"Imagine browsing without trackers following you everywhere or your phone’s performance lagging because of ads. That's the kind of freedom GrapheneOS promises."
It's hard to take the sales pitch seriously after such disingenuous statements such as this. The OS itself doesn't serve ads, but rather the apps you install and the web pages you visit. As well, as soon as you browse the web or install one of your most loved popular apps, you're being tracked. For the average user, the one that wants to use the same apps on the gOS OS that they do on stock android, they will be faced with basically the same ads and the same tracking.
The graphene install docs is in your language and will walk you through the install process. Their support page points you to discord, telegram, matrix support channels as well.
https://grapheneos.org/install/
https://grapheneos.org/contact#community
As a general rule anyone that asks for a non-proprietary thing that will do everything their proprietary thing does without alternative solutions allowed is so far from the reality of non-proprietary software in a proprietary world that they can not be made happy so I'll leave the support of that to others.
Because children are so well known for their strict adherence to warning labels.
I don't mean this flippantly but suicide is ok. The hard part in my mind is if you ou leave behind people that would be fucked up in your absence. That's the part I struggle with.
It's not Voyager's fault, Lemmy has always promoted dead and abandoned communties as "trending". The grouping is useless and can always be safely ignored.
On desktop, I use an ad blocker to hide the div.
You could also say electricity or copper is a large component of it but I would argue that it's really just another tool being used to fleece victims. I don't feel the issue here is AI or is even largely exacerbated by AI. There are no ramifications to the people that are behind the scams. That's the real problem.
This is another issue that really has nothing to do with AI and everything to do with the lack of protection to consumers via the outlets allowing and collecting ad revenue from unscrupulous and illegal enterprises.
What a bullshit title. It had nothing to do with being unable to see it and everything to do with typical driving while browsing your phone.
It's reddit, you get what you get. That's why the majority of us stopped using it.
I disagree but we'll revisit the conversation in a decade as I added the task to my calendar so I'll talk to you in 2034.
This has always interested me, on an explorer's level, the ruins of the plants have always really stuck in my mind. Growing up, it was always spoken of in the context of "US automakers couldn't keep up with changing trends and they just lost it all" but that's not true at all. Almost all of the companies involved with these types of abandonments are doing great, in fact, better than ever. When things really did get dire for US automakers during the recession around 2009, the goverment simply bailed them out with tax dollars.
An excerpt from the video: "It's the excess of Capitalism. In some ways, people thought this was the failure of Capitalism but we could also see it as the success of Capitalism. The automobile industries got away like bandits. They got out of there, they took the money and left. They left the mess, they left a working class and a deteriorating environment for someone else to clean up."
As an older person now, I wonder how many more of these export moves can occur in industries before the people expected to buy the imported product can no longer afford to.
I read the synopsis of the book(thanks for the link). I can see where a book like this wouldn't be appropriate for a 10yo but an entire school system ban seems an overreach.
It would be nice to ensure that as a parent, I was the one introducing topics to my child but having raised her already, I realize that unless I kept her at home her entire childhood, that's a pipe dream. I would have been ok with that book being at her school and if she had read it, she most likely would have talked to me about it as we had many candid conversations on sexuality, relationships and other topics that she came to be aware of via the internet, media or friends.
I'm very curious about what content in a Judy Blume book met the “pornographic or indecent material" burden mentioned in the article.
Other states hoping to finally be able to become a completely Christian-run entity will be taking notes.
Can I ask why you can't let them talk their nonsense? I know you don't think you can change them so if you choose to hang out with them, why can't you just let them be them? I'm not telling you that you should hang out with them, just that joining in on their discussion is a zero sum game.
I chose not to interact with family any longer and haven't spoken to any of them in years. Not out of anger or spite but simply because none of us were getting anything positive from the relationship.
The senators were not the ones that exposed anything.
Well, I guess if you believe in a space daddy that helps your football team to win and blesses your cheeseburger, you'll believe anything.
The John Doe profiles were set up in April as generic 24-year-old males
Does the fact that they only used dummy male accounts and didn't bother to find out what women are subjected to represent the authors' own misogyny? Perhaps The Guardian should look at cleaning it's own house up before finding dirt on others'.
Hi there,
I hope this is allowed. I need some help gaining an understanding of trans life and some of the issues that are faced, what defines it and a couple other things. It won't hurt my feelings if this gets deleted. If so, I won't bother you again.
To help explain why I'm so clueless, I'm a white 50yo married guy with one young adult hetero child. I have absolutely no real life context to apply and I'm not what you would consider culture-savvy(I don't follow news/media, have no circle of people, basically, I hang out in the woods by myself). I understand very little of the relative explosion of references that I see on the web.
First, the only thing I think I understand is that gender is considered a social construct, leading to the popularity of choosing your own pronouns( I know there's much more, I'm using the pronouns as something I often see). Understanding as little as I do, I try to frame discussion in a way that I don't ever use pronouns to try to keep from offending. I'll say something like "I think the OP meant this" instead of using a pronoun.
That's sadly it. I don't understand anything else but I do have some specific questions that are intended to inform me, not to offend. Please forgive me if I've framed these inappropriately. It's due to ignorance that I'm trying to rectify, not from a place of ridicule.
First, from wikipedia: A transgender person (often shortened to trans person) is someone whose gender identity differs from that typically associated with the sex they were assigned at birth.
Question 1 - I think I understand the part where a person disagrees with the gender assigned to them at birth but when I see a transgender person, they seem to be striving to dress and look like the opposite gender. What I mean by this is I rarely see a picture of a person choosing she/her but dressing and having hairstyles more associated with their assigned birth gender. Does this mean that although they were born with certain reproductive organs at birth normally associated with a particular gender, they feel that some part inside them(soul, mind, etc) feels they should have been born with the opposite socially constructed gender?
My second question and this is where I swear I am not aiming to offend. I will try to explain what led me to this thought - When a person chooses to take hormones that their body doesn't make on it's own or chooses to have surgery to rebuild sexual organs that they weren't born with or to add/remove breasts, Is this element of trans life considered a mental illness? The only reason I ask this is I remember watching a documentary where people lived a life in which they felt, for example, that one of their arms didn't belong to them and they pursued surgery to have a working limb removed. During the documentary, some of the people during therapy and medication were able to change their mindset to the point that they could live with the offending limb but there were some people that were traveling to other countries to have it removed (the doc was based in the US and they couldn't find a doctor to perform the surgery). The only reason I ask is because of that, My mind goes to body parts that the person doesn't feel belongs but that they were born with and not something socially attached to them.
There's much more that I don't understand but I really feel like this wall of text is enough to unpack, if you choose to do so. Thank you in advance for your time and patience. I appreciate any insight you choose to provide.