Well, we can't refuse a system or a technology on the basis of "depends". Your physical safety when traveling anywhere by any means depends on many factors. You still leave the house, don't you? Even if you don't, most rational people do, daily.
> Well, we can't refuse a system or a technology on the basis of "depends".
Of course we can, based exactly on the dependencies. If someone has an atrocious representation, we don't need to trust the system, if they don't then it becomes more reasonable to do so.
> Your physical safety when traveling anywhere by any means depends on many factors. You still leave the house, don't you?
> Of course we can, based exactly on the dependencies.
But you have provided zero exact dependencies or details. All you said was "depends".
> Not all risks are equal.
But you have claimed nothing about this particular risk. Is it big? Is it small? We have no idea.
This is sophistry. Fancy words attempting to sound smart with zero content.
You are not arguing either for this tech, or against it, or providing any insight into how one might decide. Of course it depends on some things. Gee, how did we not think of that before you told us.
Certainly not, although I wonder if this question is to any extent projection.
> But you have provided zero exact dependencies or details. All you said was "depends".
Which was sufficient to make the point I wanted to make.
> This is sophistry. Fancy words attempting to sound smart with zero content.
It's not, so much as you not understanding a point, wanting to give it the second degree and when I didn't initially support the point to a level you personally found satisfactory, because there was no reasonable need for me to do so, dismissing the point entirely.
You're not someone I see the potential to have a productive discussion with, so I'll let this be my last reply.
