lckdscl [they/them]

That’s a common convention in academic papers to demonstrate pairs of correlations, it’s the same as writing

“We also find a positive correlation between cognitive ability and realistic beliefs AND a negative correlation between cognitive ability and pessimistic beliefs.”

Well guess I’ll add one more to my three a day.

I know you meant well, but I don’t think their interpretation implied any logical fallacy. I used a conditional statement but my statement was prescriptive, not descriptive.

The difference between “I should” and “I have to/must” is a modal one. I implied “if I have to X then I shouldn’t Y”. They swapped X and Y around to get “If I have to Y then I shouldn’t X”, which is just a plain misinterpretation. The use of what is and what ought implies a recommendation or opinion, not mutual exclusivity. For that, I would have to use the same modality “If I have to X then I must not do Y”.

It’s like mixing up “If I have an infectious disease, I shouldn’t go outside” vs. “If I have to go outside, I shouldn’t have an infectious disease”. To me, they have a subtle difference. There is compromise and decision-making involved.

I’ll spell it out anyway because why not. I can’t be bothered to edit my original comment. While it’s sensational-sounding, anyone who take issue with what I said don’t take surveillance properly so I can’t help them, while those that misinterpreted me like nous did can find out for themselves here.

Yeah I agree. To be clear, if you take the reverse of my statement, i.e. if you’re on Windows, you shouldn’t use Tor, then I would be gatekeeping.

But I’m not implying that, but rather the reverse. I’m saying if you have use Tor for whatever reasons to bypass censorship, do illegal stuff and avoid being tracked, you should at least be aware that at the kernel level, how you’re accessing the internet has already been compromised by Microsoft, and consider alternatives OSes

Of course I’d still want people running Windows to be able to use Tor, and also I’d say leaving Windows isn’t something you would only do at the “highest threat model”.

Privacy will almost always be a trade-off with convenience, I’m pushing the awareness to get people to act, should they choose to. That’s all.

Agreed. I thought of ISP restrictions too, but I would say if where you live places a level of censorship due to political reasons or otherwise and you need to access it for whatever reasons so you need Tor then by all means Microsoft is not your friend since they’re a privacy nightmare.

There are also VPNs for banned media, I typically wouldn’t want to use Tor for anything more than textual content as it puts too much load on the Tor network.

If you have to use Tor you shouldn’t be using Windows.

Subsonic-based alternatives are good too. Navidrome and gonic, for instance.

So while governments can bailout big companies that are able to serve their greater interests, medical companies with cases like this and the bionic-eye one slip away without any kind of intervention?

We have multi-million-dollar VC funds for an app and this shit is allowed to happen.

why not just let her keep it

It could also be for patenting reasons.

Do you mean sandboxing? Isn’t this just Firefox’s project Fission, which is already implemented?

Weird, did they not enforce the use of a VPN if you want to SSH outside the network or was this done by someone on campus?

Damn they’re making todo lists a subscription service now??

To answer the question: anything that provides a CALDAV backend (e.g. Nextcloud, Etesync, Radicale). Some are free with limited storage, but some are subscription based, but you get calendar, storage, other stuff too. You can additionally self-host a CALDAV server or Nextcloud to use these services gratuit. For a more minimal implentation, try plain text, markdown, orgmode, etc., and use Syncthing to sync between devices.