3 ms·

> You have to trust something at some point. No, you can instead acknowledge that you can't trust any of it and behave accordingly. You don't have to settle o

> You have to trust something at some point. No, you can instead acknowledge that you can't trust any of it and behave accordingly. You don't have to settle on trusting something.

palata 4y ago
Not sure what your point is. You're saying that you can live without trusting anything at all? Say you don't trust that absorbing any kind of liquid is safe, how do you survive more than a few days? Do you prove it first? Based on what, if you don't trust anything? Trust is all around us, we constantly choose to trust (or not) things.
- jandrese 4y ago
  This is not a new issue. Philosophers have pondered for centuries about the possibility of a godlike deceiver that is constantly fooling your senses. How can you be sure you aren't plugged into the Matrix right now? Even worse, their arguments against said deceiver are weak, some saying that your own eyeballs can be ultimately trusted, others suggesting that since God is good he wouldn't let it happen. Ultimately you have to trust in something or it is literally impossible to function. Even if that trust is only in your own senses. In practical terms you have to trust a lot more to function in society. Maybe a good first pass is to trust in things that most other people trust in, so that if there is a deceiver there will be a lot of other people mad with you and a greater chance of not only punishing the deceiver, but detecting them in the first place. You can't fool all of the people all of the time.
  - coretx 4y ago
    Politicians proof your point wrong. Amounts of people are for a fact a horrible metric. Look at religious people for example, or simply the fact that your eyes ( or brain ) actually is mostly deceiving you. But this is all horribly besides the point. There is no need to trust google play services yet it opens up a ton more possible attack vectors /and/ it exposes you to states screwing you over, considering that Google cucks to state authorities for various intents and purposes.
    - palata 4y ago
      You miss the point. The point is that you have to trust something at some point. It's your choice what to trust, but you cannot live without trust. Don't trust Google Services, that's great. Trust your favourite alternative instead.
      - coretx 4y ago
        You can live without trust. You can't live without taking risks. Some are sensible, some are not. Unnecessary dependencies are unnecessary risks.
        palata 4y ago
        Again, no. You have to trust your eyes before you walk on a bridge (maybe there is no bridge, and your eyes are being magically tricked into seeing one?), you have to trust that the bridge will not collapse while you are on it. Don't want to trust the bridge? Trusting means taking risks, for sure. But there is still trust.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  > You're saying that you can live without trusting anything at all? I can live without trusting any communications on my phone to be secure from prying government eyes. I have no clue where you got "anything at all" from, sounds like a strawman.
  - palata 4y ago
    Sure. I just don't get what your point is. Since you don't trust any communications at all, then let's use whatever has the best UX even if it is plaintext, and live with the consequences of mass surveillance?

> You have to trust something at some point. No, you can instead acknowledge that you can't trust any of it and behave accordingly. You don't have to settle on trusting something.

palata 4y ago

Not sure what your point is. You're saying that you can live without trusting anything at all? Say you don't trust that absorbing any kind of liquid is safe, how do you survive more than a few days? Do you prove it first? Based on what, if you don't trust anything? Trust is all around us, we constantly choose to trust (or not) things.

jandrese 4y ago
This is not a new issue. Philosophers have pondered for centuries about the possibility of a godlike deceiver that is constantly fooling your senses. How can you be sure you aren't plugged into the Matrix right now? Even worse, their arguments against said deceiver are weak, some saying that your own eyeballs can be ultimately trusted, others suggesting that since God is good he wouldn't let it happen. Ultimately you have to trust in something or it is literally impossible to function. Even if that trust is only in your own senses. In practical terms you have to trust a lot more to function in society. Maybe a good first pass is to trust in things that most other people trust in, so that if there is a deceiver there will be a lot of other people mad with you and a greater chance of not only punishing the deceiver, but detecting them in the first place. You can't fool all of the people all of the time.
- coretx 4y ago
  Politicians proof your point wrong. Amounts of people are for a fact a horrible metric. Look at religious people for example, or simply the fact that your eyes ( or brain ) actually is mostly deceiving you. But this is all horribly besides the point. There is no need to trust google play services yet it opens up a ton more possible attack vectors /and/ it exposes you to states screwing you over, considering that Google cucks to state authorities for various intents and purposes.
  - palata 4y ago
    You miss the point. The point is that you have to trust something at some point. It's your choice what to trust, but you cannot live without trust. Don't trust Google Services, that's great. Trust your favourite alternative instead.
    - coretx 4y ago
      You can live without trust. You can't live without taking risks. Some are sensible, some are not. Unnecessary dependencies are unnecessary risks.
      - palata 4y ago
        Again, no. You have to trust your eyes before you walk on a bridge (maybe there is no bridge, and your eyes are being magically tricked into seeing one?), you have to trust that the bridge will not collapse while you are on it. Don't want to trust the bridge? Trusting means taking risks, for sure. But there is still trust.
MichaelCollins 4y ago
> You're saying that you can live without trusting anything at all? I can live without trusting any communications on my phone to be secure from prying government eyes. I have no clue where you got "anything at all" from, sounds like a strawman.
- palata 4y ago
  Sure. I just don't get what your point is. Since you don't trust any communications at all, then let's use whatever has the best UX even if it is plaintext, and live with the consequences of mass surveillance?