This is not a very good article.

It’s full of very weird qualifiers: “not a programmer,” “studied computer science,” “tech writer.” This person is not an average user, and they kind of do everything they can to make sure the reader knows that. Then, while trying to say Linux is for average users, the author suddenly is claiming to be just that.

Linux is easier to use now than when I started using it, a little over six years ago. But it does require at least a basic curiosity to learn.

I think that’s a good baseline. Not placing unnecessary trust is definitely a priority. The idea is definitely to remove as much of the need as possible for trust.

You have good goals and they are attainable. I wish you luck.

Your logic doesn’t escape me but in point of fact, when we’re talking about GrapheneOS we’re not talking about volunteering usage data to Google. GrapheneOS does a better job of protecting user privacy than any other mobile option I can think of.

The problem I have is treating security and privacy like they’re opposing forces. They’re not. You don’t need to make security concessions to ensure privacy and that line of thinking doesn’t make sense when you examine it.

Genuinely curious: what your privacy metrics (what does this actually mean to you) and what is an organization that you trust?

I’m sorry, but that’s just not how security works. Most of the “security” features exist because of patching known vulnerabilities. What this means in real terms: vulnerabilities and how they work are published to the public. There are people who specifically write and sell malware to exploit these known vulnerabilities. This is happening all the time. If you have a permissive security model, you are opening all of your information up to compromise

You cannot reasonably expect privacy on a system that makes major concessions to security. Security is necessary for privacy. The two are not the same thing, but one is needed for the other.

But also… GrapheneOS is in fact a very privacy-friendly operating system. I would consider it the most privacy-friendly in fact.

I don’t think it’s ironic. Google benefits massively from their projects like AOSP or OpenTitan being open source, and they even benefit from projects like GOS doing some heavy lifting for them in developing bug fixes that get integrated upstream.

The fact that their mobile phones are relatively friendly to alternate operating systems is of pretty significant benefit to them.

Google is invested in security research, albeit usually for reasons that don’t benefit users.

I find the criticisms of the founder pretty seriously overblown. My interactions with him have always been positive. He’s on the spectrum and a lot of people engaged in pretty serious abuse toward him and the project he created… so I’ll give him some slack.

I’ve used GrapheneOS for 5 years. It’s good, the project has integrity, and there really isn’t anything that meaningfully compares in meeting its goals. It’s proactive in that they actually do meaningful security research and implement solutions. People who troll on the project are either straight up bad actors or just stupid.

I don’t really think it’s fair to get mad at someone for prioritizing meeting their own needs. It is however entirely fair to be furious about societal structures that place increased financial value on industrialization and privatization over community cohesion.

Your teeth are bared in the wrong direction. We do in fact have a common enemy here.

No

deleted by creator

The moon landing happened. With technology available at that time, it would not have been possible to fake in that way.

You are getting downvoted because you’re just wrong.

Amelie

Yes. This on repeat.

I honestly don’t think we need to settle on trans oceanic shipping as a hard requirement.

Also, in terms of transportation-based emissions, personal vehicle usage accounted for 58% of the total emissions in the US in 2019. This number doesn’t need to exist. The fossil fuel industry has structured cities the way they are and lobbied against efficient transportation in order to make themselves more money.

Like even if we’re accepting trans oceanic freight as a given, which I don’t think we should on the scale we do now, emissions could be drastically reduced mostly by better planning of transportation.

I don’t know if they’re aware of this, but they’re also urging users to ditch Microsoft as a matter of course.

There is nothing more permanent than a temporary solution that works

I think it’s primarily targeting the handheld gaming market

All I’m trying to point out is that distinct cultures are worthy of respect and shouldn’t be glossed over.

But be real with me: can you think of a single effort for “planetary unification” that wasn’t a total nightmare? I sure can’t.

Fire pistons are so damn cool. Yeah, that makes sense then.

I’m really not “arguing against agriculture,” I’m pointing out that there are other modes of subsistence that humans still practice, and that that’s perfectly valid. There are legitimate reasons why a culture would collectively reject agriculture.

But in point of fact, agriculture is not actually more efficient or reliable. Agriculture does allow for centralized city states in a way that foraging/hunting/fishing usually doesn’t, with a notable exception of many indigenous groups on the western coast of turtle island.

A study positing that in fact, agriculturalists are not more productive and in fact are more prone to famine: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3917328/

But the main point I was trying to make is that different expressions of human culture still exist, and not all cultures have followed along the trajectory of the dominant culture. People tend to view colonialism, expansion and everything that means as inevitable, and I think that’s a pretty big problem.

This is some pretty weird and lowkey racist exposition on humanity.

Humankind isn’t a single unified thing. Individual cultures have their own modes of subsistence and transportation that are unique to specific cultural needs.

It’s not that it took 1 million years to “figure out” farming. It’s that 1 specific culture of modern humans (biologically, humans as we conceive of ourselves today have existed for about 200,000 years, with close relatives existing for in the ballpark of 1M years) started practicing a specific mode of subsistence around 23,000 years ago. Specific groups of indigenous cultures remaining today still don’t practice agriculture, because it’s not actually advantageous in many ways – stored foods are less nutritious, agriculture requires a fairly sedentary existence, it takes a shit load of time to cultivate and grow food (especially when compared to foraging and hunting), which leads to less leisure time.

Also where did you come up with the number 12,000 for “figuring out” the combustion engine? Genuinely curious. Like were we “working on it” for 12k years? I don’t get it. But this isn’t exactly a net positive and has come with some pretty disastrous consequences. I say this because you’re proposing a linear path for “humanity” forward, when the reality is that humans are many things, and progress viewed in this way has a tendency toward racism or at least ethnocentrism.

But also yeah, the point of this meme is “artists are valuable.”