you’re talking about bugs, not backdoors. A backdoor is something intentional

yes, if i combare kicad with blender, neither is broken because they have different features. But also, nobody is telling users that kicad’s days are over and it should be replaced by blender. If they did, and a user wanted to design a circuit board, the user is out of luck. The user is told that it is a replacement. From the user’s point of view it most definitely is not.

The probeem isn’t just that wayland doesn’t do everything x does. But that users are told that it will replace x, deal with it and quit complaining.

We have to keep in mind that the fact that we know what wayland is in the first place puts us squarely into the “technical user” category, not regular users. Regular users are the ones who don’t even know (nor should they have to care) what wayland even is

but it is not a feature i want. not now, not ever. An inbuilt bullshit generator, now with less training and more bullshit is not something I ever asked for.

Training one of these ais requires huge datacenters, insanely huge datasets and millions of dollars in resources. And I’m supposed to believe one will be effectively trained by the pittance of data generated by browsing?

“that thing you used to do is now impossible to do consistently across different implementations, if at all. But it’s all ok, because we have decided it’s not our responsibility!”

That is not what users want to hear. From a user’s point of view, it is broken.

they actually could be made to run at 20 MHz with some software tweaks. But sram is still much less

arduinos run at 16 MHz

imagine you have a simple equation:

ax + by + cz

The machine learning part finds values for the coefficients a, b and c.

Even if you stepped through the code, you will see the equation be evaluated just fine, but you still won’t know why the coefficients are the way they are. Oh and there are literally billions of coefficients.

well, yes of course i trust you less. It’s the whole point of wanting labelling in the first place, so I can know it’s not trustworthy in any way

but why? you’ll still measure things in football fields, elephants or “large boulders” so it won’t affect you much

what does that have to do with anything? if you have to encrypt your messages manually yourself, that kind of proves the point that the service itself is not secure. And it’ll still show up on a network sniffer that they’re sending it to two places

that would be very quickly caught by a network sniffer, because it would have to be sent from your own device. Otherwise they’d just be sharing the undecryptable ciphertext you sent to their servers

so, relative to pretty much all other messaging services, it might as well not be.

You’re saying “by default not everyone can read your messages, only you, the recipient, telegram themselves and anyone who they might decide to share them with, with neither your consent, nor knowledge”

When compared to “nobody except you and the recipient” that becomes effectively equivalent to “nothing”.

also, not end-to-end ever when it comes to group chats

telegram is not encrypted by default, and does its best to make you forget to enable it for each individual contact. if you want to do a group chat, you’re out of luck.

Telegram is only (partially) secure for pedantic power users, which most people aren’t.

That’s the first one i’ve learned to use and I have a hard time actually using the escape key. it’s just so out of the way

you can just unplug your pc: and that way you won’t incur downtime for the rest of the house.

not even close. They were always intended for different purposes. They never were in competition

we know he plays zerg at least

isn’t that exactly what trains were designed for and are best at?

it’s pretty much just arch without systemd then. which is enough of a dealbreaker for me, as I think that systemd is the best thing to happen to linux since sliced bread.

it’s an acronym (as opposed to initialisms, which are not pronounced as a single word). There is no rule on pronunciation.

scuba nato laser

We don’t do this for any other acronym. There is no rule about the pronunciation. It’s arbitrary. The creator chose “jif”, so that’s the “canonical” one.