[lapcat]

> This is why I only run open source extensions that I can actually audit.

How far does your principle extend? To your web browser too? Google Chrome itself is partly but not entirely open source. Your operating system? Only Linux? Mac and Windows include closed source.

[nemomarx]

On HN of all places it's not that implausible that someone might be running Linux and Chromium or Firefox, surely?

[lapcat]

I didn't claim that it's implausible. I asked a question.

On the other hand, it's not that implausible either that someone might be running Google Chrome, Windows, Mac, etc. We know that many HN commenters do. Thus, while the OP may be 100% consistent, "I only run open source extensions that I can actually audit" would not be a consistent principle for those who also use closed source software.

[notpushkin]

Why do you think it’s not consistent? You don’t have to apply the same policies to everything you use.

[lapcat]

> You don’t have to apply the same policies to everything you use.

What's the reasoning behind it, though?

You can arbitrarily apply different policies to different things, but there's no rhyme or reason to that.

If the difference ultimately comes down to trusting certain developers to an extent that you don't need to audit their source, then I'm not sure why that couldn't also be true of certain extension developers.

[mixmastamyk]

Linux distros have a good reputation, browser extensions don’t. Might be simple as that.

[lapcat]

It appears that you may have misunderstood the preceding discussion. Linux is open source and thus can be audited.

[NamlchakKhandro]

If they live in California, they're most assuredly borrowing prestige through licenced usage of apple hardware.

Because let's get real, no one ever gets a job in tech if they're not an iPhone user right?