~~Who are these eleven? Didn't realize the number is so small. Who determines who they are?~~
Turns out it was an exaggeration
I highly doubt that most people use that term to refer to female dogs.
Not Google, but my Instagram account got banned for using Barinsta right before the app got killed.
But I guess I was logging in with my account there, so I suppose they did have the evidence to link it to me.
Wow, my brain doubled in size just reading this comment
I have it on WiFi unfortunately.
If I put it the server on Ethernet, would it no longer impact the WiFi connection of any other device? I guess it makes sense that it wouldn't.
Extending Ethernet to the server won't be trivial, but I think you're right I might have to do it.
That's part of my concern behind going with local setup. I have a lot of unused HDD storage.
I am yet to see the point of this. Does this offer anything that gitea doesn't?
Are there matrix clients that do this? Only fetch messages from server when needed and not store locally?
I agree, the other commenters moved goalposts. My initial question asked for proof of a threat averted by US military spending. You (not you specifically, whoever is up the comment chain I didn't check) said Finland. I said that is not a valid example, as there's no threat. Then you said well there's a threat, because Ukraine.
The logic doesn't follow, because if Finland is under the same threat as Ukraine, then why is it that only Finland was protected and not Ukraine? Both wanted to join NATO, but only one actually did. Conveniently the one that isn't under the threat... But the one that is was not protected.
In the end, we go back to my initial question: can any of you show me a threat to Europe that was averted by the US military spending? I am yet to see it. Your example of Ukraine proves it even more wrong.
When was that?
Ukraine has wanted NATO membership for many years. It has been literally part of their Constitution since 2019.
Here is one early example:
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_46249.htm?mode=pressrelease
For more info:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations
I guess we felt differently.
Maybe so. However I am not attached to my feelings and definitely open to changing my mind. I just do not see sufficient evidence that Finland was under a threat that was only deterred by US military spending.
I want to see evidence of a real threat, with evidence that it was going to happen, but was only avoided due to said deterrence. I believe that would be the textbook definition of deterrence. Anything else is not. But I am open minded if you have an alternate definition that is reasonable.
I don't understand exactly how this is different. Is "WebView" not still very similar to a browser?