Liquid_Fire

I better give my consent then, all these users are just waiting for me to give the OK.

Ok, let me break it down because clearly I didn't explain it well.

What is supposed to happen, scenario 1: the client encrypts your messages with the public key of the recipient, sends it to the servers of WhatsApp (or whatever service) along with some encrypted metadata indicating the recipient, which then forward the message to the recipient.

What could happen, scenario 2: the client does the same, but also encrypts another copy of your message with a public key that belongs to WhatsApp, and send both versions to the WhatsApp servers. They decrypt and keep the second version while forwarding the first one to the recipient.

Or, scenario 3: they just never bother with end-to-end encryption, and always encrypt it with the WhatsApp key, still sending it to their servers which then reencrypt with the recipient's key before forwarding.

In all cases, messages are sent only to the WhatsApp servers, not two places. The only visible difference is in scenario 2 where the communication is larger. You can't inspect the metadata of the message with your network sniffer, because it is also encrypted, so there's no way to rule out scenario 3.

If the protocol is designed to be transparent by not encrypting the entire payload sent to the servers, and you have access to the recipient's private key (those are big ifs) then you could show that there is indeed an end-to-end encrypted message in there. But this is true for how many of these proprietary services? Maybe for WhatsApp.

Just encrypt it before sending it to their servers. How would you tell that apart from any other traffic it sends? (E.g. to check for new messages, to update who of your contacts is online, etc)

Almost all services in that list are closed source, so even if they use end-to-end encryption nothing stops the client from sending all your messages to anyone they like after decrypting (in fact some of them already have it as a built-in feature in the form of backups).

In the UK your dishwasher is typically connected only to the cold water intake, so that's not a problem unless you have multiple showers in your house... that said, water heaters are often limited to either heating or hot water (not both at the same time), but that's not an issue in practice since you're not going to be using the hot water for long periods of time.

They do, they're just not connected to the dishwasher so don't need to be factored into its energy usage.

But then shouldn't there be a delay when using actual Chrome?

I thought pounds could be used for either mass or force, and in modern usage just saying "pounds" usually refers to mass. Wikipedia seems to agree:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(mass)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(force)

Then you must not have read the linked article, which mentions three companies that have done just that.

Roaming charges made an unwelcome reappearance for UK mobile users heading to mainland Europe after Brexit. EE, Three and Vodafone were all quick to reintroduce the daily or monthly charges to use their mobiles while in the EU – which typically add £2 a day.

Perry is made from pears, it's not just pear-flavoured apple cider.

Those are British though. Though I'm sure there are also American examples.

I would have said 平和 (heiwa). As another learner, I've never seen 安泰, and ピース I see mostly used as a reference to the "peace sign" (the hand gesture).