3 ms·

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

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.

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.