There are browsers that implement a lot of Tor Browser's anti-fingerprinting features, such as LibreWolf.
The problem is that if you're connecting to a site from an unique IP address then you're still uniquely identifiable regardless of how much your browser resists fingerprinting measures. If you have a dynamic IP address, information can still be derived from this to build an approximate profile for you (location, language, possible interests, statistically likely demographic bands etc.). It's surprising how accurate these can get.
The strength of the anti-fingerprinting features in Tor browser is really an additional protection on top of the main anonymisation feature: the routing. Everyone using the Tor browser and routing appears (kind of) the same to a site.
Connecting through a VPN provider is a half-way measure, but still won't be as good as Tor. To a site or tracker you'll appear as one of a smaller set of people connecting from that VPN where your browser fingerprint is different from others in the pool of people connecting via that VPN. That may not be enough to personally identify you, but it's enough to build a fairly well-targeted profile of you.
So tl;dr: anti-fingerprinting browser features are really cool and technically clever, but they don't protect against all the ways you can be profiled. And somewhat counter-intuitively, using only browser-level de-anonymisation features could actually make you appear more unique to sites or trackers, because you'll be one of relatively few people with that combination of browser and network connection profile.
I mean yeah, it's a glib portrayal but I don't think it's wrong to present it this way. It's a fact that a few of America's most wealthy have enough money to house every homeless person in the US, with enough to spare to keep themselves in megayachts and luxury Texan compounds. It drives home the massive wealth inequality.
It also really isn't infeasible to build enough homes to house all the homeless in the US within one or two years. It's not infeasible to spend that same amount of time setting up universal basic income and healthcare. Those three things are achievable and would make a positive, life-long difference to the majority of people experiencing homelessness.
And there are a handful of people in the US whose combined personal wealth could easily fund all that.
Homelessness encompasses far more than rough sleeping. I agree that there are issues that many homeless people may face that wouldn't be resolved just by giving them a roof over their head. But it'd be a great start. And don't forget, a lot of homelessness is people and families in temporary or crisis housing, or couch surfing with friends and family, because they can't afford a place of their own.
What does it matter about the exact dollar amount? The top 3 wealthiest people in the US could provide housing, sanitation and food for every single homeless person in the US and still be multi-billionaires. It doesn't matter if the cost of tackling homelessness is $20bn or $200bn, it's still a fact that a handful of people hoarde enough wealth that they could actually pay to house every single homeless person, and still have millions (if not billions) left over.
Yes, this is a trite example and doesn't address the systemic failures in healthcare and education that are a major factor in people becoming homeless. But the wealth the ultra-rich hoarde could help with that too.
As I understand it, the banking apps should benefit most from the default sandboxing in GrapheneOS. I'm not sure there's much benefit in further separation of them is there?
It depends on your thresholds. Most of the weird shit was sexual, which I don't have a moral issue with other than I didn't consent to be exposed to it.
I worked two separate jobs doing film photo processing when I was a university student. The first was at a factory that handled a lot of police photography. I saw way more crime scene photos than I needed to.
The second time was in the photo development lab for a high street pharmacy chain. I swear, either people didn't realise their photos were developed and handled by other people, or some of them really got off on us seeing their weird shit.
Thank you! I've never come across one but it sounds delicious.
I think the closest I've had is getting a beef sandwich with a pot of gravy to dip it in myself.