3 ms·

Is the cost of getting phished really lower than the cost of learning a password manager for your dad?

by anderspitman 3y ago

samwillis 3y ago
Is the cost of lung cancer lower than smoking? Some people will just never change a behaviour.
- anderspitman 3y ago
  I find there are generally two reasons people use analogies. The first is to make a concept easier to understand. The second is to subtly change what is being argued in order to make their position seem stronger. I did the second for years without realizing what I was doing, and still fall into the trap.
  - samwillis 3y ago
    Or the third to to illustrate the argument in another context. I usually avoid analogies of HN as you are often called out on the technicalities of them. And you are right that can often damage an argument. However, I have argued that changing peoples behaviour, even when their current behaviour is bad for them, is often impossible despite all evidence, from the beginning.
    - anderspitman 3y ago
      > Or the third to to illustrate the argument in another context. This is still case 1. I actually agree with you that some people with bad security habits will never change their behavior, but do you really feel that someone using passwords in a notebook because that's what they're comfortable with is in the same class of behavior as someone addicted to nicotine? Feel free to have the last word here. 1 on 1 HN threads more than 3 deep rarely result in productive conversation. Cheers
  - Eisenstein 3y ago
    I find there are generally two reasons people pick apart argument structure rather than deal with an argument's content. The first is to point out fallacies or rhetorical devices which are invalid or illogical. The second is because they realize their position is too weak to confront it directly.
    - anderspitman 3y ago
      Are you sure you understand what my position is? Care to strongman it? Fwiw I think you're actually right that HN tends to spend way too much time on semantics, and I'm certainly guilty of that myself sometimes
      - Eisenstein 3y ago
        I am not arguing for or against your position. I am using the form you just used in order to mirror how annoying doing something like that is.
        anderspitman 3y ago
        Your initial intent was clear. I was simply trying to move this towards something productive. Clearly I failed
        Eisenstein 3y ago
        You don't seem to be 'simply' doing anything. Everything you have posted besides the first comment about phishing is some kind of dodge which uses obvious manipulation tactics, for instance saying 'I do that myself sometimes', which is a cop method for encouraging confessions, or 'you can have the last word' works to actually let you have the last word. Stop doing that.
        anderspitman 3y ago
        You're ascribing a ton of ill will here, and I hope you'll give me a little more grace, but on the other hand maybe there is some truth to your words. I'll see if I can communicate more clearly and authentically in the future. Thanks for the opportunity to introspect.

Is the cost of getting phished really lower than the cost of learning a password manager for your dad?

samwillis 3y ago

Is the cost of lung cancer lower than smoking? Some people will just never change a behaviour.

anderspitman 3y ago
I find there are generally two reasons people use analogies. The first is to make a concept easier to understand. The second is to subtly change what is being argued in order to make their position seem stronger. I did the second for years without realizing what I was doing, and still fall into the trap.
- samwillis 3y ago
  Or the third to to illustrate the argument in another context. I usually avoid analogies of HN as you are often called out on the technicalities of them. And you are right that can often damage an argument. However, I have argued that changing peoples behaviour, even when their current behaviour is bad for them, is often impossible despite all evidence, from the beginning.
  - anderspitman 3y ago
    > Or the third to to illustrate the argument in another context. This is still case 1. I actually agree with you that some people with bad security habits will never change their behavior, but do you really feel that someone using passwords in a notebook because that's what they're comfortable with is in the same class of behavior as someone addicted to nicotine? Feel free to have the last word here. 1 on 1 HN threads more than 3 deep rarely result in productive conversation. Cheers
- Eisenstein 3y ago
  I find there are generally two reasons people pick apart argument structure rather than deal with an argument's content. The first is to point out fallacies or rhetorical devices which are invalid or illogical. The second is because they realize their position is too weak to confront it directly.
  - anderspitman 3y ago
    Are you sure you understand what my position is? Care to strongman it? Fwiw I think you're actually right that HN tends to spend way too much time on semantics, and I'm certainly guilty of that myself sometimes
    - Eisenstein 3y ago
      I am not arguing for or against your position. I am using the form you just used in order to mirror how annoying doing something like that is.
      - anderspitman 3y ago
        Your initial intent was clear. I was simply trying to move this towards something productive. Clearly I failed
        Eisenstein 3y ago
        You don't seem to be 'simply' doing anything. Everything you have posted besides the first comment about phishing is some kind of dodge which uses obvious manipulation tactics, for instance saying 'I do that myself sometimes', which is a cop method for encouraging confessions, or 'you can have the last word' works to actually let you have the last word. Stop doing that.
        anderspitman 3y ago
        You're ascribing a ton of ill will here, and I hope you'll give me a little more grace, but on the other hand maybe there is some truth to your words. I'll see if I can communicate more clearly and authentically in the future. Thanks for the opportunity to introspect.