> Where are the dozens of European tech winners? Seriously. They have the best education system in the world, strong social safety nets, cheap healthcare, and great lifestyles. Why have they not created innovative technologies that turn into worldbeating companies?
Maybe that is because there are US companies competing in the same space that are not held to the same regulations because of treaties like this one. It's hard to build a competitor to AWS, not just technically (although it very much is), but also business-wise - who would choose the unproven startup if you can go with the accepted best practise? By forcing US companies to equal footing, you give European startups more of chance. (Which is a Chinese playbook, too.)
IANAL, but GPL3 is compatible with selling the software (see Linux distros). However, it forces you to open up the complete source code and it allows the users to fork and recompile it as they see fit (but they must also open up their changes if they distribute it).
No, defense in depth is a best practice because you assume that each layer can fall. It is more practical to have many layers that are very secure than to have one layer that has to be perfectly secure.
They say this about sports, which is (usually) a zero-sum game: If I'm attacking, no matter how badly, my opponent cannot attack at all. Therefore, it is preferable to be attacking.
In cyber security, there is no reason the opponent cannot attack as well. So, my red team is attacking is not a reason that I do not need defense, because my opponent can also attack.
> or how neurodivergent is really is from much more common extroverted people.
Do you mean to say that neurodivergence is more common among extroverted people? If so, do you have sources for that? I have not yet heard of any relation between extra- (or intraversion) and neurodiversity.
I'm understanding your statement to mean that caring about something because of itself, without external motivation (like validation or money), is neurodivergent. So neurotypical would be to only care about something if you profit from you caring about it? Is that reading correct?
If so, I have to disagree vehemently. That is not my experience at all and feels extremely homo economicus and - to be honest - depressing. I want to care about things I like and that bring me joy, even if no-one pays me for that or validates my choice.
I've tried out some of the libraries, and it looks like they do calculate the difference between the installed version and the last (stable) release. If a dependency hasn't seen a release in ten years, those ten years don't count against the dependency drift. This is exactly what I would want.
However, they only check openly accessible (i.e. OSS) dependencies. If one of those hasn't seen a release in ten years, I would look for an alternative.
Yes, but it is quite uncomfortable to use, requiring you to get a session key and storing it somewhere. Instead, I've had good experiences with [rbw]. Maybe that would also be interesting for GP.
The market for these loss-leading services is skewed because Google subsidizes their free offerings so that they improve their ads branch. Because it is hard to compete with a free (actually money-losing) service, it is very hard for competitors to spring up. And thus the whole thing is anti-competitive.
If they were separate companies and had to compete on their own merit, not subsidized by the ads division, they'd have to ask for money too. Then, competitors actually have a chance to offer something better.
And through that, the reach of the ads business is limited unless they start to work with the competing services. This opens up the market for other ad markets, too.
And then we are a step closer to the free market that is efficient and good for consumers.
I've written my own tiny Python script for this, that launches the right executable based on the URL. It works really well for my situation with two different Firefox profiles.
I do backups to a local, external HD (that I need to manually plug and unplug, unfortunately), and to Backblaze. Depending on the importance of the data, it's being pushed daily to B2 and weekly to HD, or more seldom, or only to HD.
Technology-wise, I've been on restic for some years now, because of its support for cloud backends. (Otherwise, Borg is a fine tool, too.) Until last week, I've used crestic, but I just migrated to resticprofile, as that can do web hooks and pre-/post-commands, which I intend to use for SQL server dumps.
In the end, paperless also stores the original pdfs in a directory. You get some more goodies from it, like automatic OCR and a web interface, but your baselines is also included.
Isn't this what journalism should be about, though, to journal the news neutrally? I'd be more worried about a bias if someone only writes for one side of an issue, but now it's also bad if both sides can be happy with an author's work?
I've had a good experience with [crestic](https://github.com/nils-werner/crestic), even though it seems a lot smaller and simpler than autorestic.
But I really like how the same backup can be configured for different backends. Autorestic's seemed more complicated in comparison.
Maybe that is because there are US companies competing in the same space that are not held to the same regulations because of treaties like this one. It's hard to build a competitor to AWS, not just technically (although it very much is), but also business-wise - who would choose the unproven startup if you can go with the accepted best practise? By forcing US companies to equal footing, you give European startups more of chance. (Which is a Chinese playbook, too.)