They know how this works: wait a week for everyone to move on to the next thing. The only thing that has even slightly managed to defy this pattern is the epstein list, and even then it's still too early to tell.
teawrecks
joined 2 years ago
"No? Too far? Aright 'sorry', let's move on."
All of that can be publicly audited. When we talk about "trust" we're referring to what happens server side, which we have to assume can never be publicly audited. The importance of e2e encryption is that what ever happens server side doesn't matter. There's a massive gulch between trusting a binary you're able to inspect and trusting one you can't.
What you said is valid though, if you want/need privacy, you need to put in effort, but you also have to assume there's someone smarter than you who will be able to outsmart your own audit. The absolute best you can hope for is that at least the binary is publicly reviewable and that they're not smarter than every pair of eyes who reviews it. That's basically the backbone of open source security.
I sincerely apologize for taking you seriously. You tried to warn me with your alternating caps, so it's my fault. Cheers.
That's fair, though that's more of a flaw with the email protocol. There's no way around leaking that to the receiver's email provider as well.
Good point, I hadn't considered that.
For the record, if your security is based on "trust", you're going to have a bad time. The whole point of a cryptographically secure line of communication is that you don't need to trust anyone except the recipient. Protonmail users choose it specifically because they don't trust anyone, including Protonmail.
What's old is new again...
The golden rule of fascism: always first accuse others of the conspiracies you're going to engage in.
And lastly, I am wondering how this is going to impact Nazis like Kirk in general. Are they going to ramp it up or step it down?
There's a reason marvel used a "Hydra" as the mascot for fascism. We're still at the beginning of this roller coaster.
"You will not get gun deaths to zero. You can significantly reduce them....by having more fathers in the home and more armed guards in front of schools."
I fucking burst out laughing. This guy was a walking meme.
view more: next ›
I think the breakdown in communication is due to a difference in how people's brains have been trained to accept something as "true". Some people embrace the scientific method, while others are dogmatic.
To elaborate, I imagine you (aspire to) readily alter your personal beliefs to fit the data you've observed. But that is a foreign concept to some people. In order to utilize the scientific method, you need to be appropriately trained in it, and you need the intellect to apply it. But if you're lacking in either department, you still need to be able to function day-to-day, to dress yourself, do your job, pay bills, and just stay alive. No one has time to think critically about every single challenge they're presented, so our default behaviour is to create heuristics which can be reused multiple times without needing to think.
The difference between science enjoyers and dogma stans is that the latter group slowly learned over their lifetime that heuristics helped them function in life more than relying on their ability to reason; and now not only do they depend on the exchange of heuristics between others in their group (their "ingroup" as-it-were) in order to function, but they assume everyone operates that way (it's all they know). The scientific method is a just a vocab term they forgot in middle school, and the idea of re-evaluating your beliefs is frowned upon, because that means you must have bad heuristics!
So back to your original question, I believe the confusion happens because you and they have different implied meanings when you each ask for a source of information: You ask because you want new evidence that might change your conclusions about a subject. But they ask because they seek to discredit your source of heuristics. In their experience, if someone told them X, but then later that person turned out to be wrong, then that's enough reason to doubt X. That's their heuristic for doubt, so that's their goal, to make a map of your ingroup and try to foster doubt within it.
That is the only reason in their mind that they would ever have to know your sources, the concept of empiricism is mostly foreign to them.