0 F is defined as the lowest temperature a guy was able to reach with some random mixture which is arbitrary.

But 0 C is commonly defined as the point at which water turns from solid to liquid and the other way round. Scientifically it’s ever so slightly off but still it’s defined via Kelvin.

Might help some people realize that fingerprints are not as secure as they think.

Given the enormous amount of metadata companies collect about us and the obvious connections of fabric to yourself, you are surprised that LinkedIn got it at least partially right?

By the way, I have no idea why the algorithm showed me this job.

No need to stay in the closet, Squiddy! After all it’s one of the true manly arts.

^Full disclosure, I got no idea whether Squid is man or woman or anything in between.^

I think non-software people call this getting their face eaten by leopards.

Our “left”-centre government party here in Germany is still trying to pass the next version of a surveillance bill, which has been struck down multiple times for being unconstitutional over the years. All the while, it is getting more and more likely that we will have our own neo-nazis in power next year.

In case you are serious: Lemmy.ml is known for being a tankie instance. So a nonsensical anti-west statement makes a lot more sense considering the instance the user chose.

Yay, let’s all hate on the one crypto messenger, that is independently verifiably secure.

If Telegram wasn’t good for privacy, Western governments would not be trying to shut it down.

They are not trying shutdown Telegram, they are trying to control it.

E2EE is nice, but doesn’t matter if the government can just sieze or hack your phone. Much better to use non-Western social media and messaging apps.

What kind of argument is this supposed to be? Governments can size your phone anywhere … oh wait … lemmy.ml … yeah, I see…

It IS the point. If Telegram was designed and set up as a pure carrier of encrypted information, no one could/should fault them for how the service is used.

However, this is not the case, and they are able to monitor and control the content that is shared. This means they have a moral and legal responsibility to make sure the service is used in accordance with the law.

I am going to quote myself here:

The issue I see with Telegram is that they retain a certain control over the content on their platform, as they have blocked channels in the past. That’s unlike for example Signal, which only acts as a carrier for the encrypted data.

If they have control over what people are able to share via their platform, the relevant laws should apply, imho.

Well, except Telegram isn’t a good tool for privacy.

There is no E2EE. Simple encryption is only available for 1:1 chats and disabled by default. Telegram doesn’t disclose their encryption methods, so there is no way to verify the (in)effectiveness. Telegram is able to block channels from their end, so there is no privacy from their end either.

For what? Destabilizing the whole technological ecosystem of the planet is not a crime. ¯\(ツ)/¯