> You appear to have taken umbrage at me pointing out how your claims are unsupported and have already twice attempted to weaponize social norms to quash disagr

> You appear to have taken umbrage at me pointing out how your claims are unsupported and have already twice attempted to weaponize social norms to quash disagreement. I was not trying to quash disagreement. I like healthy disagreement, provided it’s done so politely and respectfully. It is possible to make a valid point or offer a substantive correction and not be disrespectful or impolite about it. So I was trying to nudge you to disagree in such a way that conforms to the social norms of this site. You’ve read and accepted those norms, have you not? > I literally presented an uncontroversial criteria in my second response: "You need a competent, unbiased, third-party with demonstrated discriminatory power to support such a claim.” Lack of third-party vetting doesn’t mean it’s not secure. The food I grow in my backyard might well be healthy even though I didn’t have the agriculture department inspect it. You might feel better with validation, but that is a personal choice, not an objective requirement. On the flip side, third-party review doesn’t guarantee security, either. Consider how many third parties have blessed implementations of one thing or another over the course of history and how many times those opinions have turned out to be wrong later down the line. In any event, you’re still welcome to your skepticism. But it’s not an objective fact that the platform isn’t secure. It all comes down to an opinion and trust at the end of the day. I still trust Apple more than Microsoft to get this right, and so I’ll take my chances.