Source code is trade secret and you’re not going to get it. Even if you did, the amount of time you would have to devote to code review, understanding said code, it is far too easy to obfuscate.
RFK is an unserious person and you lack critical thinking skills if you take anything he says or stands for seriously.
Again, if you legitimately want to learn, ignorance, can be solved.
But rejecting truth, in face of all evidence, is stupid, has no cure, and then I hope that you don’t reproduce.
Advocating for source code transparency goes beyond naiveté; it’s about advocating for freedom in technology. Holding a different viewpoint doesn’t equate to a lack of critical thinking—it represents a diversity of perspectives.
Personal attacks serve no purpose in a rational debate. They only detract from meaningful dialogue. If that’s the chosen route of discourse, I’ll opt not to engage.
It’s notable that without substantial debate, accusations of stupidity have been made. Such a tactic often reflects a lack of maturity.
Effective arguments stand on their own merit, not on the belittlement of others.
Oh, please. Forced to review code? You’re missing the whole point. We want the option to peek under the hood, not a homework assignment. It’s about having control, not being controlled.
And calling me out for watching Joe Rogan? That’s your comeback? Maybe step up your debate skills before throwing around insults.
He is against vaccines.
Source code is trade secret and you’re not going to get it. Even if you did, the amount of time you would have to devote to code review, understanding said code, it is far too easy to obfuscate.
RFK is an unserious person and you lack critical thinking skills if you take anything he says or stands for seriously.
Again, if you legitimately want to learn, ignorance, can be solved.
But rejecting truth, in face of all evidence, is stupid, has no cure, and then I hope that you don’t reproduce.
Advocating for source code transparency goes beyond naiveté; it’s about advocating for freedom in technology. Holding a different viewpoint doesn’t equate to a lack of critical thinking—it represents a diversity of perspectives.
Personal attacks serve no purpose in a rational debate. They only detract from meaningful dialogue. If that’s the chosen route of discourse, I’ll opt not to engage.
It’s notable that without substantial debate, accusations of stupidity have been made. Such a tactic often reflects a lack of maturity.
Effective arguments stand on their own merit, not on the belittlement of others.
Freedom in technology?
Being forced to a code review sounds like the opposite of freedom.
Try having actual positions and not those of people who are on Joe Rogan.
Oh, please. Forced to review code? You’re missing the whole point. We want the option to peek under the hood, not a homework assignment. It’s about having control, not being controlled.
And calling me out for watching Joe Rogan? That’s your comeback? Maybe step up your debate skills before throwing around insults.
Oh the option to review code?
We already have that option. It’s called asking.
The answer is no.
Anything else is compulsion.
You literally don’t make sense.