Again, the issue is that once you burn fossil fuel, you are not turning it into fossil fuel in any meaningful amount of time.

On the other hand, let's say that a field used for producing plants for biofuel does not capture any carbon at all to simplify. So deforesting an area releases all the carbon a forest held. The difference is that the fossil fuel gives you energy one time, while the field produces it yearly. We need energy yearly. So if you deforest an area for biofuel, you release CO2 from deforestation but all the CO2 released in the future is what was recaptured by the plants. It is one time CO2 release for perpetual energy delivery. If you go with fossil fuels, you will keep burning more and more every year until it is much worse than deforesting an area.

So reforesting can capture CO2 already released, but that only offsets fossil fuels for some period of time. Even if you cover the whole planet in forests, there is a finite amount of fossil fuels you can burn before it is negated. That is why eliminating fossil fuel use, and quickly, is far more important than protecting forests. Once you burn fossil fuel, you can't recapture it into fossil fuel and would have to increase fores area permanently to compensate.

the alternative to burning biomass would need to have very high emissions in order to come out ahead.

Not really, that's the point. Soil has a max capacity of carbon it will hold. Just like biomass. So even if the fossil fuels release tiny amount of CO2, they release it continually vs deforestation releasing it one time. The only thing that changes is how long it takes for biomass to break even. But after thousands of years, the one time big release will always turn out better than continual small releases.

Of course, avoiding both deforestation and fossil fuels is even better.

It is superior if letting the forest grow means using fossil fuels. That was the point of my comment. It releases CO2, but only once and then is sustainable without additional CO2.

Of course, having the forest and e.g. nuclear power would be even better but that does not work very well for mobile applications, such as vehicles.

Also, heaven is an absolute monarchy. The fact so many commies don't even see the difference between communism and a monarchy should tell you all you need to know.

Not really. Sure, China is able to make unpopular decisions better then democracies, but that makes them inefficient in different directions. E.g. high speed rail in areas where it is not needed but greatly lacking freight trains. Or their housing bubble.

You're defending him—intentionally or not—because you're giving legitimacy to the idea that, somehow, the party that kicked him out is in the wrong.

Yeah, I am tired of this shit. My entire comment repeatedly spells out that criticizing one party does not mean supporting the other. Both FDO and Vaxry can be in the wrong. If you can't even comprehend that, there is nothing else to talk about.

First off, I don't know anything about Vaxry or the Hyperland community, so I am definitely not defending him or implying it is not bad or anything of the sorts. I am saying the public reasoning for the ban is manufactured BS, and I am pretty sure that is because it is hard to call yourself "free" anything if you want to police peoples behavior unrelated to your project.

If you think projects should do such policing, that's fine. It even makes sense, if you ignore the potential for misuse. But they certainly shouldn't advertise themselves as free. It's the hypocrisy of trying to do both by manufacturing an excuse I am calling out.

As for the rest of what you write, I feel it all comes to the same unhinged idea that because someone is a bad person, everything they touch, create or any person engaging with them is also bad.

I dislike Brave, and it's founder. Doesn't mean everything Brave does is bad or can't be promoted by me as good. If you choose to not do it for your personal beliefs, that is fine. But the idea that I am not allowed to praise Brave browser features or other actions because of something unrelated its founder did or said is ridiculous.

EDIT: Regarding your edit, yes. I criticize parts of DEI or stupid anti-Trump arguments. That's the whole point. Stupid arguments are stupid even if a good person is making them and good arguments are good, even if evil person like Trump makes them. Parts of DEI can be bad, even though discrimination is also bad. The world is not black and white.

EDIT2: Here is my post on DEI if anyone wants to read it and decide for themselves whether it is reasonable criticism or not.

So it's not just the PR, it is also him interacting with "the wrong people". Because it is so unthinkable to post about another browser developer while developing a browser regardless of politics. Idk anything about Andreas Kling, maybe he is a bad person, but the reasoning in your comment seems unhinged to me.

PS: Maybe off topic, but FDO reasoning for banning Vaxry is also wild. FDO admits he never broke the CoC on their platforms, then the CoC enforcement sends him a threatening email demanding he moderates his community differently and when he pushes back and says he will ignore this person sending unsolicited threatening emails, that is a reason to ban him. Because somehow this unsolicited threatening email is somehow considered part of FDO. Literally manufacturing a cause....

No offense, but I seriously doubt you've done any of such analysis.

Well, go do the analysis for yourself then. Unless you would rather live in a fairytale than look at your beliefs critically.

Part of the reason you know USSR sucked is because they had to do it publicly.

Yeah, why not show complete ignorance of history. Not as if USSR literally left people in Chernobyl to be irradiated in order to avoid admitting what they caused until western media exposed them. But it is capitalism that keeps things secret, that is why you know about those things from news and internet.

You wrote you're supporting of the kind of socialism a lot of socialists would consider capitalism

No I didn't. I wrote that until someone shows me a version of socialism that works, I will support capitalism.

So instead we should support a system where political motives are commodified and corporations sell the power to influence the political landscape...

You ever heard of the concept of lesser evil? That is what I consider capitalistic social democracy. If you find an even less evil system that does not just run on hopes and dreams, I will switch my support to that one. But right now, every system I have heard of or thought of would end up being even worse in practice.

Once you come up with an economic model that both works economically and does not hand power to elected officials or some other such group,

I literally wrote that I would support some form of socialism. That is not sarcasm. I am not talking about one example, I am talking about economic and game theory principles.

If you analyse the common forms of socialism using those, it is obvious it will always devolve into authoritarianism. The incentives between leaders and the population are too misaligned and the power is too concentrated.

Comparing all capitalism to the US is the same as comparing all socialism to the Soviet Union.

There are plenty social democracies in Europe. I advocate for spreading those and making incremental improvements to them where appropriate.

"We don't accept ideologically motivated changes" = White supremacist language... Yeah, sounds about like what I expected...

Yeah, blame the Russians. As if the Russian revolutionaries were not fighting for the same ideals you believe in. Just by not realizing that eliminating capitalists concentrated all the power in the government and handed power to Stalin on a silver platter.

Once you come up with an economic model that both works economically and does not hand power to elected officials or some other such group, you have my support. Until then, I will keep the safe assumption that socialists have zero idea what they are talking about and would lead us to doom if we gave them the chance.

Yeah, we should just ditch email for sensitive communications.

Anyway, my point was that I lost trust in Proton back then over this and went to Tuta that has native clients. It makes no difference to my security since I don't think I ever sent or received a single mail that was actually e2e encrypted. But Tuta's more serious approach to e2ee made me slightly more confident in it as a company.

Now it kinda looks like it was the right choice.

doesn't impact the security sufficiently to make a difference for the average user.

I think it is borderline. I am not advocating for PGP, I like the Signal model where you trust signal for introductions but have the ability to verify, even in retrospect. Trust but verify. Even a few advanced users verifying Signal keys forces Signal to remain honest or risk getting caught.

I think the lack of meaningful verification for proton is a significant security weakness, though average user probably has bigger things to worry about.

I don't own much capital, but I live in a post communist country and I sure as hell don't want to experience the shit our country already went through once.

Bridge did not exist back then.

As for it being sophisticated attack, I think it is relative.

Regardless, if Proton said it did not matter to most people, I would respectfully disagree and move on. They did not. They claimed it is not at all less secure than a native app, which is BS.

Then go ahead and start one :D Good luck finding a bank that gives you an unsecured loan to start a business.

Then it is not equally owned as the title says.

It is nuanced, but having the ability to selectively serve malicious javascript stealing keys to specific people only on one access is considerable issue in practice, compared to distributing binary where you would generally have the same binary for everyone and you are able to archive and analyse it. Especially if you use third party distributions, like github releases or flatpaks.