12 ms·

Yes anyone who doesn’t have the knowledge/time/motivation/cynicism to prevent themselves getting taken advantage of is basically asking for it, nay “deserves” i

Yes anyone who doesn’t have the knowledge/time/motivation/cynicism to prevent themselves getting taken advantage of is basically asking for it, nay “deserves” it. /sarcasm

YeBanKo 3y ago
Yeah, and if you did not read T&S and now going to become a part of human centipede, that’s on you. I mean, how hard can it be to read a 22 page legalese, before going through a sign up flow, that was heavily optimized to increase conversion?
fargle 3y ago
anyone who thinks there is anybody in the universe other than themselves that is going to take responsibility for their safety, security, happiness, etc. absolutely "deserves" what they get.
- bmicraft 3y ago
  Nobody can or should be expected to know about every the safety and security aspects of every single minute detail in their lives.
  - fargle 3y ago
    i didn't say they did! i said they need to take responsibility for their own safety/security or suffer the consequences. whether they should be expected to... is totally irrelevant. i'm not stating a preference, i'm stating a fundamental law of nature. and not knowing even that simple fact is what makes it "deservedly" so.
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      Regulation can remove those consequences for any chosen safety/security feature by making every choice have it. Fundamental law of nature? You're deluding yourself. (And if you say you mean outside of regulation, that people need to be responsible in general for other aspects of life, then your argument is no longer connected to the original comment you replied to.)
      - fargle 3y ago
        regulation is part of the universe. to expect that it protects you exactly when you'd want it to, but does not inhibit you want you'd not want it to is stupid. trying to offload your responsibility onto some "them" is not a fix. i'm definitely not deluding myself. that is life. you need to have both the freedom and the inclination to take care of yourself, if you don't have both you'll suffer.
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        I do not need the freedom to buy a defective lock. Mandating basic safety and security features is not always going to protect me, but it will mostly protect me. It's not stupid to want that tradeoff. I don't care if you define "fix" as 100% so therefore it's not a fix. I want the 95%. I want defense in depth, regulation on top of personal investigation.
        fargle 3y ago
        you are right. you do NOT need the freedom to buy a defective lock. you need the right to decide for yourself if the lock is defective or not. if you give that away, you will instantly be given the "freedom" to buy a lock that is defective-by-design. perhaps the lock designer's brother is a friend of the govt. perhaps the govt. agency does not want bad publicity, whatever. the point is "defense-in-depth" (cliche) or not, you are ultimately responsible for you. there can be no other way.
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        > you are right. you do NOT need the freedom to buy a defective lock. > you need the right to decide for yourself if the lock is defective or not. This sounds like you agree with me. This kind of regulation sets a minimum, not a maximum. We don't need freedom to buy very bad locks. We do need freedom to buy the best lock we want to buy. But the rest of your post implies that regulation will change both minimum and maximum and mandate a specific lock. I disagree with that premise. > (cliche) Are you trying to imply something there? > you are ultimately responsible for you. there can be no other way. I am "ultimately" responsible, but product makers should have responsibilities too. If I fail at something, I should not be 0% safe. The baseline should be pretty high before I apply my own efforts.

Yes anyone who doesn’t have the knowledge/time/motivation/cynicism to prevent themselves getting taken advantage of is basically asking for it, nay “deserves” it. /sarcasm

YeBanKo 3y ago

Yeah, and if you did not read T&S and now going to become a part of human centipede, that’s on you. I mean, how hard can it be to read a 22 page legalese, before going through a sign up flow, that was heavily optimized to increase conversion?

fargle 3y ago

anyone who thinks there is anybody in the universe other than themselves that is going to take responsibility for their safety, security, happiness, etc. absolutely "deserves" what they get.

bmicraft 3y ago
Nobody can or should be expected to know about every the safety and security aspects of every single minute detail in their lives.
- fargle 3y ago
  i didn't say they did! i said they need to take responsibility for their own safety/security or suffer the consequences. whether they should be expected to... is totally irrelevant. i'm not stating a preference, i'm stating a fundamental law of nature. and not knowing even that simple fact is what makes it "deservedly" so.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    Regulation can remove those consequences for any chosen safety/security feature by making every choice have it. Fundamental law of nature? You're deluding yourself. (And if you say you mean outside of regulation, that people need to be responsible in general for other aspects of life, then your argument is no longer connected to the original comment you replied to.)
    - fargle 3y ago
      regulation is part of the universe. to expect that it protects you exactly when you'd want it to, but does not inhibit you want you'd not want it to is stupid. trying to offload your responsibility onto some "them" is not a fix. i'm definitely not deluding myself. that is life. you need to have both the freedom and the inclination to take care of yourself, if you don't have both you'll suffer.
      - Dylan16807 3y ago
        I do not need the freedom to buy a defective lock. Mandating basic safety and security features is not always going to protect me, but it will mostly protect me. It's not stupid to want that tradeoff. I don't care if you define "fix" as 100% so therefore it's not a fix. I want the 95%. I want defense in depth, regulation on top of personal investigation.
        fargle 3y ago
        you are right. you do NOT need the freedom to buy a defective lock. you need the right to decide for yourself if the lock is defective or not. if you give that away, you will instantly be given the "freedom" to buy a lock that is defective-by-design. perhaps the lock designer's brother is a friend of the govt. perhaps the govt. agency does not want bad publicity, whatever. the point is "defense-in-depth" (cliche) or not, you are ultimately responsible for you. there can be no other way.
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        > you are right. you do NOT need the freedom to buy a defective lock. > you need the right to decide for yourself if the lock is defective or not. This sounds like you agree with me. This kind of regulation sets a minimum, not a maximum. We don't need freedom to buy very bad locks. We do need freedom to buy the best lock we want to buy. But the rest of your post implies that regulation will change both minimum and maximum and mandate a specific lock. I disagree with that premise. > (cliche) Are you trying to imply something there? > you are ultimately responsible for you. there can be no other way. I am "ultimately" responsible, but product makers should have responsibilities too. If I fail at something, I should not be 0% safe. The baseline should be pretty high before I apply my own efforts.