micheljones

I'm just commenting on the moral judgement of 'China is just protecting themselves from evil whitey'.

Tadpole configuration (2 wheels in front) is much more stable and less prone to tipping over.

The problem with China is that while 'protecting' themselves from 'evil West' they keep doing to other countries (in Africa and Asia) the same things they are protecting themselves from.

I will try to develop my skill of reading not-yet-posted comments more.

Nice reversal attempt. Keep that snarkasm going!

I am guilty of the original sin. I have made my provocative comment before reading the article - I assumed it's about SF in general, primarily written SF based on the domain name.

Thereby proving the OP's point. lol.

Dear Sir, thank you for your valuable snarkasm. You have proven me wrong on all accounts. The neoreligion of SJWism and PC culture that you subscribe to cannot be wrong in any way, and is always 100% right. I have seen the error of my ways and humbly accept my punishment.

You are positing a false dichotomy here. Equivalent conclusion would be that 'sex is a natural malfunction and needs to be removed'.

No bad, it's a pleasure to discuss these things with someone who is willing to research and to admit their mistakes.

Much better than the usual crowd I get in these kind of discussions, the 'sensitive vegan' type who pushes false statistics to try to hide being emotionally invested behind the authority of science (two of their favorite falsehoods are to push all people who consume meat into the same group for comparison vs vegans - bad science, because majority of omnivores have very bad diets incomparable to my efforts at keeping on keto, and arguing that 'cows emit methane, so we need to eat less meat', never 'cows emit methane, so let's eat other meat more'). And then when I display patience and deconstruct their arguments, the mask of reason falls off and they just start calling me Hitler, murderer etc. lol.

I agree with you; I'm not some crazy kookoo yelling about judgement day on the corner, this is just some 'food for thought' discussion.

For the first part of your argument, the issues I mention do not affect the security of the product (signal) itself, they would just enable spooks to more easily sidestep the whole product.

I also do not have anything against using the phone number as uid, it's 'good enough' for most people, and it greatly simplifies things. It is a very sensible default. What I'm questioning is the hardline stance of not allowing anything else at all - while 90% of people would be fine with signal as is, why not give the remaining 10% of us kookoos a bit more freedom?

As for the Sybil attack, does signal allow users not in your 'buddy list' to send you messages?