Human to human.

Its not only "blood and vomit", it is any bodily fluid, so you also have sweat, saliva, breast milk and semen.

So you therefore have bedding, clothing, or medical equipment soiled with infected fluids.

And preparation of the body after death.

Bearing in mind viral load (concentration of Ebola in bodily fluids) is often high, so it does not take much.

In addition, delayed diagnosis is not uncommon.

Access to and adherence to infection control can easily be a problem.

So, in essence you have various routes to amplification of spread.

For Photoshop there are already "competitors", such as Canva or GIMP or countless others. But adoption has been limited.

Why ?

Because of the tightknit Adobe integration. If I create something in Photoshop, I can pull it in natively into any other programme in the Adobe suite ... e.g. InDesign (desktop publishing), Indesign (vector illutration), Premiere (non-linear video editing) or After Effects (motion graphics).

Not only can I pull it in natively, but in most cases I benefit from Adobe Dynamic Linking. Which means if I go back and mess with the Phtoshop file, it is automagically updated in all my child projects elsewhere.

Do not underestimate the sheer boost to the workflow and time savings that that provides !

Building on the above, if I'm recruiting designers, there is a very high chance they've spent the last 20 years using Photoshop. Am I going to waste my time and theirs forcing them to learn GIMP or whatever ? No. I will just get them an Adobe license.

Now let's hypothesize that my theoretical designer that I just employed has produced a product in InDesign that we're sending off to the printers....

If you want to get the best out of your printer during the pre-flight process, then you're absolutely want to be sending them a PDF file that came out of the Adobe toolset. Why ? Because your printer can send you Adobe-ready preflight-validation config files and because your printer can help you with issues. Not using Adobe ? Prepare for your printer to say "on your own chum".

Adobe is not perfect, but they command the market dominance they do for very good reason.

You sit there lecturing me on "in theory" discussions and you come up with that line.

I think you will find many European countries would celebrate yanks being told they can't visit Europe. Nobody will miss the loud Karens who make no effort in relation to the local culture.

It might have escaped your notice but the present US administration has not exactly done much to encourage Europeans to welcome yanks what with threatening to invade a European country and all that.

Get your own house in order before lecturing others.

Please re-read my post .... in particular the first two words "IN THEORY".

As far as I am aware, the option I mentioned has never, ever been mooted as a possibility. It was something I invented as a random example of a non-sanction possibility.

> rebuilding its own military

Aah yes, because a strong military has been so awesome for the US in the US–Iran war where IIRC the Iranians managed to destroy lots of very expensive US military radars[1] and other expensive assets[2][3] in the region despite your president having claimed to have "destroyed 100% of Iran's military capability".

But let's not get in to politics....

[1] https://edition.cnn.com/2026/03/05/middleeast/radar-bases-us... [2] https://edition.cnn.com/2026/03/30/middleeast/us-air-force-a... [3] https://apnews.com/article/amazon-aws-data-center-uae-iran-b...

Well, the EU in general tends to favour the "lets sit down in a room and talk like grown-ups" approach to finding solutions to problems.

Wielding sanctions as a first/second choice option is a very US thing, even more so with the present administration.

In theory the EU does have a lot of options available to it beyond sanctions, such as making life difficult getting Schengen visas for all those US citizens you constantly read about on the CNN website who are flocking to Europe .... but that sort of action would be very un-European[1][2]

[1] https://edition.cnn.com/travel/us-family-relocated-miami-ita... [2] https://edition.cnn.com/travel/central-eastern-europe-americ...

If your threat model is clandestine government actors then I think it would be a rather odd decision to host on ANY cloud !

The main risk for most people is being subject to US CLOUD Act, US PATRIOT Act etc. etc. Which, despite what the sales-droids will tell you, still applies in the fake-EU clouds operated by the US providers.

If you are serious about EU data sovereignty then you absolutely want an EU OpCo that has nothing whatsoever to do with any US company. If OpCo has ties to a US company or IS a US company such as AWS or Microsoft, then you've lost the EU jurisdiction.

My opinion is that it is over-hyped because like any LLM, it requires a suitable human in the loop to keep the LLM on the straight and narrow, and then to weed through the inevitable false-positives and hallucinations.

Nicholas Carlini, for example, whose name is on many of the recent high-profile Mythos findings is not just some random dude with a Claude sub on his credit card .... he's an experienced security researcher.

Random inexperienced people thinking Mythos can replace the need for experienced pen-testers, auditors etc. are likely to be sorely disappointed if/when they get their hands on Mythos.

I second this.

Clearly the person who wrote "Oof" has never emailed Mullvad support.

Whenever I have emailed Mullvad support I have received a prompt reply from a human being who clearly actually cares about taking ownership of the question and seeing it through to resolution.

I have also witnessed first-hand the support person taking the question to an internal team member where it requires additional input. So there are clear paths for escalation if circumstances require it.

Finally the support mail allows for PGP encryption of communications too.

(I am not a Mullvad shill. Not a Mullvad employee. Just a satisfied customer)

Mullvad have been taken to court over this in relation to a copyright infringement case.

TL;DR The judge permitted people to take a fine-tooth comb to Mullvad's infrastructure and no logging was found[1].

[1] https://mullvad.net/en/blog/mullvad-vpn-was-subject-to-a-sea...

I think its safe to assume that intelligence agencies have other options available to them, such as country-wide timing attacks.

Its not the first time bugs get past MTE, happened with Google Pixel last year ... https://github.blog/security/vulnerability-research/bypassin...

What the hell are you on about ?

There are what, 700 MEPs from 27 member states ?

Do you even realise the sheer amount of work required to get it from "piece of RESEARCH an MEP requested" to "legislation enacted by member state" ?

And that assumes it survives parliamentary debates and votes intact !

Just because an MEP requested a piece of RESEARCH it DOES NOT MEAN it is "likely" to become legislation.

Stop with the conspiracy theories.

Erm, dude....

    - Companies Act 2006
    - Companies (Trading Disclosures) Regulations 2008 
    - Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002

Might not be called "imprint" in UK-speak, but its basically the same thing.

And this is a bad thing why exactly ?!?!?!

If you respect your users data and right to privacy then you've got nothing to hide by publishing an EU compliant privacy policy.

It might be "just a small app", but I and many other people still very much still "do give a damn" about what the hell you do with my data, where you store it, how long you store it and how I can exercise my GDPR rights.

Dude, just go read the damn website.

The research service does not operate on its own volition. An MEP requests a piece of research to assist them in their parliamentary work because they require independent, objective and authoritative analysis of a topic.

Please stop with the damn conspiracy theories. Sheesh.

A random MEP asked for this research. The MEP may or may not ever table anything based on the research. Ergo, it may or may not ever progress into the parliamentary debate, let alone votes, let alone member state implementation.

Its just RESEARCH.

Stop with the FUD.

And if we go to the homepage for "European Parliamentary Research Service", we see:

    EPRS’ mission is to provide Members of the European Parliament, and where appropriate parliamentary committees, with independent, objective and authoritative analysis of, and research on, policy issues relating to the European Union, in order to assist them in their parliamentary work.

Across all publication types, the "European Parliamentary Research Service" published 1034 documents in 2025 and, 486 documents so far in 2026. And for this specific publication type ("At a glance"), they published 285 in 2025 and 113 so far this year.

How many of those hundreds of documents per year of RESEARCH actually make it all the way through to legislation I don't know .... but I think you'll find its a safe bet that its a fraction.

Just like with encryption, there will always be an idiot politician somewhere discussing banning it. Mr Google tells me, for example, that lawmakers in Michigan (US) recently proposed " Anticorruption of Public Morals Act" which contained VPN banning clauses.

Frankly, until such time as it actually NEARS, let alone BECOMES legislation, the only thing posts such as yours are doing is spreading FUD.

The clue is in the URL you post "thinktank". It not even EU parliament, let alone been through the parliament debates, let alone passed to votes, let alone passed to being implemented by member states .... its just a random idea someone wrote down.

And quite frankly, I would still much rather be in the EU's digital environment than that of the US.

You must be very lucky to always get "a lot" of fluent English speakers.

Just this week I was speaking to Microsoft (well, their Indian outsourcer, of course).

As is the case 99% of the time, the guy was not at all fluent.

I'm not being rude here. I live in a large city in a Western country, I have friends and colleagues who are Indian and I encounter Indians in day-to-day life. These people all speak English in a truly fluent manner. Yes they still have the strong accent, but guess what the accent has never caused me a problem.

Telus thinking they can magically fix the lack of fluency through AI because the "problem" is the accent ? Now that IS being rude and disrespectful.

But more often than not that developer ends up reviewing far more lines of code due to the typical verbosity of an LLM.

"ready-to-run agent templates for the most time-consuming work in financial services: building pitchbooks, screening KYC files, and closing the books at month-end"

Ok, maybe you can squeeze a vaguely passable pitchbook out of Claude.

But screening KYC files or closing books at month-end ?

"I'll have some of what they're smoking" as the cool kids say.

No regulator or tax office on this planet is going to accept the "but Claude said it was ok" excuse.

The only people who are going to profit out of this are Anthropic, Lawyers and Governments (through increased fines).