Could you explain how it doesn't undermine your argument?
Blemgo
I think the term you are looking for is "Deep Net", although it originally meant websites that weren't indexed by web searches.
Checked his credentials of Mike Booth. He seems to have come from Turtle Rock Studios, not the veterans of Valve. Departed the company before Evolve and worked for Blizzard.
However, considering that the main success of L4D and L4D2 lies in the tech provided by the core team of Valve, it seems unlikely that it will have a similar success as L4D, although some games managed to capture a similar feeling to it without having worked at Valve, so there's still a chance, albeit a slim one.
Still, Bazzite is pretty much one of the best Gaming distros out there. All drivers are included with the installation (you select which Hardware you have before downloading) and the OS itself is immutable, so you don't have to worry about damaging the OS in any way. The only downside is that it exclusively uses Flatpaks, which does have a few problems regarding interoperability between programs (e.g. Firefox doesn't allow KeePassXC to interact with the KeePass add-on). However, I would recommend Flatpaks either way, since it adds better security and reliability, since you don't have to worry about an update breaking programs.
However, if you don't need that interoperability, I'd say there is little reason not to use it if you want to play games. And when a game doesn't work, protondb usually gives enough hints to how to fix these issues. Generally, I had less issues with games on there compared to other distros (e.g. OpenSUSE).
Not only that, but they are crucial for network security. VPNs allow all network traffic (with a few necessary exceptions) to be routed through the company's network and benefit from its security measures, mainly monitoring traffic for suspicious and malicious behaviour. Without it, finding compromised PCs is much harder and enforcing company policies regarding web use would be impossible outside the office.
One company that I can recommend is Withings. They do have an companion app, but a lot of devices do work on their own, and when not, they work with Google Fit or HomeAssistant, though probably due to that fact the products are pricier.
Ah, wonderful Poulaines.
Well, there are some theories of CWD causing Creutzfeldt-Jakob-Disease in unusually young patients and there are some concerns/doubts about the actual barrier believed to protect us, so that's fun.
I'd argue most people just aren't parasitic enough to willingly exploit both their sellers, workers and customers in the scale of how Amazon did and still does.
You should do that anyways. Bed frames exost for a reason: it helps to stop moisture building up on the underside of the mattress, and thus prevents mold.
Possibilities are all possible outcomes of a certain scenario. With the example of a coin toss, it's heads or tails. However, these are dependent on your definition of what you want to observe. For example, at a dice roll, you could define the possibilities as:
- any number less than 5 is rolled
- a 5 is rolled
- a 6 is rolled
Probabilities are attached to possibilities. They define how likely an outcome is. For example, in an ideal coin toss heads and tails have a probabilitiy of 0.5 (or 50%) each.
With my 2nd example, the probabilities would be:
- any number less than 5 is rolled: 4/6 (or 2/3 or 0.666... or 66.666...%)
- a 5 is rolled (1/6 or 0.1666... or 16.666...%)
- a 6 is rolled (1/6 or 0.1666... or 16.666...%)
All probabilities must add up to 1.0 (or 100%), otherwise your possibilities overlap, which is generally not something you want.
Plausibility is a bit more tricky, as it also depends on your definition, namely a cutoff point. You could see the cutoff point as a limit of how much you want to risk. I'll only examine the example for the coin toss for that. Say you will toss a coin 100 times. This would mean there are 2^100^ possibilities, but we will examine only 2 for this matter:
- you will get 100 times tails
- you will get as many tails as heads
Let's say the cutoff point is 0.01, i.e. 1%. This would make the first possibility improbable, as 1/(2^100^) is far lower than 0.01. The second possibility is 0.5, which is greater than 0.01, and therefore probable.
Though this solution also seems to be very flawed, doesn't it? You basically trust another company to manage your child's smartphone and granting it full access to it. Furthermore, that doesn't stop predators, as they could still arrange meetups with their unknowing victims. And even if it captures text messages, kids would be discouraged to use their phone due to their fear of their parents disproving of their friends or their communication to them. Instead, they'd more likely learn the use of "burner phones" by getting a factory-reset phone and using that one instead.
It's the sort of ham-fisted attempt expected by parents that blame their kids for their mistakes instead of their parenting.