4 ms·
> “ People are not claiming that it is a bad idea because it is infeasible or not valuable, but because it is dangerous and also because it sounds technically r
by fossuser 5y ago
> “ People are not claiming that it is a bad idea because it is infeasible or not valuable, but because it is dangerous and also because it sounds technically ridiculous. (thin client inside thin client)”
This is the kind of asymmetric dismissal he’s talking about, and it’s not very good.
Dangerous? We run everything via cloud services and encrypted communication. “Sounds technically ridiculous” - so did probably every modern technological idea when it was new “you put your database in some other company’s servers?!”.
You’re mostly proving PG’s point.
- solosoyokaze 5y agoFrom a privacy perspective alone, it’s a terrible idea to give a company your browsing data. That is dangerous and certainly not best practice. The critique is valid.
- stephc_int13 5y agoWe can still create and run programs on our computers. This is more important than you think. Delegating power/freedom is dangerous, we're already delegating too much.
- fossuser 5y agoYeah I mean I’m with you - I like local control and I think Urbit is cool because of this. That said, the potential for mighty is real and dismissing it for these reasons is dumb. The same logic would have also dismissed nearly all modern wildly successful tech companies.