat-out “don’t have anything to hide” and would readily and truthfully furnish me with every information I asked of you? :P

what? no! licenses are how authors are deciding to grant specific permissions on their copyright.

Sure. But that does not contradict what I wrote.

that is like saying because you found a book in a library you have the choice to copy it and sell it.

That is precisely the choice one has. It’s a choice one doesn’t have when one doesn’t know the contents of the book or when they are confronted with closed-source software.

the fact that source is available does not grant any permission besides looking at it.

Yes I agree. “Making the choice” would require making it without the author’s permission.
But again, I’m not talking about permissions as I don’t really consider them to be nearly as important as availability and ability. One has the ability to modify/use code with the source and without permission one does not have the ability to modify/use code without the source and with permission.

So yes, Libre is nice, but the source-open aspect is always the most important component.

Most important to me: Which of them is easier to self-host?

I’ve been running a Mumble server for my friends for over a decade now and I’d like… something more without having to get too technical. Mumble is literally just a single apt-get and you’re basically done, so that’s about the level of technical expertise that I bring to the table. I’ve tentatively looked into other solutions over the years but I always feel my attention drifting when the setup-tutorial covers multiple pages and starts with manually configuring some database or certificate authority or whatever. Sorry, I didn’t mean for this to get too ranty.

I’m getting brain damage from this thread. So many stupid people here.

2010 called, it wants its vaguebooking back 😜

But in all seriousness, if you have grievances or consider any particular piece of information that you stumble upon to be incorrect then you need to either point that out specifically or refrain from commenting - otherwise you’re actively confusing and deteriorating a conversation, that’s not good.

The source code from windows have been leaked a few times already. Try repackaging it or redistributing with modifications, see how far it will go before you get sued into oblivion.

I’m not really sure what you mean here, it has been modified and redistributed vigorously ever since its leak.

“Suing a random internet person on the other side of the world” is rarely a successful proposition. In order for that to work there would have to be incentive, jurisdiction and a lack of anonymity :P