4 ms·

> Unfortunately the genie is out of the bottle already. The web by and large requires javascript, and it's not likely to change. This fatalist stance is childi

by madez 9y ago

> Unfortunately the genie is out of the bottle already. The web by and large requires javascript, and it's not likely to change. This fatalist stance is childish, and dangerous. As long as there are people working to make things better, things do improve. Sure, if you make sure that one small website works without JavaScript then that doesn't change the world. I hear a similiar argument when I explain why I don't eat meat; I'm told that animals will be killed anyways. But if I don't eat meat, then less will be killed. How many less? I can't specify the number, but I don't power-hungrily demand my own decision can magically change the world completely over night, and give up when I realize it doesn't. Still, each and everyones has an influence. It's about doing what's right. And even if you are the only one doing the right thing, things will be a bit better for your actions. But in fact the situation isn't that bad, and one isn't alone. > It's not like users can be relied on to do the right thing all the time anyway. So, if you aren't sure you locked the front door of your house, then it also doesn't matter if you left the door to the garden open? Clearly it does matter! This fatalism deems us into inaction and into accepting the status quo even if we know it's bad.

EgoIncarnate 9y ago
>> Unfortunately the genie is out of the bottle already. The web by and large requires javascript, and it's not likely to change. >This fatalist stance is childish, and dangerous. As long as there are people working to make things better, things do improve. How is it any more of a fatalist stance than the idea that javascript or running untrusted code in a sandbox is fundamentally broken? Personally I think it's easier and more likely that we attempt to fix a few web browsers than expect millions of websites to change. You might call it fatalism, but I think of it as realism. >> It's not like users can be relied on to do the right thing all the time anyway. > So, if you aren't sure you locked the front door of your house, then it also doesn't matter if you left the door to the garden open? Clearly not! My point was not that security is useless because users are unreliable. My point was that it's better to keep the kids in the sandbox, than to have them play in a busy street. Security should be preserved in spite of users actions, not rely on them.
- madez 9y ago
  > Personally I think it's easier and more likely that we attempt to fix a few web browsers than expect a millions of websites to change. This is the same argument I criticized before. The world doesn't change completely over night because one changes their own actions, and that is fine. These million websites maybe never change, and that's what we'd have to live with.

by madez 9y ago

EgoIncarnate 9y ago

>> Unfortunately the genie is out of the bottle already. The web by and large requires javascript, and it's not likely to change. >This fatalist stance is childish, and dangerous. As long as there are people working to make things better, things do improve. How is it any more of a fatalist stance than the idea that javascript or running untrusted code in a sandbox is fundamentally broken? Personally I think it's easier and more likely that we attempt to fix a few web browsers than expect millions of websites to change. You might call it fatalism, but I think of it as realism. >> It's not like users can be relied on to do the right thing all the time anyway. > So, if you aren't sure you locked the front door of your house, then it also doesn't matter if you left the door to the garden open? Clearly not! My point was not that security is useless because users are unreliable. My point was that it's better to keep the kids in the sandbox, than to have them play in a busy street. Security should be preserved in spite of users actions, not rely on them.

madez 9y ago
> Personally I think it's easier and more likely that we attempt to fix a few web browsers than expect a millions of websites to change. This is the same argument I criticized before. The world doesn't change completely over night because one changes their own actions, and that is fine. These million websites maybe never change, and that's what we'd have to live with.