Thanks for the pointer! I took the opportunity to learn a bit about more recent NNTP by reading the standard: RFC 3977. It looks like nntp v2 circa 2006 added MIME encoding, so I would guess that may be how a service provider would differentiate.

I haven’t used Usenet since the turn of the century. Back then it was all text (including every article under alt.binaries), and even pirated media needed to be split into a multi-part format (often rar) then each part uuencoded so it could be included in an article.

Does your ISP not give your router a public (even if dynamic) IP? If not, then after your router you’d be double-natted right? Yuck!

What do you consider large files? Isn’t the article size usually limited to something like 1mb (it’s been a while since I used Usenet)?

So it would technically be about the number of articles rather than the eventual size of the combined archive? At the core it’s all still text right?

My dialup ISP in the 90s included Usenet.

That saying too often gets used as an excuse to not even try moving away from patronizing a harmful business, as though it isn’t worth any inconvenience since we’re screwed no matter what.

Not either of those, but have you seen Brax3 phone?

I don’t think it necessarily needs the victim to have voted for them - it’s more about the majority supporting the referendum and also the incompatible representatives. The LEPF party were elected and are doing what they do.

^ Obviously uneducated about the topic.

At least read up on JStark and the FGC-9.

Agreed, and it’s not like clean energy generation and good wastewater treatment are impossible - just more expensive. Perhaps 10x the normal cost per bag would pay for the difference?

Thank you for the difficult public service you do.

The wealthy ones didn’t need to resort to veterinary medicine - their doctors were willing to be paid to prescribe the human version of those drugs. Legitimate drugs that save many lives, just not helpful against viruses like covid.

Are you suggesting they didn’t know Signal wasn’t an approved platform for sensitive government communication and willfully used it anyway?

That’s literally the defining feature of asymmetric cryptography. There are many explanations of how it works which you can easily find. One example is the Wikipedia article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-key_cryptography

If you educate yourself and are still confused, you should probably just accept the fact that even though you can’t understand the specifics, information encoded with the public key cannot be decoded with the same public key.

In my opinion the most relevant commonality is the hypocrisy of all the involved parties. Hillary had sent out a notice to the entire State Department saying to only use official communication platforms, and then did the opposite as if she thinks she’s above the rules.

Then these Republicans who condemned the actions also used a non-official platform.

Giffords group lies or misleads about guns?

I helped do the easy scenario at large scale in a fortune 50 several years ago after the vendor thought they could get greedy on the support contract renewal. Only required small changes to a few files and packages.

Talos Linux is another unique option.

Agreed (mostly).

Just because something isn’t illegal, that doesn’t make it morally right. The inverse also applies.

Even though the First Amendment prohibits government suppression of speech, it doesn’t mean that the expression is immune to consequences from society including non-governmental suppression.

I think the “no arrests were made” observation was meant in relation to your last point, not the first at all.

Biden is owned by the same people as Trump. There’s only one party, the party of the Oligarchs.

Is not the same as

all democrats and republicans act the same and are equal

Refusing to see nuance in the difference between the sentiment of these two statements does a disservice to yourself and your cause (unless you’re on the side of the billionaires).

So here you go since you missed the distinction: they can both be (and are) corrupt, without being “the same”.

People like to point out all the ways they’re not the same and one team is better than the other. Fine. Those things can all be true, and politicians in both those parties are still corrupt.

It was only a couple presidents ago that Democrats had the House, Senate, and President. Even then they couldn’t get their own members to vote for anti-corruption legislation.

OP makes a statement that all democrats and republicans act the same and are equal

Wrong. OP never wrote that - YOU made that statement as a strawman. You should try to be a more honest person.