[harry8]

>I paraphrased you

No. And I hope the clarification is understood.

The difference is between trusting that a system of checks and balances is required and trusting some particular implementation of something calling itself a system, without verifying what is actually happening now. Close your eyes, the system is perfect, I trust the system.

I highly recommend the formal study of history and the analysis of sources in particular for all of us. There is always more to learn.

[dvzk]

I mean, I didn't originally want to call out the insane claim that everyone should try to personally verify all truth propositions. I guess you truly are the ultimate skeptic, or you have infinite time to throw away. Fortunately, for all productive people, our institutions are reliable, more often than not!

[harry8]

You didn't want to because nobody made that claim perhaps?

I do it when i want to. So do Dave and Mary. Abby is a professor who takes a professional interest in it as it pertains to X. And so on. It's open, anyone can. Anytime you have a doubt there it is.

In cryptography we never trust secret algos, that's pretty normal. I haven't verified every open one I've used either.