It may not work for you, but it does for many others. Don’t presume everyone life or situation is the same.

Well, at least they said "its" :)

Yes, there are most likely many examples of that. Several are immediately obvious: Help some people reconnect with old friends or family, help people organize events more conveniently, etc.

But it could be them, so that’s not really possible. You wouldn’t believe any explanation anyway. But it could also not be them.

I don't think the article supports your "phone exploits too to built it in their app" claim, though.

Probably because

1. It's a claim.
2. The devil is in the detail. They were probably not shopping for an exploit, but for other monitoring software. The article indicates as much.

The "phone exploits too to built it in their app" from parent is not really supported in the article.

Does it? So what if they didn't actually put the exploit in, what would you have them do then? The article states that the origin and nature are as of yet unknown.

EU legislation demands support for charging with standard USB and USB PD anyway.

It displayed 5Ge or something. 5G NR is an evolution on 4G LTE, so it might soorta make sense.

Very mature comment. Do you have any evidence for your claims, then?

> Many of the hardest problems in computer science will become tractable with quantum computers of sufficient size.

I would say some, not many. Many of the hardest problems are NP Complete, and quantum computers are not expected to help in solving those.

> Question: when the D-Wave was first announced, people were saying it wasn’t a “real” quantum computer, but I can’t remember why. Is that still the case for these models?

It’s not a general quantum computer, so you can’t put e.g. Shor’s algorithm on it.

> quantum computers that exist today could produce random numbers that can't be faked

That’s a strange phrasing. What is a fake random number? Besides, random noise from the environment is not predictable to any extent that lets you break crypto.

It’s not actually a factual reply, though. Especially not without provided evidence.

I doubt the charm offensive is specifically for allowing it on government devices, though.

How is that related to the points being made? It’s like if someone said “TV programs these days are bad” and you reply that you don’t own a TV or something.

> I guess they mean “security outside of the complete lack of security you have from us”.

According to some evidence you’ll now provide? :p

Was lobe-like or ray-like more ancestral, or neither?

You could rephrase as "Facebook and Google comply with subpoenas".

Well, there is cryptography.... (although that doesn't necessarily apply here.)

You are convinced based on no real evidence, though, in a field where biases are bound to be widespread. I'd not be so sure.

But they are also pretty much an autocracy.

> If someone could differentiate the difference in TikTok feed algorithm between every country beside China you would see a difference on what gets shown.

I think it's much more sensitive to what you seem to consume, no?

There is definitely a lot of fear around Reddit.

Yeah, you gotta love the “is a device” in the headline. No it’s not.

What about in skeptical mice? Or alternatively, what does naive mean in this context? :)