There's a big difference between wanting a succinct proof and wanting a succinct statement of the requirements. The easier it is to state the requirements, the more likely you have stated them correctly. Whereas succinct proof is not relevant for industrial purposes, as long as the proover has a small trusted kernel, it makes no difference to the reliability.
You joke, but, leaving religion out of it, it's plausible that if the want long lived infrastructure that's maintained with integrity, it may be that tithing of some description is part of the solution. Currently the closest we have is patron, but most of those are still part of hustle culture rather than the supporters feeling a long term obligation.
I know that there’s a pretty overwhelming antithesis about religion, hereabouts (there’s a lot of valid reasons, but, in my experience, it tends to originate from personal animus), but some things that you get from organized religion, are a sense of community, a very long view, and fairly strict rules about personal integrity and behavior.
There’s a lot less of the cutthroat competition, than you’ll see in industry and academia, and many folks plant trees that they will never use for shade.
Personally, I’m not religious, but have many close friends that are, and I see this mindset in action.
I also worked for an old-fashioned Japanese company, which had many of the same features.
Even though many people see these as conservative (or weak) traits, they actually work well, for development of new things.
Big things take time, and teams.
Time is supplied by people taking the long view, and making long-term plans, and teams benefit from people not stabbing each other in the back, sublimating personal goals, in favor of those of the collective, and trusting each other, and their management.
I don't want to get into an argument about religion, so I will make a different point.
There are two ways to evaluate things. One is selection: look at the options available, decide which is best, and go all in on that one. The other is to understand things as deeply as possible, what the moving parts are,what makes them tick, what the unknown possibilities might be, etc.
We as individuals have to use selection a lot of the time. You can't do only the good parts of two jobs, or marry only the good parts of two spouses. But it's also profoundly negative to be obliged to only think in those terms: for example, when citizens are told that they have no choice other than to vote for the lesser evil, it lets politicians off the hook for only being slightly less corrupt, and reduces citizens to a passive role. Ironically, those who try to shut political discussion out of HN are doing the same thing: saying "just choose, do not think".
So, while I might be interested in instances where religious people have a longer term approach, it's not interesting to me as a "plus for religion". It's interesting if it leads to understanding and new ideas. Of course, as a non-believer I would like to separate any benefits from the need to be loyal to unprovable assertions. But that's actually secondary.
I think the question becomes "how does this behavior get rewarded?".
I agree with most of this, and also have experienced the positive outcomes of people thinking ahead and sublimating short term reward for long term gain (for the collective).
However it seems antithetical to put a reward function on it so there is this catch-22 about what makes the thing "good" also makes it difficult to achieve.
Wealth, honour/fame/glory, power, pleasure are not bad in themselves, but generally can be considered as means to an end of and not really ends in themselves:
'Some versions of the tale differ from Goethe's, and in some versions the sorcerer is angry at the apprentice and in some even expels the apprentice for causing the mess. In other versions, the sorcerer is a bit amused at the apprentice and he simply chides his apprentice about the need to be able to properly control such magic once summoned.[] The sorcerer's anger with the apprentice, which appears in both the Greek Philopseudes and the Dukas score (and its film adaptation Fantasia), does not appear in Goethe's "Der Zauberlehrling".'
Do you have any thoughts on Mozilla? It has a two-entity structure, but there are a lot of complaints that it is not sticking to its mission (or, slightly differently, that it's not succeeding at it, due to poor strategic choices).
(Apologies if you already addressed this somewhere. Thanks for doing this)
The counter must be as visceral is the claim. They make an emotional pitch:your children are in danger, surveillance is the solution. The counter must show the dangers in visceral, emotionally relevant way. This surveillance is actually a risk to parents and children as well - that by the accusation of an opaque, unaccountable system, you will be labelled a pedophile, and your kids taken away. That when sharing a picture of your own child with your own mother, you will have to worry about what the electronic bureaucracy will label your picture as.
Abstractions like privacy,and categorical claims, aren't going to reverse this. A properly pitched campaign could do. Sure, complain that politicians and the public are dumb. That may make you feel better but it won't change this an iota. Talking to people in the terms they care about might.
>>> That when sharing a picture of your own child with your own mother, you will have to worry about what the electronic bureaucracy will label your picture as.
I 100% agree on the need to counter emotional fire with emotional fire. And this is the right way to combat this sort of overreach
However, I do think that “the choir” need to rethink what is and is not privacy - a huge amount of the benefits of having our every waking moment monitored by the virtual world (which is going to happen) can be lost if we don’t allow epidemiology to follow our digital selves.
Detecting one’s word use is slipping might signal a trip to the doctors or a thousand other digital tells that will help us improve our lives. If we have to fight against ads and digital searches for terrorism, at least let’s get the benefits too.
That's all very well, but we just plain don't have a legal, economic, or technical system which will allow separation of the good uses from the bad uses. Once data is in someone else's possession, there's f-all way to prevent it being used to do whatever the possessor wants. Even if there is a legal agreement, it's easily abrogated, or overridden by insolvency law, or by a company having a "we can update our terms" clause. Some of this I can imagine how to address - insolvency law could be changed, for example - but in the absence of a fully robust system, promises of "we will only use your data for good" are not credible. Those who actually want to use data for good should be on the side of robust assurance of that, not just plead that they can be trusted and that no accountability is needed.
It’s hard to enforce a law so we should not have the law seems a poor argument.
Let’s say we define personal data about, generated by or inferred from the actions of a natural person as owned by the society as a whole. And misuse is liable to 5% of annual turnover. It’s more or less GDPR. That seems viable - and I am sure an army of class action lawyers will be happy to help out
(Ok I need to work on a better proposal but I think this is more doable than you are allowing for)
I don't think we necessarily disagree. I am pessimistic about laws being effective in this case, but that doesn't mean we should not try to find ones that are. I like your idea. Thinking and trials in that direction would be good.
Data using organisations often seem to prefer fig-leaf laws that aren't effective, and lobby against ones that might be effective. "My data use is a good use, therefore I should not be subject to restrictions and oversight". Instead, anyone with a use of data which is valuable to the public should not see themselves as on the same side as the advertisers and surveillance vendors. They should see themselves as on the opposite side.
Characterising people who analyse reprehensible material in order to try to save children from abuse as “pedos working for government to watch all the reported images” is, quite frankly, disgusting.
Depends how it works in the jurisdiction, but in common law usually this form of restriction is like a contract, but between two pieces of land, or between a piece of land and the public, rather than between two persons. In the former case only the current owner on the benefited property can complain. In the latter case, any member of the public can - but I'm not sure if a member of the public can create such a restriction.
Training and advice is about the expected disaster, not necessarily the one you are in.
In 9/11, lots of people escaped the south tower using elevators, which is the opposite of what you're told to do. There are people who died because they chose to follow the stair route. But others died because they were trapped in elevators.
I appreciate the sentiment, but this is exactly like the expectation that people can be responsible for intervening when self-driving or driver-assistance goes wrong. Human brains are strongly driven to conserve energy. If nothing seems to be happening - when errors become less and less frequent - the more difficult it becomes to guarantee intervention, and the less practiced the human will be at doing so.
I have written factory tests, in which I injected errors to make sure that the factory workers didn't develop "click next" syndrome and actually noticed errors. That's what you'd have to do. It's hard to get an organisation to stick to that, when they add up the time they're paying for in detecting fake errors.
Yeah, suppose a self-driving car is say twice as likely to crash as the average human (which could already be considered unfair since that includes like drunk humans and people who should've already lost their license). That means to monitor it's driving you will need to wait 25,000 hours until an accident occurs. That's ~ 12 straight years of a 9-5 spent sitting, doing absolutely nothing, just watching in a state of theoretical vigilance.
It used to be that VCs wanted founders to pursue a singleton strategy, because they wanted the diversification to occur at the level of their portfolio - on the grounds that at the level of an individual startup, diversification would less likely to succeed. The catchphrase was that they wanted "pure play" investments. So it would be interesting to know why it's now a cause of friction. (The "pure play" thing was actually from before YC took off and gave founders a bit more agency; and before the "pivot" was popularised; I get the impression that VCs back then were not too happy for a founder to change direction and confuse their portfolio)
reply