I adressed that before, if you may read carefully:
Did you check the complete source code by yourself? I doubt it, also you don’t know for sure that this is the exact same code used for the bot, do you? Can’t check that either afaik.
2 Likes
THEN COMPILE IT YOURSELF THEN!
My God …
The paranoia.
Does people here seriously not know how github works?
JUST DOWNLOAD THE SOURCE AND COMPILE IT YOURSELF!
5 Likes
This will be shocking news to you, but I don’t use Github. Like, I haven’t been at the point of my life where I needed anything from Github. Sorry to disappoint so thoroughly, you are clearly superior.
ahem
I HOPE YOU CAN READ IT EVEN THOUGH I DIDN’T USE CAPSLOCK ALL THE TIME.
3 Likes
Just because you’ve compiled it yourself doesn’t mean it’s safe. Unless you actually go through and fully understand every aspect of the source code you still have to trust that the author has no malicious intentions.
Sure if there really was something nefarious in the code it is likely that someone would raise a flag about it on github. But rid yourself of the notion just because something is open source and self compiled it’s safe.
Healthy skepticism is not paranoia.
7 Likes
You cannot exercise healthy (i.e. scientific, rational) skepticism if you’re not capable of subjecting the source of doubt to a systematic investigation using a scientific method.
Having that said, whether one classifies the displayed judgmental predispositions as non-pathological or pathological (paranoidal) forms of distrust, is beside the point.
Going on and on about something, which is offered for free in a form of a broadcast, is just being a cnut.
4 Likes
To be fair, Archonia was specifically responding to when Four wrote this:
Yes, healthy skepticism is not paranoia, but when someone claims that the source on Github–under the assumption that even if said source code is proven to be completely safe and work as intended–may not be the same as the code for the bot, then I’d say “compile it yourself” is an appropriate response.
6 Likes
I just listed things that would have to be done to make sure it’s 100% safe. “Compile it yourself” doesn’t do anything about the code possibly being malicious, but @Fraggles already mentioned that.
Oh, so expressing doubts is “being a cnut” if it’s about something free, gotcha, might have agreed if you used more big words beforehand.
Instead of getting offensive, you could have explained how to go about it or linked some instructions, cause the github page doesn’t offer any, but you are, of course, free to not be nice.
3 Likes
@Fraggles @anon63424221
Guys I understand the skepticism, its healthy to not buy into things and research alot before anything, but you basically just have to message the bot, there is no installation per-se, nothing gets in your phone/app. Where is the problem?
3 Likes
The code is short as hell.
It’s not bloody Microsoft Windows. There’s nothing wrong with it.
1 Like
Short =/= Simple.
to my knowledge, in coding, short usually means it’s efficient and thus can be harder to understand.
In my personal opinion, @skunkz0r does have the burden of proof here. He has suggested a program to use that is developed by the community and @anon63424221 has reasonably asked if the program was checked so he wouldn’t run into another situation that he’s getting spammed by a bot. (I know I find all the spam calls irritating, so I can understand his position). If someone is willing to share something, they should be willing to answer questions about it.
Not everyone knows everything about compiling code (or how to read and understand it). Nor does everyone has the time or resources to do so.
Lastly, being aggressive and abrasive isn’t going to win you arguments. It’ll just make people think less of your points.
7 Likes