Not sure what you mean by that. Neither I nor antinatalism advocates for ending existent life. It is just about not causing additional suffering by bringing new beings into existence.
If anything, I believe that we should acknowledge that we are all in this suffering together, and be compassionate to fellow living beings.
I do want the human race to end though. Not painfully, but rather phasing out gradually (although I do realize that antinatalism is such an unpopular opinion that it isn't really possible). No hate for children or any other being though. I just want there to be less suffering.
I somewhat agree with you. The meaning you describe seems personal (correct me if I am wrong), i.e. we assign meaning to our own lives. The meaning I was referring to in my previous comment was a more absolute take on it; the kind of meaning people refer to when they are searching for it. From my perspective, people search for an all encompassing absolute meaning (or rather a guidebook) which tells them that they are here for something. I disagree with that perspective, and I think there is no such meaning or guidebook. We are not here for any grand purpose, we just exist because someone else got together and thought it'd be nice to be a parent (in the best of situations). I agree with you however, in that, we must assign meaning to our own lives, just so our lives won't feel empty. It is more like drawing your own scenery on a canvas instead of looking for the perfect one.
I understand that this is a bleak perspective, but I see this as the true nature of suffering; and by acknowledging it, we can be more compassionate to our fellow sufferers. Although the perspective itself is bleak, the conclusion need not be. You can learn to live, stuff your life with pleasurable moments, and make the most of it, whilst helping others do the same.
Life. Life itself is suffering. Life is the worst thing to have happened to anyone.
Regarding purpose, no one has any purpose. Purpose is assigned to tools; not to sentient beings with consciousness. Life is utterly meaningless, and it is due to this lack of meaning, that we search for superfluous things like purpose.
The true nature of life is suffering. The default state of life is pain. Everything you do from there is just to temporarily alleviate that pain. You keep doing that until you die.
We have friends and lovers because loneliness is painful. We eat because hunger is painful. We sleep because deprivation from it is painful. We laugh so that we can escape from crying.
People say suffering is a hurdle, and see it as something essential for character development, and whilst I acknowledge the essentiality of some types of pain, I also see it as something contingent on life. We suffer because we are alive. All sentient and conscious beings suffer. It just comes with life.
Note that I am not however, promoting termination of life. By terminating your life early, you would be depriving yourself of all the potential pleasures you could have had (regardless of the pain around them). Once you are here, your optimization problem should be maximization of pleasure and minimization of pain. So, whilst the asymmetry still exists, the potentiality for pleasure might (/should?) be enough of an reason to continue living. I do acknowledge that exceptions do exist where the asymmetry is so skewed for some, to the extent that there is little to no potential pleasure for them, in which case, it might be preferable for them to terminate their own life (think extremely painful chronic/terminal illnesses). I'm sorry if this feels a bit loosey-goosey.
With all that said, I believe we are all sufferers from the incurable disease of life. And the only thing to do from here is to vehemently struggle and rebel against suffering. To help our fellow sufferers and maximize the pleasurable moments. To do everything we can to cope with life whilst still being aware of the true suffering it stands for.
For anyone else like me who didn't understand on a first read what OP is saying (it's not you OP, it's me; I am a single brain celled organism):
Say Alice has generated keys pub_a and priv_a.
Bob generated keys pub_b and priv_b and Bob has the unencrypted message msg_b.
We assume:
# Bob encrypts with Alice's public key
enc_b = pub_a(msg_b)
# Alice decrypts with her private key
priv_a(enc_b) = msg_b
Now, let's say WhatsApp has generated keys pub_w and priv_w.
# WhatsApp reads the unencrypted message
enc_b1 = pub_w(msg_b)
msg_b = priv_w(enc_b2)
# And then re-encrypts it with Alice's public key
enc_b2 = pub_a(msg_b)
msg_b = priv_a(enc_b2)
I just did a quick search, and found that you can verify the public key fingerprint. In WhatsApp, it is via the chat settings window -> Verify Security Code.
I also found this white paper: https://www.whatsapp.com/security/WhatsApp-Key-Transparency-Whitepaper.pdf
Although, I have to admit I didn't read it yet (may be I'll read it sometime later).
Thinking about it, I agree that the best way would be sharing public keys over a different trusted channel unrelated to the main service.
Am I the only one who thinks it is cute? This is far from nightmare fuel!
Yeah, I get all that. But, did you ever install a Linux ISO at 3am with a friend (or more)?! That's better than sex!
What the fuck are they supposed to do? Burn down the company, and go homeless? As a Linux daily driver (both home and work; I'm just fortunate on the latter), you are making a really dumb argument.
I find it hard to wrap my head around the fact that people do not understand this. Like, why would you ever think that you have more money than the amount deposited in your account?! I am guessing it is regional — restricted to places with poor financial hygiene/literacy due to whatever reasons.
(Despite the em-dash, I am not an AI. Two plus two is four Minus one, that's three.)
Windows users think I'm a nutjob. Mac users think I'm poor. And I think I'm superior.
Got it. Thanks for clearing that up. I thought you were talking about antinatalists ending existent life.
Yes, in the ideal scenario, I think it is best to "end" all life, via gradually phasing out of existence. I think that would cause minimal suffering. I do not realistically think that it could happen in the next generation (or in any generation owing to how extreme and controversial it is perceived by the general population).
Sure, you can be compassionate and empathetic to existing beings, but I see not bringing new beings out of empathy (due to the potentiality of their guaranteed suffering) to be more moral and a purer form of the trait.