You also had to manually cut your partitions, then to manually setup everything after install - himem, mouse, sound... It was mostly loading drivers and in Arch it's installing and configuring packages. Sure, it's more complex due to vastly more possibilities but the actual doing is pretty similar. And there was no wiki back then. ;)
That's how we make them work today. It is possible to stay politically neutral in a language though. And therefore your generalized statement is incorrect.
I know but your metadata is all they need and cross-referenced with all the other tracking and accounts they have, there's zero privacy left.
Putting on tinfoil hat: or is it e2e encrypted? They hired Moxie to set up the signal protocol but who knows it's still in use since it's closed source? Even if it is still active: what key is used for encryption? Maybe a hard-coded one owned by Meta?
No, I don't really believe that as according to Snowden in his earliest whistle blowing even the NSA is primarily interested in metadata. You can derive pretty much everything from that alone.
Your original comment addressed exactly what I meant: not NFTs are the ponzi scheme but all crypto tokens are.
Nothing "perfectly valid and valuable" about blockchain - there are zero legit use cases that can't be far more efficiently solved by conventional database tech (yes, also proof of stakes).
The reason is simple: the basis for the whole thing is trustlessness which does not exist - even in the crypto token world. You need trust to entry and to use it and I prefer a lawyer/notary over trusting some dev not putting bugs into my "smart" contract. I don't trust the notary because of their fancy diploma either but because there's a state that forces him to do right or lose his license/end up in prison. Nothing like that in your blockchain "trustless" environment.
Why do you think blockchain tech is as old as Android and has produced nothing but carbon dioxide and tears from "I'm gonna get rich quick" morons?
There's another kind I count myself to: realistic Linux users.
Linux can be a real alternative - if you have issues with Windows/Mac and are willing to tinker every once in a while. And you don't mind playing AAA competitive shooters since those come with rootkits that won't ever fly on Linux.
If you have to ask, don't do it. People moving away from Windows usually have strong enough motivation to be able to tolerate the occasional tinkering Linux will require (any distro will, some more than others).
Personally, I switched a couple of years ago because I was fed up with Windows telemetry bullshit. But I admit that's mostly ideological because you don't "feel" it if you choose to ignore privacy rights violations.
I then discovered Linux to be much faster (booting, I/O, program start-up, basically everything) and not becoming shitty just by using it like every single Windows version does. Also, if you run into problems it's much easier to find and understand the root cause. Windows is just a black box.
You also had to manually cut your partitions, then to manually setup everything after install - himem, mouse, sound... It was mostly loading drivers and in Arch it's installing and configuring packages. Sure, it's more complex due to vastly more possibilities but the actual doing is pretty similar. And there was no wiki back then. ;)