iglou

Again, all these countries will recognise it in September because that's when they can make it official at the UN. It's not delayed because fun.

And again, this small decision doesn't exonerate them from taking other ones until then.

This is a good thing and shitting on it is what is pointless.

Shit on the governments for not taking other actions, not for taking this one.

Why? I don't at all.

Alongside the massive rest of Palestinians. Hamas is a minority. You shouldn't deny Palestinians a win because it would grant Hamas a win.

I am convinced Rust haters are simply refusing to learn something new, consciously or not.

And I didn't follow why a walkable city will have more green spaces. Surely in a capitalism we'll still have strong pressure to fill most of that.

Well yes, but a walkable city is already something that doesn't really align with hardcore capitalism. And if your goal is a walkable city, then you need to make it enjoyable. Most people don't enjoy walking through endless grey.

Although yes, in Europe, city leaderships that care about that are usually on the left side of the political spectrum.

Point is, a walkable city has no advantage to capitalism. So it's a safe assumption that a leadership pushing for it is not really that capitalist.

I'm not sure dutch biking is a good example for slow biking. A lot of bikes here in the Netherlands are e-bikes these days, and even without e-bikes people tend to be quite fast, especially on main streets that go straight for a while.

But then, most streets have bike lanes, and cars are very bike aware in streets that don't. Pedestrians and bikes don't share the same space.

Privacy and security are two different things. A public WiFi is safe, I never said it is private. I actually said a VPN helps with the privacy issues in my following replies.

Edit: After re-reading the comment you replied to, I do see that I didn't specify if I am talking about privacy or security, that is my fault. I was talking about security.

Yes, every modern browser warns by default when using an insecure website (unencrypted, encrypted with an unknown certificate, and other reasons). The point is to make it as difficult as possible for people who don't know what they're doing to access insecure websites. Usually the option to ignore the warning is hidden behind small "Learn more" or "More options" clickable text, which then reveal the button to ignore the warning.

If you use any of the big browsers, you'd need to have a very outdated version to not have that by default.

A VPN does help with privacy, yes. A different DNS than the default one can help with privacy as well, considering that the default one is usually your ISP's own DNS, and the DNS you setup can see the domains you visit.

DNS over HTTPS is the encrypted alternative I was referring to, yes. Having it configured is best, but it is rarely the case by default. Most VPNs automatically setup their own DNS, usually over HTTPS, when they're on, which is why I said it usually completely fixes the issue.

I don't think anyone who is not particularly worried about privacy should worry about having custom DNS setups or VPNs for anything other than spoofing your location (or eventually some side features like blockers, but that's not really part of the VPN). Changing the DNS configuration is an easy and free step though, so if you want to worry about the privacy of people around you, setting up a more private DNS, and over HTTPS, is not a bad idea.

No, you don't really have to worry about connecting to third party WiFi networks anymore. Just make sure that when your browser says "This connection might not be secure" (aka it couldn't make sure the certificate is legit, or it's not even encrypted at all), you don't ignore the warning and click "I dont care, I'll take the risk".

Privacy-wise, you can be exposed if the WiFi network is not trusted, as the domains you visit are likely to be visible (DNS resolution encryption is still not widely used). A VPN usually solves that completely.

There is probably other aspects to be wary of that are not on top of my head, but nothing like your credentials being stolen, bank data being stolen, or anything like it, as long as you keep your devices updated (vulnerabilities are still a thing, but are usually fixed quickly enough, and certificate authorities private keys can be leaked/stolen - although that is incredibly rare -, but are also usually removed from the trusted list of browsers quickly enough)

VPNs also encrypt all the non encrypted traffic (so, as I said earlier, DNS resolution, but also potential third party applications that do not encrypt their data, which would be an enormous mistake on their side), but offers no noticeable extra protection when just browsing the web. It basically adds a layer of encryption over already existing encryption, which adds no practical security.

As for the example you gave, I am not familiar anymore with the WiFi protocols, but I wouldn't be surprised if your device leaks some information about your past connected networks when actively probing for available networks. It is a privacy concern, but not a security one.

As always, it's not like both aren't possible. As a matter of fact, there is a lot of railway projects ongoing at the same time, to only quote one of your examples.

A government can take care of more than one issue at a time, luckily.

It may be a small benefit for you (I assume you are german based on your server), but not every european country or citizen has the same access to internet. This is a good initiative, but obviously not primarily intended for the richer citizens/countries of the union.

Just because you have the option and can afford it does not mean every european citizen can have it or afford it.

EU policies aren't just for the privileged.

Not charging roaming does not mean that your unlimited plan carries over abroad. It just means you can't be charged more for using your plan abroad.

It is still legal and widely done to have different limits abroad vs domestic.