"Your privacy is very important _for us_"
It is to protect against terrorists. And to protect the children.
If it works for Google, why shouldn't work for them.
> But, people's tolerance for failure is low, and starting to match existing service levels will demand more cost (-one kind of failure) or risk (the bigger one) of data loss.
"Nice datacenter you have. Such a pity that it has ... connection problems. ".
You could reduce it to a single hardware security key without a password and it would be more secure. The problem—in this case and in general—is using passwords and OTPs for anti-phishing; with a hardware key, there is no way for the phishers to gain access to the account (without being in the room or in possession of the key), even if they successfully convince their victim to log in.
There are scams where they tell the user to do stuff themselves even as far as to tell the victim to take all of the money out and deposit it in a bitcoin account
1. Because it's not open source. This isn't purely an ideological thing, but that I tend to run into obscure bugs, so being able to look through the source and submit a patch is incredibly useful to me.
2. Because what I want doesn't exist. Windows NT has excellent technical foundations, but I really don't like using Win32 or any of the Windows shell stuff, but there's no way for regular consumers to use Windows NT without Win32. (WSL exists, but that still requires a full Windows installation)
3. The ecosystem. Linux tends to have much better support than Windows for the types of software that I use, and a hypothetical GNU/NT hybrid would have even worse than both Windows and Linux.
"Yes" "We are all the same". Monty Python
reply