Strava doesn't have complete coverage, especially on newer trails, but more importantly: doing the trace via Street Complete attaches it to an OSM note with an optional (but encouraged) photo. This additional context makes it a lot more useful for editors than an ordinary trace, which can just as easily be an actual trail, a desire path, or someone deciding to improvise a shortcut through some brush. Even if the note just contains the word "trail", that helps us (though more detail is greatly appreciated, of course).
I don't see how that was implied? Just because someone is part of the "club" doesn't mean many other "members" can't be skeptical of their role.
In fact, it doesn't even seem difficult to simultaneously acknowledge and commend the valuable role they play, while also expressing concern over the influence they wield and how it might contrast with desires and goals of the wider community.
These are two separate incidents, please read the article. While the latest one is certainly arguable and I suspect most people would understand why someone would want to take it seriously (even if they themself would not), the earlier "Free Palestine" one seems absurd to label a threat, and I would be very curious how someone would justify it as such.
Setting aside the fact that there are multiple very old, very large religions that are nearly or actually vegan (e.g., Jainism), or that people raised vegan can't easily digest meat or animal products, why on earth do you feel that you or a hospital worker are qualified to determine the beliefs making up someone's identity, when you know absolutely nothing about them?
Most of the input devices that Apple sells on their website don't have multitouch, including 0 keyboards and only one of the mice. Many of the photos on the site for each of their non-iMac desktops include full setups that don't have a magic mouse or separate touch pad. The Mac mini and Mac Studio don't come with any input devices, and don't say anywhere that multitouch is recommended (closest is some language clearly marketing it as an up-sell on the Studio, "Take your creativity to the next level [with extra purchase]").
I suspect the more likely scenario is they don't actually care how accurate these nominal categorizations are. The information they're ultimately trying to extract is, given your history, how likely you are to click through a particular ad and engage in the way the advertiser wants (typically buying a product), and I would be surprised if the way they calculate that was human interpretable. In the Facebook incident where they were called out for intentionally targeting ads at young girls who were emotionally vulnerable, Facebook clarified that they were merely pointing out to customers that this data was available to Facebook, and that advertisers couldn't intentionally use it.[0] Of course, the result is the same, the culpability is just laundered through software, and nobody can prove it's happening. The winks and nudges from Facebook to its clients are all just marketing copy, they don't know whether these features are invisibly determined any more than we do. Similarly, your Google labels may be, to our eyes, entirely inaccurate, but the underlying data that populates them is going to be effective all the same.
There's a sort of mirror world of academic research happening, where on one side of the mirror, you have people building the tools to censor the internet (typically but not always in Asian venues), and on the other, the tools to circumvent that censorship (typically but not always in Western venues). I know far more people on the latter half of the equation, but have enough exposure to the other side of the mirror to know that most of them earnestly believe they're doing something good. They see massive megacorportaions pushing American interests as an unfair lever in a fight for national sovereignty, and what they do as simply leveling the playing field, and combating misinformation. While I would wholeheartedly agree that they are mistaken in their analysis (reifying systems for people, "The institution I'm supporting may sometimes do bad things, but what I do is supporting the good parts!") and should immediately stop, I wouldn't want to dehumanize them any more than I would someone who works for Palantir, or even Google, Amazon, etc.
There is a dedicated reproducible builds action that verifies that it does match (currently failing because of the aforementioned bug). I'm not sure why you're still litigating this when, again, you can not only just go look at it, you can very much do it yourself.
Pick a decently up-to-date fork of Signal on GitHub and look at its Actions. You can also just do it yourself if you'd like, the process is effectively just doing a build in a docker container and comparing the result.
People reproducibly build Signal all the time. There's a bug right now that makes the play store version differ from the one you get by downloading off their website/build from source, but you can examine the differences to see they're minor.
Tracking pixels aren't for fingerprinting, they're just regular tracking. You can block them fairly easily (just block the 3rd party request to the known tracker). Fingerprinting is a lot more difficult to detect and prevent. Companies claiming they reserve the right to do it is a good reason to take precautions, but without insight into what is actually being done, that's hard to effectively do (without resorting to blocking all possible vectors, like Tor Browser).
There was an incident a little while back where some Tor Project anti-censorship infrastructure was run on the same site as a blog post about zip bombs.[0] One of the zip files got crawled by Google, and added to their list of malicious domains, which broke some pretty important parts of Tor's Snowflake tool. Took a couple weeks to get it sorted out.[1]
Firefox is developed by the Mozilla Corporation, Thunderbird is developed by MZLA. They're both subsidiaries of the same non-profit, but they don't share funds or employees, so it's not clear to me how this could "sap resources".
This sort of rhetoric always rubbed me the wrong way, but it falls completely flat on its face now, given that there isn't a single state in the US where the margin of victory was anywhere close to being within the Green vote. The idea that a single-issue voter on something like Palestine is an implicit Trump supporter because of the issues you care the most about is just asinine. Heck, I suspect many of them are the ones most likely to be protesting. I understand that you are obviously going to view the world through your own politics, but I do feel obligated to mention that other people do, in fact, exist, even outside of elections, with all the depth that entails, and cannot realistically be understood with dualism.
The OSM community has had extremely clear rules around automated edits for most of its existence. Every experienced mapper has seen first-hand the sorts of problems they can cause. The fact that it's using AI in this instance does not give any sort of exception to these rules. To emphasize, there are already AI-assisted tools that are allowed,[0] this isn't a blanket application of "no AI ever," it's about doing so properly with the right community vetting.
Edit to add: To be clear, they have since taken steps to try to resolve the concerns in question, the discussion is ongoing. I suspect at the end of this we will get a useful tool, it's just off to a rocky start.