Sturgeon’s law really does apply. It applies to doctors, plumbers, therapists, programmers, managers, x.
There really is too much stupidity in the world. “Obviously”.
Learning to ignore it is an easy but reasonable response. Accepting it however, and learning that most stupidity can be dispelled with a bit of guidance is much harder.
Hahaha, I can imagine a buttoned up exec channeling jobs brandishing "the lump" on stage at one of their events. And he is saying: This is the best "lump" we've ever made. 20% Lumpier than the previous generation, 30% lighter, with a brand new crazonium body with a ferrite core!
It's easier to understand this if you look at the onion protocol. Broadly, it introduces noise between all users on the network by constantly sending and receiving random bytes to and from each node. This prevents external listeners from figuring out where the main server is. Originally designed to protect naval command ships, it was later used for the "dark web". If you don't know which node is the server, you can't shut it down, or read data off of it.
Simplex does something similar. A connects to B. B connects to C. And A and C connect. They all chat. but there is no way to know A, B, or C, because from the outside, it all looks like: X connects to Y, X connects to Y, X connects to Y. So who spoke to whom?
This is great. Even if "the authorities" demand access to chat logs, first, they won't know what to ask for. Chats between whom? Second, they still won't know who spoke to whom even if they have all the data. It's anonymized chats. They would have to sift through all of it.
It still won't prevent someone invading privacy if they have physical access to your device, since the identities are stored locally for your usage convenience.
From the article:
"The world is not a logically consistent one, but a profoundly paradoxical one. Again, this is illustrated in science, which shows that two things can be one at the same time — light, for instance, acts as both a particle and a wave."
I don't understand the need for constantly interspersing an otherwise flowing article with references to science. It feels like the author thinks that the authenticity of his thoughts and personal journey hinges on validation from science.