My point. We don't have code so we have to trust them blindly.
Telegram was never safe. All anyone ever had was their word that some chats are end-to-end encrypted.
Really simple. Just ask it to point out the error. Also maybe tell it how the code is wrong. And then hope that the new code didn't introduce new errors in formerly working sections. And that it understood what you meant. In a language that is inherently vague.
Flohmarkt? Seems simple enough.
Almost like ecosystems make sense 🤔
In an attempt to weasel out of the liability for the woman's death Disney's lawyers pulled out the forced arbitration clause of the widower's Disney+ subscription.
Meaning they're effectively arguing that because he gives them money to use their service they should be allowed to get away with murder or at least criminal negligence.
I don't think they've realised yet, what a foot-gun this argument is. On top of the obvious moral issues with this line of argument. I mean, this has "give us your firstborn" vibes.
It's honestly disgusting.
USA says "jump" and every country goes "Yes, daddy. How high, daddy?"
That's only useful in commit messages, issue discussions and stuff like that. Why would the devs even make that execute in source files, where it's all but guaranteed to be a false match??
The ActivationPolicy I added in an attempt to replicate what wg-quick produces, as I recall.
It's not about being helpful in the sense of just answering the question at hand. If OP just wanted the question answered they can just Google it. Instead I wanted to offer an alternative, low risk solution.
While Ubisoft, EA and consorts can easily stomach some piracy and still crank out "AAA" titles in a 6-months interval, it hurts small studios relatively more. Buying and returning, on the other hand, offers a way to give feedback to the studio via the return reason and costs just as little as piracy.