3 ms·

These are all practical reasons, not really philosophical. Unless any form of logic is philosophical but then everything is. If your claiming your philosophica

These are all practical reasons, not really philosophical. Unless any form of logic is philosophical but then everything is. If your claiming your philosophical stance is setting passwords doesn’t provide security, by your own reasoning in your case that’s just a matter of practicality. There is no philosophical argument. > More generally, I don't think that closed networks substantially improve security and I don't like the push to require them. I mean that’s just your opinion, not a philosophical stance, and it happens to be a empirically demonstrably false one. > I don't like technology that tries to enforce its own opinion about social norms. This statement is so vague it’s practically useless. It can just be selectively applied against anything you don’t like. All technology is opinionated. From the layout of your keyboard to this site, everything is shaped by and shapes social norms. It would also be an opinionated technology if it decided not to ask you to set a password by default. You might as well have said I don’t like WiFi passwords because I don’t like WiFi passwords and it would’ve carried the exact same message.

trinix912 2y ago
Sorry but I fail to comprehend what you are trying to do here. First you say that none of their reasons are philosophical, then a few lines down you go after the person by "I mean that’s just your opinion, not a philosophical stance, and it happens to be a empirically demonstrably false one." Isn't that exactly what a philosophical stance is? Someone's personal opinion, whether it be right or wrong (in your book). Honestly, I find your response quite rude compared to the general tone of responses on this site.
- uselesswords 1y ago
  Granted my response was a bit more hostile than the general tone of responses on this site. The person I was replying to had made a very large claim about passwords and general security that ran counter to what I think we can agree are generally well-understood principles of security and claimed he had philosophical reasons for doing so. The amount of confidence in his response rubbed me the wrong way and probably raised my own arrogance, sure. > I don't think that closed networks substantially improve security and I don't like the push to require them. You know what, you're right this is a philosophical stance, as dumb as a stance I might think it to be. My actual issue with his "philosophy" is that he makes a broad generalization when the statement really just applies to his unique use case. I didn't consider it to be a philosophical stance because I didn't think he seriously meant it as a systematic approach for the entire world but honestly re-reading what he wrote I think he does actually. Honestly I take bigger issue with what he believes is a stance against opiniated technology but all technology is inherently opiniated his opinions are just different.

trinix912 2y ago

Sorry but I fail to comprehend what you are trying to do here. First you say that none of their reasons are philosophical, then a few lines down you go after the person by "I mean that’s just your opinion, not a philosophical stance, and it happens to be a empirically demonstrably false one." Isn't that exactly what a philosophical stance is? Someone's personal opinion, whether it be right or wrong (in your book). Honestly, I find your response quite rude compared to the general tone of responses on this site.

uselesswords 1y ago
Granted my response was a bit more hostile than the general tone of responses on this site. The person I was replying to had made a very large claim about passwords and general security that ran counter to what I think we can agree are generally well-understood principles of security and claimed he had philosophical reasons for doing so. The amount of confidence in his response rubbed me the wrong way and probably raised my own arrogance, sure. > I don't think that closed networks substantially improve security and I don't like the push to require them. You know what, you're right this is a philosophical stance, as dumb as a stance I might think it to be. My actual issue with his "philosophy" is that he makes a broad generalization when the statement really just applies to his unique use case. I didn't consider it to be a philosophical stance because I didn't think he seriously meant it as a systematic approach for the entire world but honestly re-reading what he wrote I think he does actually. Honestly I take bigger issue with what he believes is a stance against opiniated technology but all technology is inherently opiniated his opinions are just different.