>This is not a flaw but it is rather by design.

Are you sure it isn't both? Designs can be flawed.

Well, since TempleOS doesn't support network interface cards, and because of there is no known TempleOS malware, I think TempleOS users are safe for the time being. The most likely way they can get harmed is by misusing the OS or through a killer poke (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_poke).

The objective of TempleOS is not to become a mainstream operating system. The objective of TempleOS, in Terry Davis' words is to create a temple for god. Not any temple, but the "third temple" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Temple).

GP is just meaning it's deliberately that way, not an oversight or other "flaw"

They probably meant that its not an accidental flaw, and if its a flaw its aware of the shortcomings. In other words its a measured deciscion, not a rough edge which will be ironed out.

Unrelated, I really dislike comments like yours. Something about it seems very hostile to me.

Lacking insight or a thoughtful line of questioning, but hardly what i would describe as hostile.

I suppose I read it as theyre perfectly aware of my comment, and choose to make theres anyways. There are people (Myself included, in the past, hopefully no longer) who do that.

I had a phase as a trump supporter who didn't care for what was true, but rather what was successful in conversation. What was strong. Intentionally dumb comments are strong sometimes. Its easy to shit on people for taking your intentionally dumb comment seriously, and if you really walk the line so that its not clear at all if youre being intentionally dumb or truly dumb, you can say very hateful things and be fairly well self supported, so that no one can really insult you in reply, or at least, that was my experience trollling around on reddit (and at times here, on a past account, which I was banned for).

Also I was hesitant to admit that I was banned previously, but I'm sure they have the data if they want it, and I'm making an effort to not repeat that behavior (and to me it seems like im not oing too bad a job) so hopefully they don't feel malice towards me (although they should feel some).

> who didn't care for what was true, but rather what was successful in conversation. What was strong. Intentionally dumb comments are strong sometimes. Its easy to shit on people for taking your intentionally dumb comment seriously, and if you really walk the line so that its not clear at all if youre being intentionally dumb or truly dumb, you can say very hateful things and be fairly well self supported, so that no one can really insult you in reply, or at least, that was my experience trollling around on reddit (and at times here, on a past account, which I was banned for).

Satre described this many years ago:

> “Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”