zlacker

>>fghtr+(OP)
"Trust in closed non-auditable complex computer systems is something everyone has learned the hard way we should not have. The news is full each day of zero day bugs and exploits throughout the stack–from applications to operating systems and even down to the very silicon the whole stuff runs on."

If only. I suspect that only tech enthusiasts are aware of these issues. In the meantime, non-technical people only give you weird disbelieving looks when you mention this to them, and then continue ignoring it.

>>pferde+T2
> In the meantime, non-technical people only give you weird disbelieving looks when you mention this to them, and then continue ignoring it.

It’s psychological. People can’t believe things which would make it too hard for them to stay the person they currently are. It’s almost impossible for anyone to do anything but ignore and repress such information. If you ask them later about it, they probably would deny even hearing it or having the conversation, because they wouldn’t actually remember it.

Ask anyone who tried to convince a sweeping societal change based on logical arguments. See what happened to Ignaz Semmelweis. You simply can’t convince people of hard things with logic.

>>teddyh+17
Have you ever assumed it's not some weird psychological effect but rather that people aren't interested enough in technology? It's like trying to preach GPL to the average programmer; who cares really?

>>paperm+Cm
For real, basically going straight to "their weak human-lizard brains can't handle the weight of reality bearing down on them" seems borderline comically presumptuous.

>>gimmeT+sv
Who said anything about “their” or “them”? I spoke about people, and I meant everybody, including myself. We, human beings, can’t make logical decisions. The most we can hope for is to stop ourselves from making illogical ones, by forcing ourselves to logically rationalize our decisions after the fact. However, rationalizations are tricky things, and almost anything can be rationalized to seem reasonable. But it’s the best we have.

>>teddyh+jL
I just want a phone that functions without me thinking about it. I don't care about much else, I don't want to care. Yes I know security or freedom or whatever but I have a higher risk of dying in an airplane to be honest.

What does the Purism give me? None of my existing apps work with it.

Spending zero brain cells on which computer junk to buy and getting on with my life is the most rational choice imo.

>>Jasper+1P
Your comment is a perfect example of what rationalization looks like. You’re exactly like all humans (including me); closed to logical argument, because you don’t want to have to care about it, since it would be hard work to change. You just want to get on with your life, just like everybody else (including me). Note: I’m not saying that this is wrong; everybody does it, and we can’t change it, so calling it “wrong” would be pointless. It’s not my intention to disparage you.

But you would probably benefit by recognizing that nothing about this is logical. There are some logical arguments why one ought to use (for instance) the Librem 5 phone as a phone and forgo the additional features present on mainstream smartphones. But you (or me) can’t be open to those logical arguments unless we’re already ready to change; i.e. when we already (irrationally) want to find a reason to do it. Then, logical arguments can be effective. But not otherwise.