That's the point, actually some people are extremely sensitive to caffeine, so it needs clear labelling. That labelling is not for you.
You mean 35 mg of caffeine doesn't do that to you. Food safety laws aren't written for the average person they are written for the more vulnerable.
Yes, I understand how monero works. Yeah you'll get away with buying some groceries or whatever with it, but people who go through bankruptcy (especially who aren't rich, and are felons) have a close eye from the government on their finances. If you try to buy a house or a car or anything actually life changing with that, you're pretty likely to get caught and charged with fraud etc., unless you legitimise it, that is, launder it.
It does, but if it has compromised the BIOS before that, that won't get wiped.
If the average person ate more vegetables and did more activity two thirds of people wouldn't be obese but here we are.
Something can't become categorically imperative, a quiddidity such as an essentially categorical property is invariant with respect to time. It either is or it isn't. Per contra, aesculapian aid might become dispositionally required.
You seem to be a bit confused about how asymmetric encryption works. There is no need for private keys to be transmitted for a messaging service to work. I encourage you to read about the difference between public and private keys in asymmetric encryption. They are generated in pairs, such that when something is encrypted using a public key, it can only be decrypted using the corresponding private key. So it's not correct to say that the message can't be decrypted by the intended recipient - they are in fact the only party who can, but even the sender can not.
It should most definitely be a valid assumption.
If the key passes through their servers at all (and it probably does,) then they have access to the keys and sufficient information to decrypt it. it's possible the app does send keys independent of their server- I don't know- but I very much doubt it.
The keys shouldn't be on or go through a server anywhere, that would be an absolute joke.
What makes you think that private keys are being sent anywhere? This app uses a slightly modified version of the Signal protocol (because of course it does), as they describe here, section 27, page 90. Only public keys should ever leave your device, otherwise no amount of showing the code would make it secure. That's the whole point.
Again, with the client code you should be able to tell that the keys are generated there and not sent anywhere.
As I said, with any app, just because they publish some server code does not mean that that's what they're running on their server - for security you have to be sure that the app is sufficiently secure on its own. Even if they were running the exact public code that "didn't save the keys" the server could harvest them from memory.
This is literally the platform of right-populism. "Wasn't it good in the 50s when a single income for a guy with an associates was enough to support a family in a life of comfort, and a summer job could pay for university? That's why women shouldn't be in the workforce and black people shouldn't have rights."
You've misunderstood. With the client code you can be sure that your messages are properly encrypted before leaving the device. If that's done correctly, you don't need to trust the server, because it can't read your messages just like some attacker couldn't. Signal is pretty similar, they didn't update the public server source for a few years, and even with the source, we can't know that that is what they're actually running. But with a verified build of the client code we can know that our messages are encrypted such that, even if they held on to them until quantum computers became mainstream, they'd still be properly protected.
Only the client. Though that's probably enough to make sure messages leave your device suitably encrypted. Depending on the algos it could be quite vulnerable to hndl attacks, though, or (less likely) any undiscovered backdoors in the implementations. Of course, even for Signal one has to trust they're using the public server code anyway, but at least we know they're folding in a quantum-resistant algo.
You don't understand why people might more frequently discuss the actions of someone with enormous power and influence, than they would those of Darryl from high school?
Ok, but not every random asshole is the richest guy in the world...
when usually the purpose of a question like that is more like "what was the result when you talked to them?"
But then say that? There's a clear distinction in tone between those two wordings, even if they express similar thoughts.
Yeah, it is also just a philosophy word. But antisemites use it to refer to "dialectical materialism", which is a real term for Marxist philosophy, but by which they mean "cultural Marxism", a thing they made up by which they in turn mean "the Jews are going to impose communism on us through psyops that convince us it is good, so we have to exterminate them."
Basically, like much of their coded language, it is a reference to a conspiracy theory.
I don't think that's right, context matters. It spreads when it is shared uncritically and people come across it in a context where they don't have their guard up. I believe it is preventative, to some extent, the other way around, when it is shared in a context ripping it to shreds.
People will come across antisemitism in the wild, and it is important that they learn to recognise it. This quote is pretty extreme, but it is important that people know that antisemites use words like e.g. "dialectical" as a dog whistle. The next time they hear someone say something about it when one of their facebook friends share something they might notice that they talk about "Hollywood elites" or whatever in the same way.
Without a good understanding of how antisemitism works we are all susceptible.