← Back to context

Comment by pixl97

16 days ago

>And you're saying that this shouldn't happen because

You have a strange reversal of causality here.

I'm not saying what should or shouldn't happen.

I am describing what has or has not happened.

I am saying that 'insecure' operating systems dominate the market and can be found everywhere.

I need you to explain to me why secure operating systems are somehow going to get users to move from what they are on to your magical platform?

There is no security police that is writing this secure operating system you're talking about, no one to point guns at them and make people use it. No long line of volunteers open sourcing code to make this secure operating system either.

You're describing an OUGHT, I'm describing an IS.

> You have a strange reversal of causality here.

I do? You're apparently saying that this shouldn't happen because some people will undermine it. Yes, some people will undermine it. Why would you mention that if not to counter my point that security should be the default? Are you now claiming that it's an unrelated fact?

me: Operating systems should be secure, and I'm mad that they're not.

you: people are going to turn that security off

me: so what? it's still more secure than the state of things today

you: hey, i'm just stating a fact, all of the burden is on you, not me. you're wishing and i'm saying facts, which is why you're wrong and i'm right in all things, past, present, and future. things are the way they are and nothing can ever change them because the people who want change can't describe the entire exact path the change will take before making the first step.

me: you are not arguing with logic, therefore i am done talking to you.