amanneedsamaid

#1 kinda nice imo

Definitely Trump. Tried to subvert democracy, wholly unprofessional attitude as president (in my opinion the first president to not even attempt "rising to the office" at all), handled the economy with the tact of a middle schooler, and (allegedly) divulged / kept classified documents. He is also a civilly liable rapist. All of this I think makes Trump the third worst president of all time, behind James Buchanan and Franklin Pierce.

George Bush is easily the second worst president in modern history, his initial response to 9/11 was a highpoint, but afterwards he started a useless war and, although he incorrectly wouldn't see it this way, bent at the knee to terrorism by subverting constitutional rights for the purposes of mass searches and seizures of information without a warrant or reasonable cause. (i.e. Patriot Act). It's been a while since I hashed out a whole list, but I believe I had Bush somewhere between 7th and 12th worst or so.

Both are absolute pieces of shit.

I think your Senior year of high school oughta be the cutoff, but I don't have any issues with college students trick or treating, so I think 23 or so would be my candy refusal threshold. This actually reminds me of a story I read a long time ago:

It's Halloween and there's a knock on the door, nothing out of the ordinary, and the person got up and went to the door. When they opened it, they found another door and doorframe up against their door, which read "Please knock for candy", they knocked and were offered candy by some college students who were carrying an entire door and frame around for this bit. I believe it ended with the homeowner refusing candy and giving the college students candy.

So yeah, I need to add an exception to my Halloween code of ethics: An awesome costume / gag can make up for any age.

Bronze reclaimed from an unskilled (compared to USG), traitorous general. 👍

Agreed

I'm not sure how, but you can find their username on lemmy 💀

Added an obligatory disable cryptocrap to make it slightly more bearable

They know your relationships with other people, and could infer things about you which will be stored in their servers regardless of whether you have a Facebook account, I believe if you search for "shadow accounts" you can read more about that

You could compile the software yourself, and the builds they do publish are reproducable, therefore any hidden malicious code would almost certainly be noticed in any popular application.

Metadata is all the content of a message besides the actual text content of the message (i.e. what you type). Examples would be the date and time it is sent, what users these messages were sent to / from, and the IP addresses of both parties. (The availability of metadata varies from messenger to messenger).

I like this example: If you only text your Aunt Sally, who lives in Alaska, twice per year to wish her a happy birthday and Christmas, just by looking at the metadata someone could infer the meaning of your messages, as well as your relationship to the person you're messaging. To a point this is true about any messages you sent.

As for Whatsapp specifically, it being end-to-end doesn't really matter imo, as the application is not open source and is owned by an advertising / social media company. As long as the code is closed source, you cannot be sure:

1. That your messages are encrypted at all
2. That your encryption keys are kept on-device, and not plainly available to a centralized party
3. That the encryption the application is using is securely implemented

At least for applications handling truly sensitive information (for the average person only their messenger and browser), you should be using open source software. The easiest recommendations I can make are:

1. Browsers: Firefox, Thorium, Brave (disabled all cryptocrap)
2. Messengers: Signal, SimpleX Chat, XMPP

Anyways, I hope this was a satisfactory answer.

I think wining about land that was conquered (as well as who's inhabitants populations would've been decimated by disease upon contact with Europeans either way) very similarly to other places throughout history doesn't have much merit. I'm sympathetic to tribes who have had their sacred land promised to them and taken away (like the Black Hills). In terms of what American Indians are entitled to have back, I think cultural artifacts have a stronger argument than land, regardless of what they care about more.

Im actually sympathetic to your sentiment when it comes to the land they lived on, but definitely not when it's applied to historical artifacts which are culturally significant to them.