4 ms·

I believe to understand where this issue started: > I’ve learned over the years not to casually claim something is simple[...] You're interpreting textrunmax'

by Timon3 2mo ago

I believe to understand where this issue started: > I’ve learned over the years not to casually claim something is simple[...] You're interpreting textrunmax's use of "simple" as a technical judgement of difficulty/complexity/etc of their proposed law, but in the context of a political discussion I understand it as a rhetorical device (one I see used often these days, so I thought it's well-known). So from my perspective, your previous comment discounts their idea without any justification, and thus only serves to derail the conversation because their use of "simple" triggered you. I might be wrong, but since you haven't explained what exactly makes their idea a simple solution in the quote's sense, I can't explain why I think such a law is a valid solution to the issue at hand - and that's what makes shallow dismissals like your original comment so annoying.

otterley 2mo ago
> in the context of a political discussion I understand it as a rhetorical device This points to what I mentioned above: this type of rhetorical device has led to things becoming tangibly worse in our society. That alone is enough reason to dismiss it. (I forgot to mention Chesterton's Fence in my previous comment: https://fs.blog/chestertons-fence/ https://fs.blog/chestertons-fence/) Besides, the commenter offered a particular "simple" solution: "One simple rule or law could fix this: Every hardware manufacturer that ships an OS must allow the installation of an alternative OS from any third party, with the same access to the hardware as the original OS and all the necessary technical documentation." It's not the word "simple" that motivated me to respond, it's that it's also an idea that is a non-starter from a practical perspective. Again, there's nothing new I can add as to why: it's all out there already. See, e.g., https://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/Building_a_Trusted_Ecosystem_for_Millions_of_Apps.pdf https://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/Building_a_Trusted_Ecosys... (this is focused specifically on sideloading apps and not the OS itself, but the logic is still applicable) and https://help.apple.com/pdf/security/en_US/apple-platform-security-guide.pdf https://help.apple.com/pdf/security/en_US/apple-platform-sec... (pages 5 and 6 set the context).

by Timon3 2mo ago

otterley 2mo ago

> in the context of a political discussion I understand it as a rhetorical device This points to what I mentioned above: this type of rhetorical device has led to things becoming tangibly worse in our society. That alone is enough reason to dismiss it. (I forgot to mention Chesterton's Fence in my previous comment: https://fs.blog/chestertons-fence/ https://fs.blog/chestertons-fence/) Besides, the commenter offered a particular "simple" solution: "One simple rule or law could fix this: Every hardware manufacturer that ships an OS must allow the installation of an alternative OS from any third party, with the same access to the hardware as the original OS and all the necessary technical documentation." It's not the word "simple" that motivated me to respond, it's that it's also an idea that is a non-starter from a practical perspective. Again, there's nothing new I can add as to why: it's all out there already. See, e.g., https://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/Building_a_Trusted_Ecosystem_for_Millions_of_Apps.pdf https://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/Building_a_Trusted_Ecosys... (this is focused specifically on sideloading apps and not the OS itself, but the logic is still applicable) and https://help.apple.com/pdf/security/en_US/apple-platform-security-guide.pdf https://help.apple.com/pdf/security/en_US/apple-platform-sec... (pages 5 and 6 set the context).