safe or just safer?

Is any national dictator’s army yet doing the “two steps forward, one step back” march to appear less scary?

That depends who’s hosting it. There’s few good reviews of email hosting out there at the moment.

Even if you self-host, other people’s mailservers still interact with it, unless you only chat with other users you host. And some of the big webmails variously get really pernickity about your DNS, DKIM and more, or they deploy some pretty obnoxious countermeasures against your server with little explanation. So I’d say it’s more often both than not, no matter what you do. If you think it’s not being a pain, there’s probably an unpleasant surprise in your server logs or coming soon!

It’s still often worth self-hosting, but that’s more big webmail really sucks, even ISPs often don’t set their mailservers up well and it’s often an early casualty of ISP managers looking for costs to cut.

Any browsers except the minimal servoshell yet?

Is it faster to start up? Is it less snoopy? Are these in some FAQ I missed?

These ex-BBC reporters agree with you: The News Agents: Inside the BBC: What really went on

Episode webpage: https://www.thenewsagents.co.uk/

Media file: https://episodes.captivate.fm/episode/7a06ad81-9dd6-480d-9333-b38ff56fbd05.mp3?aw_0_1st.showid=c49390b9-6909-4cd3-a974-e270cf686f27&aw_0_1st.episodeid=7a06ad81-9dd6-480d-9333-b38ff56fbd05

I suspect people disliked both of the approaches you suggested, or thought it was a false dilemma fallacy, but downvotes rarely come with explanations.

Contact your local MEP. Ask your local MP or Deputy or whatever you call them to push the relevant minister to oppose it. It’s not great, but you do have a say.

a member of the Joint Chiefs

Belgium has a single Chief Head of Defence. In Belgium, the Joint Chiefs are some guys who figured how to get supplies from Dutch coffee shops!

Article rests on one expert. That assistant professor’s publication list doesn’t seem to contain evidence about it, plus the quotes in the article don’t directly say it happens.

Maybe it does, but that article only seems to be guessing based on (admittedly reasonable) theory.

Got proof? I’ve not cracked open a phone for a while to see if the component labelling matches the interface, let alone tested capacity of an extracted battery directly.

Arrive on time?

Cartoon about the BBC currently sucking up to the far right: https://tech.lgbt/@Natasha_Jay/115524226654011092

But he did say ‘we fight like hell’. The bad edit just made it seem clearer than Trump’s speeches ever are. If there had been an edit flash (where the screen briefly goes grey between clips) and ideally a couple of snatches of speech from in between, there would have been no credible complaint. This seems more like wanting history to be neater than it usually is, not an attempt to change Trump’s fundamental message, no matter how much he’s backpedalled it since.

How can you tell? It looks like a bad edit. This is not like the 2007 incident of editing things out of order to fake someone leaving an appointment angrily, then making an indiscreet comment on the faked event.

‘We fight like hell’ isn’t much of a code!

“alarming analysis by consultancy Barnett Waddingham” is saying this, not Labour. It’s basically think-tank fantasy.

Naughty CNN! Trump did indeed say to ‘we fight like hell’ as you can see in the full transcript on news sites that haven’t surrendered yet, such as AP: Transcript of Trump’s speech at rally before US Capitol riot | AP News

Any one hour documentary pretty much has to edit that rambling dumpster fire of a speech. The BBC’s main mistake was not to make the edit clearer.

This was probably worth an apology. Was it worth the leader resigning? Probably not. The right-wing media succeeds in hunting another witch. I hope it backfires and Labour appoint someone further left.

I might have upvoted that except how do you define “run by”? Who is the fediverse “run by”?

How can you call this good? While I agree there are problems needing tackling, this proposal does nothing to help young adults and the parental consent option seems very likely to create a have/have-not split in child groups which will also have negative impacts.

It looks rather like the “we must do something, and this is something, so we must do this” fallacy being used to exploit child protection to start compulsory ID checks.