They are alluding to the fact that the implementation is closed source, and therefore "untrustworthy". It's a trite point, of course, but not without some merit.
I don’t see any merit, honestly. That would assume one is able to audit every bit of code they run, including updates, and control the build system.
I mean, the Wally paper contains enough information to effectively implement homomorphic encryption for similar purposes. The field was almost entirely academic ~12 years ago…
I miss talking shop on HN. Comments like that are why we can’t have nice things.
I do agree that everything is politicized. I'd have liked to have seen an explanation for laypeople and perhaps the option being opt-in. To me, there is some merit in that stance. It is a side-note. It is a shame that we can't talk about these things openly without people getting offended because of it.
