I can't say I read the whole thing because the technical analysis went over my head, but I don't think we read the same conclusion

Conclusions

Based on the analysis of packet captures above, I believe it is clear that anyone who has sufficient visibility into Telegram’s traffic would be able to identify and track traffic of specific user devices. Including when perfect forward secrecy protocol feature is in use.

This would also allow, through some additional analysis based on timing and packet sizes, to potentially identify who is communicating with whom using Telegram.

It seems like the developer might do that, but I imagine we can't have any guarantees from a free and ad-free app that aren't given

It seems like the reason that cheats were removed is because of public leaderboards

The one in the article and linked above does not have ads

So, there is at least one point that makes this make sense and maybe a second if I am reading it correctly. Would you care to hear it out? Or would you not be interested in hearing more? (Hopefully I remember to check back here. I have 0 clue what not-google google has to say about this tbh)

I think we can agree that Nazi's are not something we want to assocuate with. Help me understand, what would you do? How would you limit the service to prioritize[s] privacy in order to protect human rights defenders, journalists, and everyday users who value their privacy but then also filter out Nazi's? How would this be different from TOR?

"Made up of" -> the non profit consists of software that must be free and open source..?

If she's arguing for ... crap then she should probably stick to Science.

tldr/w: I probably should've only doe this bit here and on her being a physicist versus a science communicator

Humorously enough, she also has a video for that Basically she talks about:

• Why "doing your own research" should be poked at

* Topics she doesn't have a PhD in and has been told she shouldn't talk about

* On being a physicist versus a science communicator

• Main video points
  1. When not to do your own research (When there isn't enough research) 2.(?) Reasonable expectations (Why she doesn't talk about UFO's, a plug for support to do a video on 'Experts', limits of Google/internet, what is relevant for understanding? )
  2. Be honest with yourself (Acknowledge what you dont understand, erroneous mental short cut example)

4. Acknowledge biases

Rest of video not as relevant to your point

Do your own research. But do it right. [Video] Now where's that bot at..?

This was me last week during an interview..

This is the response I wanted to see but since people seem to hate watching videos (from creators they don't know), iirc the tldw; balancing bulbs coming to full power immediately (as opposed to gradual warm up) and brightness with life span. The 100 year light bulb is cool, but not ideal for actually lighting a room

What if it was instead: "Take a shit"

Second this! Also a fantastic resource is https://standardebooks.org/ They take public domain books and reformat them for ereading for free! You can download them in kobo specific formatting and it looks so good! Edit: auto correct and more details