Subnostr

Just because something makes sense and is consistent with everything else you know doesn't mean it is true.

When people say "that totally makes sense" they usually also mean "I now believe it", which is a jump in logic.

If something is true, then it is consistent. However the inverse is a fallacy called "affirming the consequent". If you determine something is consistent, that doesn't mean it is true.

Just because it is consistent to believe GrapheneOS has chosen only Google phones for technical reasons, that doesn't prove it is true. You have to determine veracity via other means.... like knowing the history of the project, the history of attacks on GrapheneOS phones, the likelihood of google phones having exfiltration hardware (and the risk of a state agency using it and getting caught), etc.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Dissident Sound 1y ago

isn't that the same as saying correlation doesn't imply causation ?

just because prisons are full of black people doesn't mean that cops are racist.

sommerfeld 1y ago

I don't understand where this is coming from. They give plenty of technical documentation justifying why "only Pixels". They also publicly stated to be open to consider other devices if one fulfills their precise and clear security requierements.

Where is the jump in logic?

Dissident Sound 1y ago

because language isn't used to reveal truths but conceal them via omission / distraction / misdirection ...

sommerfeld 1y ago

Which language, mine or graphene's? I can easily find the link. They are direct and clear in their justifications.

Dissident Sound 1y ago

muted ...

Mike Dilger ☑️ 1y ago

Russia gives plenty of consistent and sensible reasons justifying their invasion of Ukraine. NATO also gives plenty of consistent and sensible reasons justifying Russia's invasion of Ukraine. But the two stories couldn't be more different.

I am NOT saying GrapheneOS is tricking people and that these reasons aren't correct.

I AM saying that we cannot know that they are correct.

I AM saying that the existence of reasons does nothing to allay the concern, precisely because "reasons" are the easiest thing to create post-facto and therefore should have almost zero weight in your evaluation of trust.

And yet among nostr half-wits (sorry, as I get frustrated my language gets more harsh) "reasons" convince them all so easily. If I were a CIA operative I could topple you guys in my sleep!

I even gave as an example how my reason for not signing the Apple release of Gossip could not be trusted:

nostr:nevent1qqs8ksxmmz8r9sp77djkjlr2sdv5ym73tnsr2525m7te49kg63xkamspzpmhxue69uhkztnwdaejumr0dshsz8thwden5te0vfhhxarj9e3xjarrda5kuarcda4k7tnrdakj7qglwaehxw309a3x7um5wghxc6t8dp6xu6twvaehqmmjv5hxxmmd9um6cpm4

How can I make my point more clear? I am tired.

sommerfeld 1y ago

I really understand where you are going but although a perfectly valid logical stance, you have to admit it's very tinfoil-ly and nihilistic.

I don't know if you believe in "unique truths" or nor, but with that amount of doubt, any truth gets practically impossible to establish.

I said it was "nihilistic" in the sense it is defeatist. If everything is part of a 5D chess plan from a powerful agency, we will always be powerless.

Mike Dilger ☑️ 1y ago

You are presuming that I am judging whether or not to trust GrapheneOS. I am not doing that. That is off-topic.

Since you get my point, the conversation is over from my perspective. I won't be monitoring replies to this comment.