Hard disagree. If you receive 1% of your overall funding from one organization, that's a close formal association. It doesn't automatically mean their reporting is compromised or anything else you might assume comes along with that tag, but it definitely does apply in this case.
blaine
joined 1 year ago
Twitter didn't say they had government appointed staff. They said they were "state affiliated". Which you just confirmed as 100% true.
It's from a movie named "Half Baked".
What if it's a sailing yacht, powered by wind and solar?
Same here. I think I'll just cancel and install SmartTube on all of my Chromecasts.
Same here, but I'm locked in at $7.99
Not only does this bill not have anything to do with searches or seizures by the government, it goes out of its way not to require cloud providers to perform any searches of their own. Where are you seeing a 4th amendment violation?
Except there are specific exclusions in the bill to address this. Hell, the three paragraphs before the one mentioning "deliberately blinding" are all dedicated to explaining why it doesn't apply to end-to-end encryption.
The only way you could think this bill targets end-to-end encryption is if you only read the terrible headline and didn't bother to read the actual bill. Before you freak out about paragraph 4, be sure to look at paragraphs 1-3.
I don't know how anyone can say that Star Wars has more lore than Star Trek. They both have about the same number of movies and books, but Star Trek has hundreds more episodes of TV to expand the lore even further.
Am I the only one who saw Prigojak?
Just because 'Statement A' implies 'Implication B' does not make 'Statement A' any less true.
If you receive 1% of your overall funding from one organization, that's a close formal association. It doesn't automatically mean their reporting is compromised or anything else you might assume comes along with that tag, but that tag is definitely accurate in this case.