Because it’s far better for privacy than any Google-Play-Services-ridden version of Android, and sometimes in life you don’t want to have to deal with custom ROMs anymore.
But also that’s an exceptionally dumb question, because the implication is that privacy can’t matter to people who don’t go to the same precise lengths someone else does.
To me in Michigan, I also find those rates horrifyingly terrible, expensive, and inexplicably capped.
But here we have a few options for ISPs. In places where they don’t really compete with each other, you can get absurdly terrible plans. And it’s perfectly legal because fuck you, consumer, that’s why.
I actually don’t disagree. That’s certainly the connotation that comes with “terrorism.”
It’s also not how the legal definition works, unfortunately, which is just vague enough to let the FBI decide what is and isn’t terrorism based on how they feel about something. As I understand it, anyway. And since what he did falls under the legal definition, they can charge him with it.
The perpetrator of an act of terrorism isn’t part of the definition. They need not be affiliated with a group or military.
I find it curious how many people on Lemmy were gleefully posting about CEOs and billionaires being scared because of this attack, and then to see push-back about the label of terrorism (where fear is part of the outcome, hence the name).
The saying is “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter,” right?
Because it’s far better for privacy than any Google-Play-Services-ridden version of Android, and sometimes in life you don’t want to have to deal with custom ROMs anymore.
But also that’s an exceptionally dumb question, because the implication is that privacy can’t matter to people who don’t go to the same precise lengths someone else does.