According to him Line uses old school username/password for authentication, which is a good sign.
On the desktop, yes.To create an account you need a phone or tablet: with a phone number.

Plus its not how many benchmarks Intel is better at, its the benchmark's relevance. If its use case is almost non-existent, nobody cares who beat who.

I mostly use Telegram. Which is open source. But I don't know what it is really doing either. Like 99% of the other users, I never looked at the source code.

In Europe WA is very popular. And childs don't use it because they use the Instagram or Twitter related apps.

border wall thing needs re-thinking.

I'll bet you were fapping while you typed that out projection perp.

Skype was only any good when it still was owned by skype.
The first buydr ruined it, and now under the control of MS it is barely useable.
At least phone and video calls still work.

What do yiu think how many FB accounts my GF has?
I hate web sites where the Sign ON Screen (aka: enter your email and get an account) is the first screen and "log into existing account" is some where hidden.

What's the mater with that? There's a sense of pride in being picked that can't be purchased with coins, you know. It's also great experience. It's also that competition brings the best out of peoples' work. I wish people would stop thinking solely in $localcurrency.

The cliche images of "cybersecurity" are not product of creatives that drive consumer fear, it's the other way around.

The general populace has no idea what information security really entails beyond using HTTPS and seeing movies like Hackers. Their perception of the topic based on their limited understanding of technology has already created the hoodie boogeyman in their struggle to attach a "criminal face" (or lack thereof) to the perpetrator. This is mostly because of the cartoonish way mass media portrays "bad people" in art, television, and movies. If you made a hacker in a picture the way they realistically look in life (a mild-mannered, clean cut, probably white guy, possibly an employee of the very company) no one would believe it because their whole understanding of the world is based on this idea moral values somehow translate to your physical appearance. Bad guys will "look bad/evil". In tangible/violent crime this image is built with the look of the "thug". But you can't use that same image for computer crime because the thug archetype is usually based on the idea the person is above average in physical strength but below average in intelligence, or has a mental illness or substance abuse problem clouding their judgment, and the populace equates being proficient in computers with intelligence (regardless of where the truth lies), so the thug/junkie image doesn't seem believable. Enter the mysterious "hoodie" person! Likely young, trying to shield themselves from identification by people or cameras with their trademark garment, In it for money or glory. Not interested in the greater world or politics (this is why folks are not taking the "election interference via social network platforms" stories seriously and leaving Facebook in droves).

If you're making images for a news/feature story on Cybersecurity, you're having to cater to your client/boss's wishes. If someone took an image that more accurately reflected the topic of cybersecurity to their editor/manager/etc, the response they would most likely get is "What's this? Our readers are going to have no idea what this is supposed to represent. Come back with something we can actually use on the site or we'll find someone who can."

Most government employees in Western Nations are law abiding citizens who are not corrupt, otherwise nothing government related would function. It is usually only the top tier "Officials" who got there because they thought they could profit from graft. See the current Russian and American Administrations for the evidence...in a few years, it will just be Russmerica, Moscow Mitch will be proud.