Well with food something unusual at first feels weird but once you try it it might actually be good. I've had this experience quite a lot. Probably shows how much you're conditioned to liking certain foods just because you're used to them and grew up with them. So I'm not gonna judge how this would taste. But the first impression was like "ugh".

Technically, everyone has a Facebook account, or at least a shadow account at Meta. Since they are one of the biggest data gatherers in the world, they gather data from all sorts of sources about people, not just from your active usage of their apps, sites and services. It's extremely likely that they have quite a bit of data on everyone. Many proprietary mobile apps, for example, initiate connections and transfer some data to Meta or Google. Even apps that have nothing at all to do with them otherwise. Many websites do. Many applications and games do. Integrated proprietary software in various devices, e.g. smart TVs, does. Also, WhatsApp is used by I think ~30% of the world's population now(?) and they started syncing/sharing all that data (mostly metadata but metadata is also very revealing) with Meta several years ago. Since WhatsApp also shares your whole contact / address book with Meta, they also effectively have a (mostly) full social connections graph on about a third of the world's population, based on WhatsApp usage data alone... so overall they'll have even more.

Unless you're efficiently blocking or otherwise interrupting all of those connections, on every device, or are able to really effectively use different IPs and never reveal all of the IP addresses associated with yourself, it's likely they still have quite a bit about you. If you're logged into a personally identifiable Google or Meta account on your phone, for example, and your phone is in your WiFi, then it'll have the same public-facing IP address as your computers, meaning they'll be able to enumerate all of your devices based on what they gathered on that IP address alone. It means that IP address can now always be linked to your person for Google/Meta/and so on.

And then there's always the possibility of the apps or websites not making your device directly connect to Meta/Google/... so it looks like only the 1st party gets your data (which always seems OK), but afterwards or in the backend it can still transmit or share the gathered data without your knowledge to those companies. This can also happen without the 1st party noticing it, because Meta and Google are often integrated in a lot of things, for example in SDKs or popular libraries. For example if you develop a mobile app using Meta's SDK, then by default (opt-out) the resulting app will transmit various kinds of telemetry data to Meta. Unless the developer disables this consciously, which many do not know or care about, it will simply be on and active. Sometimes they also have special data sharing deals with certain companies. Google has even more ways of being included in all sorts of things, they are almost omnipresent. For example Google is doing checks whether your Android-based mobile phone is carrier-locked or not, on behalf of your carrier, not your carrier. Google also receives your (personally-identifiable) IMEI and telephone number alongside every single location request your phone is doing, even from an app that's completely unrelated to Google. [unless your Android has configured a non-standard SUPL server, which isn't even an option in most Androids, or you use GrapheneOS which uses a proxy SUPL server to strip that bit of personally identifiable data before redirecting it to the real SUPL server (which most likely is your provider's, which in turn is most likely just a redirect to Google's SUPL server in the end)]. These are just examples off the top of my head, there's even more weird stuff happening of course.

So it doesn't really matter if you have active accounts at those companies, or not. They still know a lot about you and your devices, and sell that data to governments and whoever else bids the most for it. And even if they don't know you yet (if no link to your person is currently possible for a particular data set), which is highly unlikely but may be a possibility if you're truly careful and use different IPs all the time, they still gather all these records, and it only takes one single mistake on your end and they'll be able to link all records they gathered from that particular IP address to your person as well. Not only that, but they could even statistically calculate that based on what you visited or what you wrote somewhere online, or even how your typing style is, that you're likely this particular person, even if the data is still "anonymous".

It's really hard and really inconvenient to escape all the data gathering, in practice the only thing you can do is minimize it. Most users don't care at all or don't want to deal with the extra effort and simply let everything flow out. It's a much easier online life, but it's also an almost fully surveilled online life.

• GUI: Thunderbird
• TUI: neomutt
• Android: K-9 (soon to be Thunderbird)

• No good operating system preinstalled by default
• No headphone jack anymore

The word "likely" should be stripped from that headline. It will definitely happen. Just as mass migrations will happen due to losing a lot of habitable areas. Many coastal cities/areas will also be gone (submerged) in only a few decades.

I'm barely still a Millenial. Which is kind of cool. I don't like the "generation names" before or after that much, and I liked that I grew up with non-invasive tech and non-existent smartphones during school. I was able to grow up with tech but none of the tech I dislike today. Also, tech was still easier to understand back then. I was able to learn how to create web sites for example when HTML, CSS, JavaScript and CGI was still in its infancy and not very complex yet. Of course I learned the growing complexitty as it all developed but the point is that it kind of grew with me. Which probably made several things easier to get into in the first place. Also, I still grew up with almost forgotten values such as privacy, and my whole youth life (as well as dumb things you did when young) isn't available online and therefore "gone". I kind of like it that way.

If you use Google's Play Services and/or other Google proprietary apps and services (they are standard on all commercial Android phones), then your battery will be drained slightly more due to it having spyware (euphemism: "telemetry") integrated. The Google Play services app, for example, does transmit at the minimum this data roughly every 20 minutes to Google:

Phone #
SIM Card #
IMEI (world-wide unique device ID)
S/N of your device
WIFI MAC address
Android ID
Mail Address of your  logged in Google account
IP address

And that is just if you have disabled ALL telemetry in ALL of the options, even the most hidden ones. So this is the minimum amount they are always gathering from every Android user, no matter what you selected. To make matters worse, the Google Play services is typically installed as a "system critical app" which means you as the owner of the phone can't even uninstall it or reduce some of its permissions.

(If you have an iPhone instead, and think you're safe from this, no you aren't. Apple also collects a minimum amount of telemetry data which you cannot ever completely disable, it just does it slightly less frequently (IIRC, it was like every hour or so, compared to Google's every 20min at the minimum).

And then there's also the advertisement ID, a world-wide unique identifier set in all commercial Androids as well as iOS, for apps to track you. You can only reset it to a new random ID but never disable it fully.

To stop all of this bullsh!t, and also to stop the additional battery/resource drain caused by this, I recommend getting a Pixel phone and replacing the proprietary stock Android OS with GrapheneOS and then not installing any Google apps/services on top of it. You can get apps via F-Droid, Obtainium, Aurora store (those are the convenient methods). You can use ntfy as an alternative to the Google firebase messaging (notification) service that you won't have access to when not having Google Play services running.

Dumb user friendly (having no particular background): yes

Dumb user friendly (having Windows background): no

Windows knowledge makes learning other OS harder because Windows is the weirdest OS out there.

Answer is correct, I just want to clarify a bit more:

"Password protected" in your case probably just means that you have a bootloader password or a user account password. Both would not matter in this case. If you put your drive or partition anywhere else, and it's not an encrypted partition, it can be read. Independently of user access rights. Any other OS accessing the same drive/partition can literally read everything if it's not encrypted. Provided, of course, that there's a file system driver available for the OS.

Windows by default doesn't have any Linux filesystem driver installed. I'm not sure if that's still the case when you install WSL. And there are 3rd party Linux filesystem drivers available as well.

But to protect yourself against robbery or a Windows which might in the future include a Linux filesystem driver, you should always encrypt all of your partitions. And when encrypting, use Bitlocker only for your Windows system partition, not for any data partitions, and certainly not for Linux partitions. For Linux partitons, use the integrated LUKS2. Bitlocker on Windows isn't private encryption by the way, since a recovery key is being uploaded to MS' servers automatically. That means MS has theoretical access, the US government has, and law enforcement has. As well as any hackers who manage to exfiltrate that key from somewhere. That's why I'd use Bitlocker only for the C: partition, a 3rd party encryption tool like VeraCrypt for any other Windows partition, and LUKS2 for any Linux partiton.

Windows will continue to get more and more user-hostile as time goes on, and they want everyone to have a subscription to Microsoft's cloud services, so they can be in total control of what they deliver to the user and how the user is using their services/apps, and they also will be able to increase pricing regularly of course once the users are dependent enough ("got all my work-related data there, can't just leave").

The next big step that will follow after the whole M365 and Azure will be that businesses can only deploy their Windows clients by using MS Intune, which means MS will deploy your organization's Windows clients, not your organization. So they're always shifting more and more control away from you and into MS' hands. Privacy is always an obvious issue, at the very least since Nadella is CEO, but unfortunately the privacy-conscious people have kind of lost that war, because the common user (private AND business sector) doesn't care at all, so we will have to wait and see how those things will turn out in the future, they will start caring once they are being billed more due to their openly known behavior (driving, health, eating/drinking, psychology, ...) or once they are being legally threatened more (e.g. your vehicle automatically reports by itself when you've driven too fast, or some AI has concluded based on your gathered data that you're likely to cause some kind of problem), or once they are rejected at or before job interviews because of leaked health data or just some (maybe wrong) AI-created prognosis of your health. So I think there will be a point when the common user will start caring, we just haven't reached that point yet because while current data collection and profile building is problematic because it's the stepping stone to more dystopian follow-ups, it alone is still too abstract of an issue for most people to care about it. Media is also partly to blame here when they do reviews or news about new devices and then just go like "great camera and display, MUST BUY" and never mention the absurd amount of telemetry data the device sends home. MS is also partnering with Palantir and OpenAI which will probably give them even more opportunities to automatically surveil every single one of their business and private sector users. I think M365 also already gives good analytics tools to business owners to monitor what their employees are doing, how much time they spend in each application, how "efficient" they are, things like that. Plus they have this whole person and object recognition stuff going on using "smart" cameras and some Azure service which analyzes the video material constantly. Where the employees (mostly workers in that case) are constantly surveilled and if anything abnormal happens then an automatic alert is sent, and things like that. Probably a lot of businesses will love that, and no one cares enough about the common worker's rights. It can be sold as a security plus so it will be sold. So I think MS is heavily going into the direction of employee surveillance, since they are well-integrated into the business world anyway (especially small and medium businesses) and with Windows in particular I think they will move everything sloooowly into the cloud, maybe in 10-15 years you won't have a "personal" computer anymore, you're using Microsoft's hardware and software directly from Microsoft's servers and they will gain full, unlimited, 100% surveillance and control of every little detail you're doing on your computer, because once you hand away that control, they can do literally anything behind your back and also never tell you about it. Most of the surveillance stuff going on all the time already is heavily shrouded in secrecy and as long as that's the case there will be no justice system in the world being able to save you from it, because they'd first need concrete evidence. Guess why the western law enforcement and secret services hunted Snowden and Assange so heavily? Because they shone some light into what is otherwise a massive, constant cover-up that is also probably highly illegal in most countries. So it needs to be kept a secret. So the MS (and Apple, ...) route stands for total dependence and total loss of control. They just have to move slowly enough for the common user not to notice. Boil the frog slowly. Make sure businesses can adapt. Make sure commercial software vendors can adapt. Then slowly direct the train into cloud-only territory where MS rules over and can log everything you do on the computer.

Linux, on the other hand, stands for independence. It means you can pick and choose what components you want, run them whereever and however you want, build your own cloud, and so on. You can build your own distro or find one that fits your use case the most. You're in a lot of control as the user or administrator and this will not change considering the nature of open source / free software. If the project turns to sh!t, you're not forced to stick with it. You can fork it, develop an alternative. Or wait until someone else does. Or just write a patch that fixes the problematic behavior. This alone makes open source / free software inherently better than closed source where the users have no control over the project and always have to either use it as it is or stop using it altogether. There's no middle ground, no fixes possible, no alternatives that can be made from the same code base because the code base is the developer's secret. Also, open source software can be audited at will all the time. That alone makes it much more trustworthy. On the basis of trustworthiness and security alone, you should only use open source software. Linux on its own is "just" the kernel but it's a very good kernel powering a ton of highly diverse array of systems out there, from embedded to supercomputer. I think the Linux kernel can't be beaten and will become (or is already) the objective best operating system kernel there is out there. Now, as a desktop user, you don't care that much about the kernel you just expect it to work in the background, and it does. What you care more is UI/UX, consistency and application/game compatibility. We can say the Linux desktop ecosystem is still lacking in that regard, always behind super polished and user-friendly coherent UIs coming from especially Apple in that regard (maybe also a little bit by Microsoft but coherent and beautiful UIs aren't Microsoft's strong point either, I think that crown goes to Apple). That said, Apple is very much alike Microsoft in that they have a fully locked-down ecosystem, so it's similar to MS, maybe slightly less bad smelling still but it will probably also go in the same direction as MS does, just more slowly and with details being different. Apple's products also appeal to a different kind of audience and businesses than MS' products do. Apple is kind of smart in their marketing and general behavior that they always manage to kind of fly under the radar and dodge most of the shitstorms. Like they also violate the privacy of their users, but they do it slightly less than MS or Google do, so they're less of a target and they even use that to claim they're the privacy guys (in comparison), but they also aren't. You still shouldn't use Apple products/services. "Less bad than utterly terrible" doesn't equal "good". There's a lot of room between that. Still, back to Linux. It's also obviously a matter of quality code/projects and resources. Big projects like the Linux kernel itself or the major desktop environments or super important components like systemd or Mesa are well funded, have quality developers behind them and produce high quality output. Then you also have a lot of applications and components where just single community developers, not well funded at all, are hacking away in their free time, often delivering something usable but maybe less polished or less userfriendly or less good looking or maybe slightly more annoying to use but overall usable. Those applications/projects could use some help. Especially if they matter a lot on the desktop because there's little to no alternative available. On the server side, Linux is well established, software for that scenario is plentiful and powerful. Compared to the desktop, it's no wonder why it's successful on servers. Yes, having corporations fund developers and in turn open source projects is important and the more that do it, the more successful those projects become. It's no wonder that gaming for example took off so hugely after Valve poured resources and developers into every component related to it. Without that big push, it would have happened very slowly, if at all. So even the biggest corpo haters have to acknowledge that in capitalism, things can move very fast if enough money is being thrown at the problem, and very slowly if it isn't. But the great thing about the Linux ecosystem is that almost everything is open source, so when you fund open source projects, you accelerate their growth and quality but these projects still can't screw you over as a user, because once they do that, they can be forked and fixed. Proprietary closed-source software can always screw over the user, no one can prevent that, and it also has a tendency to do just that. In the open source software world, there are very few black sheep with anti-user features, invasive telemetry, things like that. In the corporate software world, it's often the other way around.

So by using Linux and (mostly) open source products, you as the user/admin remain in control, and it's rare that you get screwed over. If you use proprietary software from big tech (doesn't even matter which country) you lose control over your computing, it's highly likely that you get screwed over in various ways (with much more to come in the future) and you're also trusting those companies by running their software and they're not even showing the world what they put in their software.

code: camel or snake, depending on language

files/dirs: snake + kebab + dot mixture (trying to avoid caps and special chars here)

Considering that it's the FDP, they're probably primarily doing it to protect corporate interests, not the rights of the general population.

What kind of world do we want to live in? What would be the safest theoretical thing? They can't assign one police officer per citizen, as they don't have enough police officers. So that's a big resource constraint. But they will soon have the tech to videotape and audiotape every single cititzen using small insect-like drones that are almost impossible to find. And before that happens, they want to know who everyone online is, what they're doing and what they've done in the past, present and future. They want to know what sites you visited, who you've spoken to, what you've spoken about, and so on. And after they know this in the online world, they want to know it in the offline world too (using cameras with mics and person detection capabilities). How far will they go with their securtiy madness? It won't be long until the average citizen has zero (not just a little, zero) privacy, neither online nor offline, probably not even on the toilet or in the bed. And like I said, if you want the ultimate security, you need to assign one small surveillance drone per citizen for a complete 100% surveillance everywhere and all of the time. If you don't care about privacy and only care about security, that is your end goal. Is that really the world you want to live in?