You ever notice how it sometimes helps to read the whole sentence to understand what some part of it means in context?

A VPN is a VPN, having a different IP address is equally effective against those things no matter which IP it is.

There's a comma after that second VPN so obviously it's related to what follows, which is the part where I describe exactly how a VPN is a VPN: in terms of getting a different IP address. This is twice now you've gone way out on a limb here trying to back the play of some fucking troll who didn't bother to explain themselves and I'm not sure if that's where you want to be. Picking through my comment and taking bits out of context to feed back to me as 'evidence' to back up your pedantry and assumption that the rest of the text of that same comment shows you to be wrong about is not a good look. If you're going to nitpick my shit to death then you should at least try to read the whole thing and understand how each of the parts relate to each other first, otherwise people might mistake you for some fucking troll too (albeit a clearly slightly more intelligent one since you can actually elucidate what your issue is with what I said, regardless of whether or not it's remotely accurate.)

If that's the case then both of you failed to read the part of my comment where I explicitly addressed that:

The issue is whether or not anyone can associate that IP with yours, and what that comes down to is how willing they are to give up their records when the government asks nicely (or, even more importantly: not so nicely.)

I admit I didn't include the possibility of the VPN operator themselves being malicious, but it seems weird to call me out for not addressing the issue of record security re:governments/LE when pretty much the entire point of my comment was to address that specific issue because no one else was, no?

GDF is also wrong about Israel.

Oh, my bad, I didn't even notice the 'no thanks' button. Thanks.

Neat, I'll check that out, thanks!

Edit: Ugh, it looks like all of the book clubs that are tagged as 'sci-fi' are actually 'sci-fi/fantasy' (or sometimes sci-fi/fantasy/historical/romance, which makes no sense) which is not what I'm looking for. Do you happen to know of any that are pure sci-fi? Preferably ones that focus on big-idea sci-fi like Greg Egan or Peter Watts?

A VPN is a VPN, having a different IP address is equally effective against those things no matter which IP it is. The issue is whether or not anyone can associate that IP with yours, and what that comes down to is how willing they are to give up their records when the government asks nicely (or, even more importantly: not so nicely.) I'm not familiar enough with either service to be able to speak to that, but everyone else seems to be talking about features, prices, politics, etc when none of those directly address your questions.

Sorry, Fable? I'm not familiar with that.

I mean I think it's intentional that there's not data on that sort of thing that is collected or made available. There are methods one could use to get a rough estimate; someone elsewhere in the comments suggested taking the reported yearly profit for the company and dividing it by the number of workers. It's not perfect, but it's better than what we've got right now which is just a big ol 'shrug'.

But there is likely someone doing the math, even if they''re just ballparking it and not making it public, because that's how they justify paying everyone's salary. It would not surprise me at all to learn that giant corporations have a pretty accurate accounting of the value created by each employee.

That just sounds like yet another unequal way to divide power, so it's still an oligarchy. Here's a radical idea: why not give everyone who is affected by an entity equal control over it? Why does anyone need more control than everyone else? How could you possibly keep that from being abused to benefit the people in power more than everyone else? This is just capitalism with a little extra shell-game on the side to try to make the inequality seem more just despite being just as unequal.

Kin ah pet dat DAWG??!

I'm guessing they mean 'half of 145%', but yeah that headline is a hot mess.

Funny how every time anyone talks about replacing capitalism everybody trots out the examples of innovation and competition as things we would lose. Meanwhile capitalists are over here doing their level best to sabotage innovation and buy or legislate their way out of competition so they can remain complacent in their dominant market position. 'Won't someone please think of the billionaires' is wearing kinda thin when they're actively undermining the purported benefits of their wanton exploitation and delivering nothing but stagnation and enshittification.