China is not communist, they are market-captialistic, one-party highly authoritarian state. "socialism" and "cmmunism" is just used to make them sound better and more legitimate than they are.
OSM also uses localized names for places. So there might be name changes happening there as well.
Not sure exactly how they do it for international names, they probably have a system, but if Trump starts renaming towns and states in the US like "State of Pu**ygrab", "State of Hillaries-emails" or whatever, everyone has to adapt, in order to not be disrespectful of the people and culture of the united states as is making any kind of fun about these cultural and historic differences. People from outside just do not understand them and their need to validate their place in the world as deeply as the people living there.
Etwas weitere das mich an den Linken stört, das die bisher (meines Wissens nach) nie klar sich von der SED vergangenheit distanziert haben und die Poltik von damals nicht ernsthaft kritisiert haben.
Alles was ich bisher von denen gehört habe war "Staatssozialismus hat nicht funktioniert achselzuck" aber keine klare Stellungnahme und Abrechnung zu all dem anderen Zeug.
Für Russland. Es gibt Propaganda für jedes Gemut, klare pro-Russland Propaganda von BSW für Leute die darauf anspringen, und "ausgewogene anti-krieg/Pazifistische" unterschwellige Propaganda für Leute denen die Erste zu extrem ist.
Kann auch gut sein das einzelne Akteure garnicht wissen welche Propaganda sie verbreiten, aber wenn man Pazifismus einem Land welches Angegriffen wird nahelegt, unterstützt man den Angreifer.
Deutschland hat mit diesem Plan viel mehr Chancen Ukraine Kampfunfähig zu machen als Russland. Was Russland gelegen kommt. Und das Russland verhandlungsbereit ist diesen Krieg ohne Landverluste bei Ukraine zu beenden, halte ich auch für sehr unwarscheinlich, aber das ist spekulation meinerseits. Auf alle Fälle ist dieser Plan mehr zu gunsten Russlands als Ukraine.
Frag mal die Ukraine was die lieber wollen, Waffen oder das wir Russland sanktionieren. Das ist kein gerechter Tausch.
Also wenn es nach denen geht würde Deutschland Waffenlieferungen stoppen und stattdessen Russland noch mehr sanktionieren. Und die wollen damit erreichen das sowohl Russland wie auch Ukraine kampfunfähig sind und sich an einen Verhandlungstisch setzen. Und damit hier Russland nicht einmarschiert soll die NATO und oder UN die Grenzen sichern.
Für mich hört sich das ziemlich naiv an. Russland wird wegen ein paar Sanktionen nicht den Krieg beenden. Wenn man die ganze Lieferkette für die Waffenproduktion im Land hat, baucht man kein Geld vom Außland, und Russland hat auch Verbündete.
Ukraine kann man jedoch direkt Kampfunfähig machen, die sind auf den Westen viel mehr angewiesen.
Deutschland alleine kann auch nicht entscheiden wo und wann Nato und UN Truppen eingesetzt werden, also vielleicht sollte man das zuerst mal in die Wege leiten, bevor man die Waffenlieferungen stoppt. Damit die Grenzen nicht unbewacht bleiben.
Er ist sehr eloquent, aber irgendwie riecht das mehr nach eher unterschwelliger Propaganda. Die klingt im ersten Eindruck gut, aber irgendwie bröselt sie trotzdem.
An argument I heard was that larger and luxurious cars finance the technology development necessary to produce more economic cars. Which I guess is true to some extend.
But there are also many other aspects that favor large and expensive cars over cheap and economic. We still should demand tighter regulations on cars.
The first phone I bought myself (I had others before, but they where hand-me-downs) was the N900, which should have been the next generation of smartphones/devices. But because of Microsoft and Stephen Elop it wasn't.
Not sure you understood my point. The "Gold" that people search for when trying to push "AI" is that they have to pay less wages, because they need fewer employees. Wherever they find it, or not is irrelevant.
Automation was always heralded as a time saver, but do employees really need to work less to get the same amount of money? No, because automation is always used to give the top percentages more money for less work, not the workers or the broad public.
I haven't looked into it (because Android repos are confusing), but I assume it allows just one specific signature to spoof one other specific signature. If so then I do not see such a security issue, because it wouldn't suddenly open this mechanism up to everyone.
Even if it would require spoofing of multiple signatures, if there is a limited list of signatures to spoof as and a whitelist of signatures for the apps that are allowed to spoof them, then it would also be limited enough, IMO.
Well it seems like a pretty natural fallacy to think that if something talks to us, in a language that we understand, that it must be intelligent. But it also doesn't help that LLMs, aka. fancy text generators built with machine learning algorithms, are marketed as artificial intelligence.
Maybe an unpopular opinion here, the Android security model is based around trusting the vendor of the device or ROM more than the end-user, which I find wrong in principle. The origin of trust needs to be fully in the hands of the owner of the device. Otherwise you take away the self-determination of the users, and that should never be an option when it comes to security.
Users themselves should be able to give or take away trust however they choose, and if they are unsure on whom to trust for certain things, they should be able to delegate that trust-management to a third-party on their own accord and with the ability to revoke it at any point.
Everyone is different, and trusts entities to different degrees. For instance I would trust MicroG more to only transmit data that is absolutely required to google servers, than the gapps.
Also, modifying the kernel is already done by google, in order to provide hardware support, so patching it additionally doesn't automatically make it more or less secure. That depends on what those patches do, and if those patches are properly maintained.
I found the main issue with many non-rolling release distributions are the upgrade instructions from one stable release to the next, and not the difficulty of installing them.
I'm myself a Archlinux guy, but that does sometimes require some carefulness and regularly (at least weekly) applying updates and does not have stable automatic updates, so I started installing Fedora atomic desktop distributions (Fedora Silverblue/Kinolite/etc.) for people that just want to use their device for basic stuff.
The reason for that is long term maintainability without an expert at hand.
I had so many bad experiences updating distributions from one stable version to the next, be it Debian and Ubuntu-based, or Fedora-based distributions.
And with those atomic desktop distributions the amount of moving parts is much lower, so hopefully upgrading them to newer releases is much more stable.
So I would suggest giving Fedora Silverblue (Gnome desktop), Kinolite (KDE) or Budgie Edition a try.
Yes, but only in one direction and if you use UDP instead of TCP. Also your MTU needs to be small enough for the packages to fit between the blades of the fan, otherwise that causes package fragmentation.
If vendors are either forced by law to keep every device they produce up to date with security fixes, until is patents and copyright expires, or have to allow end users to install any alternative software, without loosing any features advertised and provided by the hardware. I would be fine with that compromise.
China is not communist, they are market-captialistic, one-party highly authoritarian state. "socialism" and "cmmunism" is just used to make them sound better and more legitimate than they are.