Post #1249768
2026-04-13 21:19 UTC
@djb @huitema @paulehoffman @rsalz the analogy is of course ridiculously broken because everyone is building towards and expecting the future to be PQ only.
A better comparison is a scenario where we mandate hybrid cars because perhaps EV technology will fail in the future, even though we know eventually everyone will drive a pure EV.
Some people now prefer gas, some hybrid, some EV. We let people choose because non of the car variants are dangerous.
You are trying to force hybrid cars on everyone because you think EV might break despite years of research of the worlds best experts.
Replies (1)
-
@djb@mastodon.cr.yp.to 2026-04-13 22:00
@letoams @huitema @paulehoffman @rsalz Requiring seatbelts in cars reduces the damage to humans from car crashes. Requiring ECC along with PQ reduces the damage to the users from PQ security failures. Saying that people are trying to prevent PQ failures doesn't break this analogy. People are also trying to prevent car crashes. I'm unable to decipher your attempt to draw another analogy: e.g., I can't figure out whether "perhaps EV technology will fail" is sticking to the topic of _safety_.