Secondly, it's the dumbest comparison anyone could possibly make.

The difference with a porn website is as follows:

- the age check on porn sites are notoriously dumb and useless, it's literally a meme. It was a meme before there were memes.

- I choose to go on porn sites. It's not exactly a requirement that I get access to a porn site. Access to my OS on my device to work, have fun or do whatever I want privately is kind of a lot more necessary.

"Zero knowledge proof". Yeah OK. I've got a few dozen bridges to sell you. Interested?

If Facebook says it, then... Sorted!

And an encyclopedia can absolutely do that and still present factual information based on actual research and facts.

You know that just because a lady has blue hair or a person has colored skin does NOT mean that they can't be right about something or do good research. Right? You do know it, right?

Because in the end, when you cry about DEI (whatever you believe it to mean), this is the implication that comes with it: that you can't imagine for a second that anyone who doesn't look exactly like you could ever do anything competently. I genuinely wonder if you've ever thought about that for more than half a second after you closed that Charlie Kirk video.

If you do believe it, fair enough. I guess you're allowed to believe it. But at least be honest about it.

"I think we gotta hand it to Apartheid because schools were very slightly less worse" isn't the argument you think it is. It does paint where you stand quite clearly.

Never start a sentence with "I'm no apartheid apologist, but". Nothing good can ever come out of it.

You also don't seem to understand "apologetics"?

Or you could just say "there is no way the thing that constantly happens over and over again has happened once again, just no way".

Staff cuts constantly happen in the name of maximising profits. They always yield poor results for a company's performance. Every time. Especially for the consumer's side of it (not the company's finances of course).

Every time.

But maybe this time it's different. That one time.

They currently do cooperate and they go get the odd bad press about this.

So doing what they actually claim to do would change nothing. Their current stance is just a cop out.

The whole "we have only received two emails" is a classic move of every company caught with their pants down. Considering Proton's history, they don't get the benefit of the doubt on this one.

As for the "company size excuse" sorry but considering the business you claim to be in (the private and secure email), having an on-call skeleton crew legal team available over the weekend for urgent requests is a bare minimum (and I'm pretty sure they have people available to hand over everything the cops request if "the proper process is followed").

Remember that they have turned over information in less than 24 hours before (for what they call an extreme case of course). So the "size" excuse doesn't hold. Doesn't matter how urgent it is, if they are the small bean they claim they are, there is no chance they can have a turnaround of less than 24 hours.

Again, it's not what they did that's the biggest issue, it's the coverup. Just like last time they got in hot water. Because the coverup raises a lot more questions.

Koofr is a decent cloud solution. Their client is horrendous across all platforms and lacks the most basic functionalities.

You can argue OneDrive / GoogleDrive are semi decent if you also use insync, which adds another license to purchase when a basic client should come free with the service you've already bought.

And no, rsync doesn't come even close to it in terms of functionality/simplicity, no matter how much hardened Linux users who haven't been outside since 1988 are trying to convince everyone otherwise.

Never, ever used any additional Dropbox services. All I need it to do is be a reliable cloud storage. Nothing else.

The amount of times Google has been caught out doing things they shouldn't be means that no, no one has to prove that it's a reasonable assumption that Google follows policies, not even their own.

It's for you to prove that they can be trusted (good luck with that!).

It's a genuine question because I'm puzzled here.

A very small number of users have this bug (and tbf, it's a really bad bug), and are unable to consistently reproduce it and it seems none of the developers have been able to (the seemingly random nature of the bug occurring is not helping). How is it supposed to be fixed?

No offense, I can tell you're neither a linguist nor a language teacher.

This is one are where the human input is invaluable and irreplaceable. Because language (the complex kind) is inherently human. It quite literally is.

This is incredible you would say that because you'll never guess what it reads like.