Sadly, Syncthing is dropping Android support.

Another place to start: Privacy Guides has a history of tracking quite a variety of computer networking tools (browsers, data providers, Internet services, software, hardware, desktop and phone, even operating systems),

One of the greatest advantages of the totalitarian elites of the twenties and thirties was to turn any statement of fact into a question of motive. – Hannah Arendt

might

That word is carrying a mighty big load.

What’s one that doesn’t suck?

Historical background on current events: Heather Cox Richardson.

Yeah, lots of opinions, a few facts: one of the discussions.

Sumsnag

True in a way. However, there is a rather large collection of speculation on the Internet that is quite an undertaking to correct. And a large population of people and bots willing to speculate. Also, having once been speculated, each speculation takes on a life of its own. If it gets much more substantial, forget Skynet, we’re busy creating Specunet and its sidekick Confusionet – an insidious duo.

Digging a little – an article (from 2009) about an interview (2005) that paraphrases the interviewee is a little suspect. Chomsky’s take on the interview, in his words: “Even when the words attributed to me have some resemblance to accuracy, I take no responsibility for them, because of the invented contexts in which they appear.”

I dunno, that example is at least 3 steps removed (interviewer, editor, article writer) from a source that already speaks plenty clearly and doesn’t need much more than to be read honestly.

Here’s a start: Understanding Power has a PDF of all the sources in the footnotes of the book by the same name. Or, if you’re really looking for voluminous elaboration, this purports to be a list of source references, sorted by publisher, with links to the books.

someone who can explain how the world really works.

And that person is?

There’s certainly a history of Unix and Unix-like forks; which is rather simple compared to the Linux distro forks (go right to the big pic).

Huh, that’s so, it was there last January. It used to follow this paragraph (still there today anyway), which contains a similar criticism with citation:

It is widely used and has sometimes been criticised for its methodology.[4] Scientific studies[5] using its ratings note that ratings from Media Bias/Fact Check show high agreement with an independent fact checking dataset from 2017,[6] with NewsGuard[7] and with BuzzFeed journalists.

So if those are considered fact-based, there’s no need to delve further.

However, Wikipedia editors consider Media Bias/Fact Check as “generally unreliable”, recommending against its use for what some see as breaking Wikipedia’s neutral point of view.

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Bias/Fact_Check

Though errors are somewhat monitored by Retraction Watch.

Or as Dijkstra puts it: “asking whether a machine can think is as dumb as asking if a submarine can swim”.

Alan Turing puts it similarly, the question is nonsense. However, if you define “machine” and “thinking”, and redefine the question to mean: is machine thinking differentiable from human thinking; you can answer affirmatively, theoretically (rough paraphrasing). Though the current evidence suggests otherwise (e.g. AI learning from other AI drifts toward nonsense).

For more, see: Computing Machinery and Intelligence, and Turing’s original paper (which goes into the Imitation Game).

Oooooh, okay, I misread. Apologies.

Yet use AI (possibly) to determine users’ AI answers.

The “running joke” used by millions for serious and playful projects? [edited for punctuation]