pmk

I can see how one can interpret it like that, but it’s not how I read what he said. I think the point he’s trying to make is that hardened security protects the user from attacks, yes, but their focus is to provide services that can be trusted not to attack the user. He said: “really hardened security stuff that could clearly be useful for executives, in the secret service, or whatever. That’s not our goal”

I mean, I use GrapheneOS on my phone, but do I personally need all the hardened security? Not really. It’s nice theoretically, but mainly I’m just happy the OS itself isn’t spying on me. I’m personally not very worried about an evil maid attack or state level spying.

An important piece in some openings.

If Trump was an old school italian mafia guy, his nickname could be Donnie Two Weeks.

I agree, honesty is a good first step. So, given all this, should we focus on simply being the more attractive option? Or a combination of principles and convenience? If the good option is cheaper or more convenient, we wouldn’t strictly need principles and moral arguments. I’m just thinking of strategy here, it can feel good to be a righteous preacher, but what actually gets us the results we want?

I think there is a fatigue. Morally, I can’t justify eating animal products, but I do eat cheese and drink milk. I should take the bus instead of driving, but sometimes I use my car out of convenience. Chocolate means exploiting workers in some country. Etc. People see the world burning and feel powerless.