Ferk
How can Apple debunk it?
If I told you I know of a way by which I can "hack" the lock of your house to enter it, how can you prove whether I'm lying or not? Specially if I'm not willing to show you how I do it, and I haven't given you any proof of having actually done it that you can try to dispute.
Apparently, this article is talking about the "Legacy CS:GO Version" that was available (even after the CS2 launch) for devices that were unable to run CS2. It seems that was less than 1% of CS:GO players, so they are ending support for it, even though they claim it should still be available with reduced compatibility.
I think anyone can switch to this version in the "Beta" tab of the properties window for CS2 by selecting "csgo_legacy".
What is the legacy version of CS:GO?
The legacy version of CS:GO is a frozen build of CS:GO. It has all of the features of CS:GO except for official matchmaking.
What will happen after the end of support for the legacy version of CS:GO?
After January 1, 2024 the game will still be available, but certain functionality that relies on compatibility with the Game Coordinator (e.g., access to inventory) may degrade and/or fail.
The problem is that people apparently like the abuse.
Why is so many people simping for Adobe products? And even promoting them in the education levels...
Even if the competition were technologically inferior (which I don't know if it's really true) I'd rather the industry sacrificed throwing away 10+ years of adobe-driven improvements if we could get rid of the shackles.
I don't think "the development" is what is claimed to be at stake here.
OP is not talking about the software, they're talking about the content. And the content model from Mastodon is not interchangeable with the one from Lemmy, Pixelfed, etc. they serve different purposes and have different models. In fact that's the main interoperatibility barrier between them.
It's like saying that if most people use gmail for email you will switch from email to audio calls to avoid communicating with google's service. As if real time audio were the same thing as sending a message (or as if google was unable to add compatibility with that call service too if they wanted).
One thing you could argue is, instead of switching services, switching to an instance that does defederate if you dont want threads content. But that same argument can be said as well towards those wanting threads federation...
But dont think the point is what does the individual want (if that were the case, just use the option to block threads content for your user, without defederating), the point is what's best for the fediverse. I think people are afraid that something similar to what happened with "google talk" and their embrace of xmpp will repeat.
Personally, I think there's no reason to jump the gun this early... all of this post is based on a lot of weak assumptions. I dont believe that threads content would overwhelm the feeds, and if that were to happen then the software could be tweaked so the contribution of each instance to the feeds can be weighted and made more customizable, for example.
git switch
Oh wow, I didn't know about this one. I guess it's relatively new?
Is it just a convenience command to try and be more specific (less multi purpose) than git checkout for switching branches or does it bring any extra benefit? ...I'm already quite used to my git co alias, to the point that it's almost hardwired to my fingers by now :P
Most of those 90% of vendors are not big enough to pull it off. The ones with the muscle to do it successfully are apparently offered special deals by Google that make it not really worth it for them to spend the effort to try and invest in building their own store. Specially if doing so compromises that deal.
Add to that the technical hurdles of trying to run a store in an OS managed by the competition and with increasingly tight security restrictions for functionality that is considered "system level" (eg. automatic updates on F-droid don't work unless you root/flash the firmware..), to the point that you need to make your own OS/firmware if you want to be a real alternative with the same level of user friendliness.
Then add the technical hurdles of installing/managing an alternative firmware for several phone models, to the point that it might be easier to become (or partner with) a phone manufacturer.
Then add to that how competitive and ruthless the phone manufacturing market is, with very thin margins, and how reluctant people are to trying something that isn't already mainstream and doesn't have the fancy apps from the remaining 10% of successful big companies in the Play Store.
A giant as big as Amazon tried to pull it off at a few of those levels (from running their own installable store on regular Android to making their own devices with their own firmware) and even with all the pull from Amazon it isn't making much of a dent. And in some of the device categories (like the fire phones) they already gave up.
This is further crippled by how the increasingly tight security measures in Android make harder and harder to add functionality that is considered "system-level" and is as deeply integrated as the Play Store.
You can't simply install F-droid and expect the same level of user friendliness and automatic app updates as in the official Play Store. Without esoteric, hackish and warranty-voiding rooting methods, you need to give manual user confirmation for every small update. You need to update 30 apps that accumulated because you forgot to manually update each of them? get prepared for going 30 times thought the same process of pressing buttons and giving confirmation for each of them.
If your grocery store "willfully acquired or maintained monopoly power by engaging in anticompetitive conduct".. then you'd be actively and purposefully affecting the ability for anyone to "try to build an alternative to compete with [it]".
They aren't asking Google to use a specific price, what they are asking is for them to stop offering special custom-made deals under the table for some of the partners with the intent of preventing competition. Nobody is stopping Google from offering the same fees to everyone indiscriminately... the issue is when they pick and choose with the purpose of minimizing/discouraging competition. Particularly when they are already the biggest one in their market by a wide margin, so they have a higher power/responsibility than a Mom'n'Pop store.
Would it help turning on the setting to have the links always open in a new tab?
It's been a long time since I used ddg, but I believe they have the option in their settings page, most search engines do.
They aren't saying that the email/number is part of the message. What the are saying is that they are able to decrypt the logs in order to identify the senders .
It could be they cross-reference matching some internal ids / tokens / physical addresses of the devices together with all the data the Chinese government already has (or can obtain) ...or it could be a bluff.. who knows... there's not enough information, and what we know is probably distorted.