It also lacks nuance like those who use both. I don't tend to do mobile gaming although when I do I almost exclusively use my Steam Deck. My wife on the other hand does mobile gaming quite often and her usage is closer to 50/50 between the two. I would think it would be somewhat rare for anyone to exclusively use any one device or to even not own multiple devices.
I dove into their FAQ which explains it. I don't agree with their logic, but the core idea seems to be that in order to run their equivalent of a TOR relay you have to stake a certain amount of their crypto, and you periodically receive some of the crypto as a reward for running the node. The theory is that the more nodes there are, the less crypto is available on the market and the more expensive it will become to acquire enough crypto to create new nodes. It's all supposed to make it prohibitively expensive to control a significant amount of the network.
The fatal flaw in the reasoning is the assumption that anyone will actually care enough about their crypto to drive the price up. With no central authority setting a price for the crypto the price becomes whatever anyone is willing to buy or sell it for. Their fatal assumption is that scarcity automatically generates value. It does not. A thing needs some kind of value in addition to scarcity to become valuable.
You might have a point if those people had no choice, but there are several good or at least better alternatives to TeamViewer and at least one of them is free. Nobody has any excuse for being negatively impacted by this change. Hopefully this is a wakeup call to those people that have been either too lazy or too incompetent to replace TeamViewer to finally do so. TeamViewer is a shit company making a shit product that has just made yet another shit anti-consumer decision (and potentially illegal but I'm sure there's some sneaky license clause they claim makes this legal).
If they're not using it, why does it matter what happens to the license? There's a "it's the principle of the thing" argument sure, but practically speaking this is irrelevant. Shitty company does shitty thing that should have no practical impact on anyone because nobody should be using their product. What exactly would change for people not using TeamViewer if they hadn't revoked those licences? The argument is that anyone still using TeamViewer deserves this, and anyone who isn't isn't actually impacted by this change so it's irrelevant.
And you missed my actual point. It doesn't matter when they purchased the license because the fact they're still using it means they deserve it. Nobody should be using Teamviewer today because they're a terrible company, and if you aren't then this license change doesn't impact you at all.
It's not really about the data breaches themselves but rather the way the company responded to them. The fact they tried to cover it up and gaslight their customers about it shows how terrible they are, and remote access is a highly sensitive thing that should be treated the same as handing the keys to your house over to someone. Anyone that isn't deeply investigating the company or individual making a remote access product prior to using it does deserve what they get in the same way someone handing the keys to their house to a complete stranger they know nothing about would deserve whatever happened to them.
At the end of the day Teamviewer has a history of screwing over their customers for their own profit and in that regard this move is very much on brand for them and entirely predictable. Nobody that has looked into the company's history should be surprised that they've done this at all.
You're technically right but only because Taiwan (despite what China fervently wants) is a separate country from China. If you follow the official Chinese party line that they aren't then yes you could make a modern phone entirely from parts made in "China". It would at a minimum be more "made in China" than anything Trump is peddling as "made in USA".
Yes, very much so. Each party has their candidate. Some states might let multiple members of the same party run, and there have certainly been instances where people have run unopposed for certain offices, but generally most elected positions in the US are partisan.
It has been a key Republican strategy for several decades now to control as many states governorship as they can manage because it allows them to do things like gerrymandering and to pass state policies that favor Republicans.
The DNC needs to just finish the slow metamorphosis they've been going through for decades and finally merge with the RNC so we can get a new actual opposition party. It's looking likely that that new party would end up being the democratic socialist party.
That's certainly part of it, but I'd use any mobile payment app, not just Googles one, but there's basically zero competition there. Some banks apparently had their own mobile payment support briefly, but it seems like just about every single one of them has removed that feature and replaced it with a wrapper around Google Pay.
The problem is that the biggest service Cloudflare provides is DDoS protection, and doing that requires that you have more bandwidth available than your attacker. Having enough bandwidth to withstand modern botnet powered DDoS attacks is ridiculously expensive (and it's also a finite resource, there's only so much backbone infrastructure). Basically it's economically infeasible to have multiple companies providing the service Cloudflare does. You might be able to get away with two companies doing so, but it's unlikely you could manage more than that without some of them starting to go bankrupt.