3 ms·
No, you're making assumptions about what "secured" means in this context and clearly have no understanding of how any of it actually works. None of what you wro
by willseth 3y ago
No, you're making assumptions about what "secured" means in this context and clearly have no understanding of how any of it actually works. None of what you wrote makes sense.
- berkes 3y agoYou could have stopped at "means". No need to be condescending or telling me I don't know how stuff works. I know how stuff works. My point is, and remains, purely non-technical though. And I also know how language works. If you say "we don't allow X, only Y, because we prioritize security". Then change that to "we do allow X but will perform extra security scrutiny over what we do at Y" then it does not compute. Again: it proves your first statement was a lie (intentional or not). Because a) it was possible to allow for your level of security and you could've allowed both X and Y all along, or b) you are now lowering your security, proving you don't really prioritize security, or c) you are merely frustrating X in a different way now and security was never the reason not to allow X. I'm convinced it's both a and c. I surely hope not that it's b.