That's true, but also it should be possible to make an OS that people can trust without trusting you, and as users we should encourage movement in that direction.
Trust can be abused, certainly, but it also allows collaboration and specialisation, and without those I doubt we'd have gotten very far.
Better to trust many people narrowly (e.g. I don't trust the bus driver to drill my cavities) than to trust a small handful of people broadly (e.g. like Apple expects of their users).
That's not to mention the argument that any software of a LOC count of higher than some number is impossible to audit because of complex state handling. Rice's Theorem applies to your brain too, probably, to some extent. Idk about purely functional Haskell though.
What makes you think this?
The GrapheneOS people are doing this, for example. It's not crazy to consider your device vendor as part of your threat model, because like it or not, they are a threat.
I'm focusing on simpler datasets for now, I want people to be able to annotate a paper restaurant menu with notes about allergens in a way that other people with those allergens can summon those annotations and steer clear--all without participation from the restaurant. Like an augmented reality layer for text.
I hope it grows up into something that would let you ask:
> How trusted is this line of code, and by whom?
The choice is either many little trust relationships or a giant leap of faith. I feel better served by a giant leap of faith and access to all the technology I can use.
I prefer no documentation and consistent behavior to no documentation and a bunch of internet howtos on what might work.