Repost from another comment

deleted by creator

victim of properganda

At the very least, you have adequately shown me that the developer is too unstable to be able to guarantee the OS remains secure. Next time I’ll use Calyx OS since they are pretty much the sane anyway.

I do want to point out that:

No, he hates them because he was mocked deservedly by Tor devs

Technically the email you linked showed that he hated TOR beforehand, then the devs (rightly) mocked his reasoning, we were both right.

[by your logic] He should make it maximum compliant with governments and spying agencies

Please do not twist my words, though I understand once you assume someone is a bad actor you (quite understandably) give up. My point is that software should not be configured to break the law by default. Why would a user want something that breaks the law when first installed, when most users want to follow the law? Ideally software like this should have separate “legally compliment” and “freedom” branches but I argue having the first one is better then the second one in most cases.

All that being said, enjoy your day

is part of the Linux kernel

Saddly no it’s not, its a component embedded by the compiler that can be separately installed to replace the programs default allocator implementation. Also I can’t find a fork of android I know of that supports it.

If I understand you correctly, graphene OS is bad because:

1. The developer is using his fans to market the software he helps make, resulting in more people using it.

Arguably that’s a good thing as it at least makes people aware that other android forks exist, encouraging people to switch to one of the more private forks of android.

2. The developer hates Mozilla and unfairly hates TOR because he sees them as Mozilla shills.

How does the developer having bad takes effect a piece of software? Firefox in mine and others experience, still works well on the device. Yes I am aware of his vanadium project, if he wants to waste time, power to him.

3. By default the OS complies with government laws both defacto and official.

Why is that a bad thing, especially since it sounds like the alternative is breaking said laws? Yes there are often moral arguments against laws such as that, but the advantage of open source is that you can switch to something that gives you the freedom to break the law if you want.

The only thing you have shown me (which I already agreed with) is the lead developer (who is not the only one working on the project) is immature and paranoid, you have not showed why I should not use the software that he helped make, only that other forks support more hardware.

Thanks for being willing to discuss this stuff, I appreciate you are willing to take the time to write a detailed response.

So if I understand you correctly, Graphene OS does everything it says it does but overhypes its differences with other forks. That doesn’t sound like snakeoil, only effective marketing.

Why shouldn’t I use it over the other forks then, particularly because useful features like hardened_malloc are only avalible on Graphene despite being widely ported to linux distros?

They also do not shill for Big Tech or Google/Apple.

What’s the story behind this? I’m genuinely curious.

I will say I strongly dislike how the developer has handled criticism, but that seems to be more a failing of the dev then a problem with the OS.

Police are there to help *maintain the status quo

Fixed

Writing in the 1990s and 2000s, author Albert Jack and Messianic Rabbi Richard Pustelniak, claim that the original meaning of the expression was that the ties between people who have made a blood covenant (or have shed blood together in battle) were stronger than ties formed by “the water of the womb”, thus “The blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb”. Neither of the authors cite any sources to support their claim.

Nice, do you have a source for that so I can fix the wikipedia article? Either way it doesn’t particularly matter.

If you are understood buy you’re audience, you have spoken correctly. Correcting someone’s grammer is pointless

Me when I was trying to figure out what the outputs in the Javascripts RSA key generation crypto api curruspond to so I can link it to a rust api to prevent Man in the middle attacks occurring on https traffic with false certificates installed (I figured out eventually)

Personally, I think everyone should go through at least one crisis when they are adolescents so they know how to handle things, or at least what traits they need to get under control. If you never experience something going wrong, when you can still bounce back, you will never survive “rolling snake eyes” and getting hit by a bad event.

Then again, some training on coping skills and then created scenarios where people must then use said coping skills (e.g. get left in the wild for 2 days with some food, a tent and the ability to chicken out on the condition they retake the course) would probably work as well.

You do realize that the previous commenter was joking right?

At the end of the day, people have no option but to vote for the lesser of two evils, hense why people need to “Do politics” and create better parties or infiltrate existing ones and improve them from the inside. For those who can’t do that, voting to minimize harm is the best many can do. By not voting, you choose to let the status quo remain the same or worse, regress.

It appears you can pay people to do exactly that

Aren’t pointers just an ID given to a verible that currosponds to its “true” position in the array of bytes thay make up a program’s memory? I feel like I’m missing something

I was thinking about such a joke, the edit makes it much clearer

Yes, though when I use it to grow plants I can not provide any evidence that it is effective, so just like with my other claim you just have to take my word for it.

No, I believe we are just pieces of meat with enough nureons to be capable of abstract concepts. However currently the existence of a soil is unfalsifiable, so I wouldn’t be able to prove or disprove my clain.

Nope, 402 is payment required

Indeed, I don’t think I can convince you at this point, so enjoy the touch of grass

The tech is great at pretending to be human. It is simply a next “word” (or phrase) predictor. It is not good at answering obscure questions, writing code or making a logical argument. It is good at simulating someone.

It is my experience that it approximates a human well, but it doesn’t get the details right (like truthness or reflecting objective reality), making it useless for essay writing, but great for stuff like character AI and other human simulations.

If you are right, give an actual Iogical response only capable by a human, as opposed to a generic ad hominem. I repeat my question, Have you actually used any of the GPT3 era models?

… Don’t pull a strawman, all I said is that the AI’s designed to approximate human written text, do a good job at approximating human text.

This means you can use them to simulate a reddit thread or make a fake wikipedia page, or construct a set of responses to someone who wants comfort.

Next time, read what someone actually says, and respond to that.