2 ms·

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 th

• uselesswords 2y 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.