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
We're still talking about phones, right? Putting aside the hypothesis that humans are incapable of logical decisions(?), I feel that you're drawing some fundamental psychological truth when there's much more realistic factors that are don't rely on assuming we are unable to fight our monkey brains to change our nature.

For most people on the street, this phone:

* Doesn't have a bunch of things you're used to in a smartphone

* Has stuff that you don't understand the value of

* From some company you've never heard of

* For $700

That's not some post facto breakdown. I commend their efforts, truly, sincerely, but to be blunt, they made a phone for Ed Snowden.

>>gimmeT+q61
Those are all true facts, but if someone wants a smart non-Apple/Android phone for whatever reason, there are equally convincing logical reasons for why, for that person, your listed facts are irrelevant and why other facts would be more compelling. Note that I’m not arguing that you are wrong; I make the same argument to a person on the other side who would be listing facts about why getting a Librem 5 phone is the best thing ever, and those would all be true facts, too.

Your facts are the most compelling for you, since you’ve decided not to get a Librem 5 phone. If it were otherwise, you would have listed different facts.

Facts do not make people change their opinion.