From the POV of someone who's never used a bidet, you come off like someone who was just looking for conflict.
KLISHDFSDF
joined 4 years ago
Ah, you're just trolling. Got it.
“Responsible” and “Bitcoin” is an oxymoron due to the inherent multi-level marketing pyramid/Ponzi scheme aspect of crypto“currencies”.
First, you're removing the next two words "financial diversification" from the statement. Your own personal opinions and emotions aside, financial diversification is not a bad idea. It's all about percentages and risk calculations. I would agree with you if they went "all in" on crypto, but they didn't say that.
Second, you're lumping in bad people with good tech that has solved a very specific problem - the ability to transfer funds without relying on a central bank or authority. Is email bad because the majority is spam? No. Is the internet bad because the dark web exists and thousands if not millions of crimes are being carried out on it? No. Are encrypted messengers bad because they allow criminals to send message? No. Same concept here. There can exist a good technology that gets abused by bad people.
“Money corrupts; bitcoin corrupts absolutely.
You can stop at "money corrupts". bitcoin is money and money corrupts.
Disregarding all of bitcoin's shortcomings, a financial instrument that brings out the worst in people—greed—won't change the world for the better.”
Disregarding all of the U.S. Dollar's shortcomings[1], a financial instrument that brings out the worst in people—greed—won't change the world for the better.”
Fixed it for you.
[1] The US spent 877 BILLION dollars on its defense budget (as much as the next 10 countries combined!) to ensure the USD keeps its power.
Do you disagree with their reason?
Responsible financial diversification requires holding some assets outside of the traditional government controlled banking system.
They didn't say they were going all in. They aren't continuously promoting - at least not that I'm aware. They were just being open and honest about how they're handling their finances.
container tabs don't just isolate but also give you the option to have multiple profiles without having to log in + out of websites. if you don't need that feature, then probably.
first I doubt anyone compiled the code themselves and use what’s in the app store
Molly-FOSS exists and is basically a Signal fork built by a third party that removes any non FOSS components. So there are groups of people who are building the Signal code and enhancing it.
the insistence to be tied to the phone number
This is a legacy requirement (Signal used to send encrypted messages via SMS) and is now primarily used for spam mitigation. This feature is unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your POV) costing them millions now, so I suspect they will eventually be forced to look to alternative spam mitigation methods as the cost to benefit ratio starts looking cheaper at spending engineer/developer time to figure out some alternative method.
refusing to work if you don’t update (in the app store)
If you're referring to the expiration of the app ever ~90 days, this is security feature. It prevents people from using old/outdated and potentially insecure or unpatched versions of Signal. Secondly, you don't need to update via the app store. There are some Signal forks (not sure if Molly is one of them) that remove this expiration, but even they will state that you should not expect the app to work forever as Signal's always being updated and using an old client will always be liable to break as its basically not being maintained.
Those clients exist despite Signal Foundation, not because they encourage community development. They are doing everything they can to discourage third party app development.
That was your original claim. None of the sources you provided back up your original claim. We can talk about Google libraries or the delay in server side code if you want to go down that path, but that's a completely different discussion. Why are you pivoting to other topics? Will you concede your original point or do you have evidence to back it up?
Look another American obsessed with Russia!
A single comment on Russia's bullshit spyware tactics does not equate with obsession. Are you going to refute the facts or continue to troll?
They could be waiting until it becomes a big issue
I guess I don't see that as a problem if its causing a big issue.
Let me throw it back to you: If you were providing a service and a third party client was using your resources and causing a "big issue" like you stated, would you not want to remediate the problem? Lets say you introduced a new feature, but it doesn't work for 15% of your user base because they're using an outdated third party client that may not get fixed for another year or two - if ever. What would you do?
Here's another example, lets say someone develops a client that lets you upload significantly bigger files and has an aggressive retry rate that as more people start using your client, it starts increasing the hardware requirements for your infrastructure. Do you just say "oh well", suck it up and deal with having to stand up more infrastructure due to the third party client doing things you didn't expect? Is that reasonable?
That link, and I could be missing it, has nothing to do with what I claimed. Mind editing your post and quoting a red flag linked at the source you provided?
agree to disagree