undefined

points

[-]

You missed their point. They are not saying that what Google is doing is a good way to address the underlying problem Google says it is addressing.

They are saying that claiming the underlying problem is not real or not big enough to need addressing is an ineffective way to argue.

by Cyph0n4 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Right, but this same problem (scamming) exists on PCs.

Would it make sense to then argue that enforcing TPM-backed measured boot and binary signature verification is a legitimate way to address the problem?

by tzs3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Their point, applied to that situation, would be that if someone does argue for enforcing TPM-backed measured boot yadda yadda to address scamming, trying to counter it by dismissing scamming as not a real problem is useless.

by Cyph0n3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I get it dude, but my wider point is that we need to question where this line of argumentation leads to.

Are we saying that, because scamming exists and we haven’t proposed an alternative, it means that clamping down on software installation methods is a legitimate solution to the problem?

by TeMPOraL55 minutes ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Scamming is a real problem, but that does not imply this solution is the right way to go about it. There are other means to address this problem; they may not scale as well, but they also don't sacrifice computing freedoms.

by bitwize5 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Of course it extends to PCs. It'd suck for us, but end users, software vendors, content providers, and service providers all benefit from a more restricted platform that can provide certain guarantees against malware, fraud, piracy, and so forth. It's pathologically programmer-brained to assume that the good old days of being able to run arbitrary code on a networked computing device would last forever. That freedom must be balanced against the interests of the rest of society to avoid risk from certain kinds of harm which can easily proliferate in an environment where any program can run with the full authority of the owner and malware spreads willy-nilly.

by eikenberry4 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

The "programmer-brained" assumption is that I will be able to write any program and run it on my machine and that this ability isn't reserved for only me or some limited class of people and that I can share what I write with others. One big plus of the current stye of AI will be that "end users" will be able to write simple programs and will value this ability. Thus helping protect general purpose computing from this bit of evil for a while longer.

by iamnothere3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Exactly. I own a few dozen computers, if you count some low powered SBCs. But even those can run lightweight Linux.

That’s enough for me to distribute a few freedom devices to friends and neighbors, and still have extras to account for normal failures.

I also hoard source code, and will happily distribute that with the computers! Maybe that’s “programmer brained,” if so then fine by me!

by RandomGerm4n4 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Users get way more out of it when the device is free. Even if they don't use this option, it makes it easier to set up competing services. This includes ones that would never be allowed in an official store because they're DRM-free alternatives to big streaming services but still offer all the same content. The existence of such alternatives, if they are easy to use, can force the big services to become more user-friendly. Just as happened back then with Napster.

Also every user is free to simply not use the option of installing things outside of the store.

by bitwize3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> This includes ones that would never be allowed in an official store because they're DRM-free alternatives to big streaming services but still offer all the same content.

Do you know anyone who works in a professional creative field that doesn't involve writing code? If so, ask them how they'd feel about their work bring out there on the internet free to all takers. What the implications would be for their ability to feed their children and pay their mortgage doing the things they love.

This is what I mean by "programmer-brained." Of all creative workers, only programmers seem okay with abolishing IP laws, I guess because they figure they'll be okay living out of an office at MIT, or even worse out of an office at some YC startup that turns the user into the product. But artists, musicians, writers, filmmakers, etc. all put food on the table because of those IP laws programmers hate so much. Taking that protection for the fruit of your labor away would be at least as disruptive as AI has been.

by Cyph0n4 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Obviously I disagree completely. But it is still sad to see this kind of reasoning on HN of all places :(

by kps4 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — for $29.95/month.

by bitwize4 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Show HN: O'Brien (YC S29), new AI-powered Boot as a Service provider

by nmeagent3 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

> That freedom must be balanced against the interests of the rest of society to avoid risk from certain kinds of harm which can easily proliferate in an environment where any program can run with the full authority of the owner and malware spreads willy-nilly.

No, no, a thousand times no. This is an argument for authoritarian clampdown on general computing and must be opposed by all means necessary. I have the right to run whatever code I wish on my own damn property without the permission of arbitrary authorities or whatever subset of society you favor, and if you or they have a problem with this, you or they can proceed to pound sand.

by iamnothere3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Safety fascists won’t stop until every human interaction requires permission.

It’s a good time to buy a pallet of old SFF computers, just in case.