rastinza @rastinza@qoto.org

@lgsp @MelaNews dubito che nessun sviluppatore tenti intenzionalmente a obbligarti a usare i servizi Google perché gli stai sulle palle.
Certo, potrebbero benissimo fare una app senza dipendere dai servizi Google, però ciò comporterebbe più lavoro. Pertanto si tratta più di pigrizia e di cercare di non fare cose inutili.
Poi se ci metti che è l'applicazione di una banca, può anche starci che facciano il controllo di "sicurezza" e dire okay questo telefono non è stato hackerato; ma dubito questo sia il caso.

@resistenza_non_binaria I believed copyrights expired after 70 years. Anyway, I don't think any judge would actually attempt to enforce such claims; it really makes no sense.

@AlbertoQ @colectivo @ESFGalicia gracias por compartirlos, voy a hechar un ojo. Hay encuentros en Santiago?

@cerchio @ciccillo
È tipo una meringa gigante, non sembra male!

@GustavinoBevilacqua

Se quest'anno sei coglione
ti darà solo carbone

@Binder I also do that. I don't know how you manage retrieving data however: I do the following.
I label each computer with a number, then I have another computer called "Register" were I store no data. In the Register I have an excel file with three columns, the first one has the number of the computer which stores the data, the second one has the name of the file which contains the data and the third column is a short description of the data.

I'd like to know how you do this kind of management, because at computer 53 the excel in the Register is starting to get a bit unwieldy.

@olireiv @wravoc

If you wish to talk about it, I actually went through part of the report (rather than just stop at the summary)

https://qoto.org/@rastinza/113674830383053109

The information contained in the report is indeed true: it is mostly emails and messages between people involved and interviews to the same.
However, the conclusions of the report, what is available in the summary, is not really supported by any of that.

Regarding whistleblowers, I only read the first 100 pages but there is no mention of any whistleblower in there.

We can discuss it further if you wish.
Any way, since I am here I'll have to point out that Elias is correct: he is presenting official data from a government who conducted a 2 years investigation. Accusing a report of such importance to be distorted without taking a look at it really is preconceived. Moreover, he did not talk about countries or parties and I do not really see why you'd accuse him of political radicalism or preconceived ideas. Scientific consensus can change and an investigation is a very valid and effective way to find out what happened in a certain occasion, it is in fact a much better tool for that than scientific research. However, the investigation should be conducted in a good way to serve as such tool; in this case it does not appear to me that the investigation was well done, nor that they really used it to reach some conclusions. It really like they wrote down some conclusions and then wrote a 500 pages document to justify those conclusions hoping nobody would actually read it.

@Nonya_Bidniss Hello,
I took a look at the report and wrote some first impressions here on mastodon.

https://qoto.org/@rastinza/113674830383053109

Join in for a chat if you wish

@anarchademic
Hello, I took a look at the report and wrote some first impressions in a post here on Mastodon.

https://qoto.org/@rastinza/113674830383053109

Join there for a chat if you wish.

@Raccoon
Hello,
I took a look at the report and wrote a short post here on Mastodon.

https://qoto.org/@rastinza/113674830383053109

Join for a chat if you wish.

@wravoc @jerry @nils_ballmann @epixoip @JesseSkinner @vurpo @me @Deixis9 @CliffsEsport @kallemp @artemesia

Dear Elias,
I took a look at the report and I wrote some few remarks in a post that you can read here on Mastodon.

https://qoto.org/@rastinza/113674830383053109

Join for a chat if you wish.

I took a closer look at the second part, the conclusions of the report are the following.

PROXIMAL ORIGIN PUBLICATION: “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2” publication — which was used repeatedly by public health officials and the media to discredit the lab leak theory — was prompted by Dr. Fauci to push the preferred narrative that COVID-19 originated in nature.

Yes, closing quotation marks are missing in the original too, you would imagine they'd format their documents better, but then again the whole report is terribly formatted. They didn't even bother to copy emails as text and just pasted around the images.

It is really funny how all evidence they provide to support this claim actually appears to disprove it completely.
Because from the available evidence what we can clearly see is the following:

1. Fauci did not prompt the authors to write the article
2. Fauci did not take part in the writing of the article
3. Fauci asked the authors to analyze the Lab Leak theory if they deemed it viable and publish any results which supported it

Here, have a page of the document to evaluate how well it was drafted. No, on this page none of the text is selectable. To be fair, they did pretty good: on some other pages there is some selectable text...

#Covid #CovidReport

@GustavinoBevilacqua La befana vien di notte con le scarpe tutte rotte, sul vagon di terza classe per pagare meno tasse.

@chillinpanda Ho avuto sia Kindle che Kobo, la differenza in funzionalità è minima. Il Kindle se non sbaglio è un po' più economico.
Entrambi permettono leggere vari formati, anche se i PDF su ereader si leggono generalmente abbastanza male.
Ti permettono di caricare libri esterni a quelli venduti da loro in ePub e mobi per Kindle e kepub per Kobo.

@valhalla @phab si, effettivamente può non essere la cosa più intuitiva del mondo. Meglio se prima dai un'occhiata alle guide di base: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Beginners%27_guide