Does your network not support UPnP? You shouldn't normally need to port forward in order to seed a torrent, unless your network prevents NAT traversal.

Xournal++

I caution mentioning both Matrix, and Element as if they are synonymous – they are not (I'm quite certain that that wasn't your intent, but the usage of the forward slash could be interpreted as such). It may lead to confusion for newcomers. It would essentially be the same as saying "I recommend ActivityPub/Thunder" to someone who you want to introduce to Lemmy. Matrix is the protocol, and Element is simply a client that interacts with the Matrix protocol.

I personally think that it's sufficient to recommend Matrix if one is mentioning chat-app alternatives. Of course, nothing is stopping one from also recommending a client, but I don't believe that it's entirely necessary.

In that case, the email provider that you use makes little difference at all. Because of the way that email works, it will always be visible in plain text (unless manually encrypted through PGP) by a third party other than the recipient at some point. There is of course the exception of, for example, direct communication happening between two Proton Mail accounts, but this is really hardly worth mentioning in any practical sense.

The long and short of it is that email should never be used for secure communications.

Are you going to audit all the code you use ? You need to trust some organizations to make the audit. You NEED to trust some entities

While lacking in practicalicy, this is not a new idea. While It is certainly not impossible to have an entity that one can completely trust, I would just argue that such certainty is improbable.

What I'm trying to get at is that one shouldn't approach this question from an appeal to authority – i.e. Proton is trustworthy, therefore all of their services must be privacy friendly, and secure. The russian proverb "trust but verify" comes to mind.

at the very least, this is unimplementable for an email provider.

If one ignores the collection of metadata, then this is the very purpose of PGP.

I am trusting someone for my data

The point that I am trying to make is that one should never have to trust someone with their data – if all data is encrypted, for example, from a privacy perspective, it really doesn't matter where it is stored. Of course, metadata can still be gathered, but that is, in my opinion, a lesser issue, and the user has some, if not complete control over it.

I should also say that it depends on what you mean by "trust". My response, and original comment are under the assumption that "trust" is referring only to privacy.

The issue with email, unless you are comumnicating between two Proton Mail accounts, is that your message will likely be stored on another server which is extremely likely to be unencrypted. The bottom line is that you can never trust the rest of the infrastructure, and you have no control over it. You can end-to-end encrypt using PGP, but this is extremely impractical.

Or, better yet, one should simply not use email for secure communications.

it is also owned by the people who run it

The ownership of a service, ideally, should make no difference to that service's trustworthiness.

Ill get straight to the question: what should i use?

Are you referring to email?

Do you trust Proton?

For starters, such a question is coming at it from the wrong perspective. One should have trust in the software – if such sowtware is, indeed, trustworthy – and not in the entity that created it. If one seeks privacy, then they should be of the mindset that every entity is malevolent.

It matters because American culture currently prefers everyone to have a college degree as opposed to any other type of education. […] If this avenue was cut off then the attitude of the public would change to allow other means of education.

I completely agree that our favoring of, or requiring of post-secondary degrees for employement is an important cultural issue. I don't agree, however, that the solution is to make the provision of loans illegal – illegalization is rarely anything else than a band-aid on top of a gaping wound. An argument could be made that the government provision of student loans should be stopped (in countries where that occurs e.g. Canada), but I don't think the solution is to simply make all student loans illegal.

and then yoke them into debt for the rest of their lives.

Hm, that is an assumption. There's a few issues with that statement. The total cost of one's loans are directly related to the cost of the post-secondary institution that they decide to attend. There is little reason to go to a very expensive institution. I do understand that some employers are elitist in that they won't hire anybody outside of an ivy league school, but I would wager that that issue is not very prevalent – the free market should take up the slack. Furthermore, one's ability to get out of such debt is related to the income that they expect from employment after attaining their degree, as well as their level of monetary responsibility, and savviness. If one decides to blindly go into student debt for studies that will offer little in return, that is one's own risk to take. You must also not forget that there is no requirement that one must do white-collar work. Trades do not require such degrees, and are just as well-paying, if not better.

I presume that anywhere where interest-free loans are offered, they are offered by that country's government. Canada, for example, as of April 1st 2023, offers federal student loans interest-free. Depending on the province, some may not have interest on provincial loans, as well.

What issue are you looking to solve? You state that you believe people are able to seek out, and attain their education independently through resources like the internet. So why would it matter if there are alternatives that cost money which one can pay, and receive loans for?

That said, the use of fallacious arguments is the tool by which one gaslights. They aren’t mutually exclusive.

Fair point in that they aren't mutually exclusive, but I would disagree that logical fallacies are then only means used to gaslight. Gaslighting is the action by which an abuser sews doubt in one's own judgement, and beliefs – that can be done any number of ways.

When you use fallacies intentionally to convince someone that their basic and true point is wrong… That’s a form of gaslight.

Gaslighting isn't necessarily attempting to convince someone that what they believe is wrong, it's meant to cause someone to question reality, their own sanity, beliefs, memories, etc. This can of course be used to sway average public opinion in the direction of a desired agenda, but it's not trying to convince change in one's opinion, I would argue.

The term doesn’t need to only apply to relationships. Political gaslights have become increasingly prevalent through social media.

Oh, for sure. A simple example would be the official denial of a true event's occurence.

Ok, seems fine.

I agree with the statement that you are making, but, if I may be pedantic for just a moment, the way that your example was worded is not an example of gaslighting; it is actually an example of something called "affirming the disjunct".

Out of curiosity, what's the output of # dmesg | grep iwlwifi?

If nothing else, I would recommend Firefox over Brave for the sole reason of the latter being yet another Chromium browser. It would be nice if we could eat away some of the browser marketshare from Google.

Borg good