sudneo

For browser, there is a webapp that can be selfhosted. See here https://github.com/logseq/logseq/blob/master/docs/docker-web-app-guide.md

I think you need chromium browsers due to the API they use, but it should work.

Many encryption algorithms rely on the assumption that the factorizations of numbers in prime numbers has an exponential cost and not a polynomial cost (I.e. is a NP problem and not P, and we don't know if P != NP although many would bet on it). Whether there are infinite prime numbers or not is really irrelevant in the context you are mentioning, because encryption relies on factorizing finite numbers of relatively fixed sizes.

The problem is that for big numbers like n=p*q (where p and q are both prime) it's expensive to recover p and q given n.

Note that actually more modern ciphers don't rely on this (like elliptic curve crypto).

Every point can be supported with an analogy bad enough

Yep, my partner gave one for my birthday, it's basically plug-and-play. It can automatically harvest credentials, spoof captive portals, etc. I bet that in most places nobody would question something like this hanging on the ceiling indeed.

Just FYI https://shop.hak5.org/products/wifi-pineapple. There are ready-made devices that can do basically what you are describing!

Encrypted DNS doesn't solve everything. Handshake for TLS sessions is still in clear, you can usually see the SNI, and since we are talking about Wireless, usually this data is available to anybody who is in the vicinity, not just the network owner. This already means that you can see what sites someone is visiting, more or less. TLS 1.3 can mitigate some of this (for those who implement ESNI, but you don't know that beforehand). Also TLS works until the user is not accepting invalid certificates prompts (HSTS doesn't work for everything) and there are still tons of HTTP-based redirect (check mailing newsletters and see how many first send you to an HTTP site, for example) that can be used for MiTM attacks.

A VPN moves the trust to a single provider that you can choose, which is much better than trusting every single WiFi network you can attach to and the people connected to it, I would say.

Also if you pay for the VPN (I pay Proton), it's not true that the company business is based on user data, they are based on subscriptions.

That app doesn't work as it needs some play API which I guess is not implemented in microG. I am guessing not all of them are passed though.

My FP3 on /e/OS (based on lineage) has native recording. The phone passes safetynet check, i believe due to microG. However, some apps consider the bootloader unlocked so YMMV.

I am aware, and I am also aware that people are free to think what they want for themselves and I am nobody to judge them. You might think it's ridiculous, but theirs is the only life affected by this, so they are well within their rights to have all the opinions they have on their life.

Not being aware of any disability is true, but their statement is relative to what they are aware of, not a scientific statement (since it's a personal opinion), and as I said, you can also approximate to the blanket statement rather than mentioning 100 conditions.

I agree it might be insensitive to bring it up, but neither me nor the person you answered to brought it up, we merely answered to a comment that mentioned this expression.

I really disagree with your reasoning. I think that someone might simply consider any disability a reason not to live, and you are nobody to say that they missed the nuance of different disabilities, or that it's ridiculous to think you'd rather die than being hard of hearing (which is what I think you implied). I disagree with the blanket statement, but I think your arguments are invalid both from the theoretical standpoint than from the practical one (when x becomes a list of 100 items you might as well use a blanket statement).

I understand that vision will deteriorate. My question was if using glasses can contribute to the deterioration. If glasses are neutral and don't harm, then I don't understand the parent comment.

The way I asked the question was that if using glasses all the time I could - for example - reduce even more certain movements etc. and ultimately cause harm to my vision.

Look, if the problem is the expression, I don't care really for it. English is not my first language, I have no need to say this to anybody really, and I have no problem expressing my thought in another way.

All I care is the semantic and the underlying principle.

So yeah, I won't stomp my foot to defend my right to express my thought with that sentence (to be honest, not a fan of policing language this way). I will simply defend my right to express the underlying opinion, in whichever way is acceptable.