9 ms·

Software needs to speak computer language, not be concerned with complex, ambiguous, human ethics No.

by orcdork 10y ago

afandian 10y ago
Software doesn't, and can't, have human ethics (unless e.g. it's specifically a missile guidance system), but a collaborative software project does need to. The interface between these two things is subtle. Yes it's obvious that in order for a software project to be collaborative, it has to take on the foibles of humans but I don't think that your simple "No." cuts it. If I want to contribute to an open source software project I need to share the politics of the people that wrote it. Does that imbue the software with those politics? If it was written by lefties do I have to be a lefty to use it? If it was written by right-wingers do I need to be right-wing to use it? Case in point. There's a daily printed and online publication in the UK called the Daily Mail. It's a nasty, divisive, dishonest paper and it's done a lot of damage to our country. But they published a software library that I wanted to use. I was genuinely conflicted. The environment under which the library was written supports division, inequality, victimisation of minorities. Should I have used that library because it was useful to me, or should I have written my own code because of the 'politics' of the code? (I didn't use it in the end, because I was uncomfortable having 'dailymail' show in dependencies of code that I had written, but I still think about it)
- scrollaway 10y ago
  At the risk of invoking Godwin's law, would you be comfortable buying and using a Volkswagen? :) We'd definitely be better off without the Daily Mail, but if they actually contributed some good somewhere it's a disservice to ignore it imho.
  - afandian 10y ago
    Totally agree. It's not a solved question. That my point - things aren't black and white. Reductionist thinking is enticing but dysfunctional.
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      > Reductionist thinking is enticing but dysfunctional. Unless the word "reductionism" means something else than I think it means, I don't really see the issue. There's no problem with reducing a complex system to its simpler parts in order to understand it - that's basically how all human understanding works. The problem only starts when someone takes a small subset of the simpler parts and hyperfocuses on them, throwing out the rest.
      - afandian 10y ago
        I'm working to this[0] definition: > The practice of analysing and describing a complex phenomenon in terms of its simple or fundamental constituents, especially when this is said to provide a sufficient explanation. I mean simplifying complicated to the point where they seem appealing and then asserting that there is no complexity. [0] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/reductionism https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/reductionism
        TeMPOraL 10y ago
        Thanks for the clarification. I agree with you within the scope of the definition you're working with.
      - guitarbill 10y ago
        I think of it as more like quantisation, where information/detail is lost for the sake of simplicity. So after a reduction your mental model/data might not have the required fidelity to make useful conclusions.
- krapp 10y ago
  >If I want to contribute to an open source software project I need to share the politics of the people that wrote it I disagree. Software is meant to be meritocratic - all that should matter is the quality of your commits, if you're a contributor. It shouldn't be necessary or even desirable to have an explicit code of conduct to expect civility. > There's a daily printed and online publication in the UK called the Daily Mail. It's a nasty, divisive, dishonest paper and it's done a lot of damage to our country. But they published a software library that I wanted to use. I was genuinely conflicted. >The environment under which the library was written supports division, inequality, victimisation of minorities Would using the library support division, inequality or victimize minorities? Would not using the library help minorities or promote unity and equality? Fritz Haber developed a process[0] for synthesizing ammonia as a means of manufacturing poison gas for use in World War 1 - a process which led directly to the development of the gas chambers used during the Holocaust. However, the Haber process also revolutionized agriculture worldwide, making it possible to grow food in places where it would otherwise have been impossible. Does that mean modern agriculture is imbued with violent German nationalism or anti-Semitism? Of course not. In the same way, code has no political, social or moral dimension of its own, and the political environment in which it's written need have no relevance at all to how its used, or by whom. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process
  - wolfgke 10y ago
    > I disagree. Software is meant to be meritocratic - all that should matter is the quality of your commits, if you're a contributor. How do you come to the idea that software is meant to be meritocratic? Many people start an OSS software project so that the code implements the founder's vision. So for example I committed some (objectively; in this case "objectively" can objectively be justified [pun intended]) high-quality patches to some OSS project (which project is of no concern here). They were refused because they diverted from the vision that the founder and maintainer of this OSS project has for it.
    - krapp 10y ago
      If that "vision" relates only to the design or structure of the software, then I believe that meritocracy means conforming to the project owner's standards. But if it's about politics or social issues taking precedence over the code, then I would be opposed to it. There are plenty of angry, uncivil, misogynistic and racist 'thought leaders' in tech who are respected not for their political views (although sometimes, yes) but for the quality and popularity of their projects, so I think the premise of software being meritocratic is fairly well established.
- Robin_Message 10y ago
  I'm glad you didn't; I think picturing and calling three judges 'enemies of the people' was one of many steps in a long descent from news to reactionary propoganda; and as such should be shunned by all civilized people everywhere. (Or possibly just fascist propaganda, since conservatives usually believe in the rule of law.)
  - zigzigzag 10y ago
    The Daily Mail is simply a somewhat (but not very) right wing paper, which attracts a lot of bile because it's successful. I routinely read far more extreme, nasty and divisive stuff in the Guardian these days. The headline in question is because the judges had made an illogical judgement that wasn't supported by law or common sense, which had only one possible outcome; potentially delaying or blocking the implementation of a referendum result. Seeing them as enemies of democracy i.e. the people, is thus an entirely rational viewpoint even if you might not agree with it. Just like it'd be rational to call judges that if they decided that their personal interpretation of the law was that the last general election was void and they were now personally in charge. Being a judge does not give you carte blanche to do whatever you like.

Software needs to speak computer language, not be concerned with complex, ambiguous, human ethics No.

by orcdork 10y ago

Software needs to speak computer language, not be concerned with complex, ambiguous, human ethics No.

Software doesn't, and can't, have human ethics (unless e.g. it's specifically a missile guidance system), but a collaborative software project does need to. The interface between these two things is subtle. Yes it's obvious that in order for a software project to be collaborative, it has to take on the foibles of humans but I don't think that your simple "No." cuts it. If I want to contribute to an open source software project I need to share the politics of the people that wrote it. Does that imbue the software with those politics? If it was written by lefties do I have to be a lefty to use it? If it was written by right-wingers do I need to be right-wing to use it? Case in point. There's a daily printed and online publication in the UK called the Daily Mail. It's a nasty, divisive, dishonest paper and it's done a lot of damage to our country. But they published a software library that I wanted to use. I was genuinely conflicted. The environment under which the library was written supports division, inequality, victimisation of minorities. Should I have used that library because it was useful to me, or should I have written my own code because of the 'politics' of the code? (I didn't use it in the end, because I was uncomfortable having 'dailymail' show in dependencies of code that I had written, but I still think about it)

scrollaway 10y ago
At the risk of invoking Godwin's law, would you be comfortable buying and using a Volkswagen? :) We'd definitely be better off without the Daily Mail, but if they actually contributed some good somewhere it's a disservice to ignore it imho.
- afandian 10y ago
  Totally agree. It's not a solved question. That my point - things aren't black and white. Reductionist thinking is enticing but dysfunctional.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    > Reductionist thinking is enticing but dysfunctional. Unless the word "reductionism" means something else than I think it means, I don't really see the issue. There's no problem with reducing a complex system to its simpler parts in order to understand it - that's basically how all human understanding works. The problem only starts when someone takes a small subset of the simpler parts and hyperfocuses on them, throwing out the rest.
    - afandian 10y ago
      I'm working to this[0] definition: > The practice of analysing and describing a complex phenomenon in terms of its simple or fundamental constituents, especially when this is said to provide a sufficient explanation. I mean simplifying complicated to the point where they seem appealing and then asserting that there is no complexity. [0] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/reductionism https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/reductionism
      - TeMPOraL 10y ago
        Thanks for the clarification. I agree with you within the scope of the definition you're working with.
    - guitarbill 10y ago
      I think of it as more like quantisation, where information/detail is lost for the sake of simplicity. So after a reduction your mental model/data might not have the required fidelity to make useful conclusions.
krapp 10y ago
>If I want to contribute to an open source software project I need to share the politics of the people that wrote it I disagree. Software is meant to be meritocratic - all that should matter is the quality of your commits, if you're a contributor. It shouldn't be necessary or even desirable to have an explicit code of conduct to expect civility. > There's a daily printed and online publication in the UK called the Daily Mail. It's a nasty, divisive, dishonest paper and it's done a lot of damage to our country. But they published a software library that I wanted to use. I was genuinely conflicted. >The environment under which the library was written supports division, inequality, victimisation of minorities Would using the library support division, inequality or victimize minorities? Would not using the library help minorities or promote unity and equality? Fritz Haber developed a process[0] for synthesizing ammonia as a means of manufacturing poison gas for use in World War 1 - a process which led directly to the development of the gas chambers used during the Holocaust. However, the Haber process also revolutionized agriculture worldwide, making it possible to grow food in places where it would otherwise have been impossible. Does that mean modern agriculture is imbued with violent German nationalism or anti-Semitism? Of course not. In the same way, code has no political, social or moral dimension of its own, and the political environment in which it's written need have no relevance at all to how its used, or by whom. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process
- wolfgke 10y ago
  > I disagree. Software is meant to be meritocratic - all that should matter is the quality of your commits, if you're a contributor. How do you come to the idea that software is meant to be meritocratic? Many people start an OSS software project so that the code implements the founder's vision. So for example I committed some (objectively; in this case "objectively" can objectively be justified [pun intended]) high-quality patches to some OSS project (which project is of no concern here). They were refused because they diverted from the vision that the founder and maintainer of this OSS project has for it.
  - krapp 10y ago
    If that "vision" relates only to the design or structure of the software, then I believe that meritocracy means conforming to the project owner's standards. But if it's about politics or social issues taking precedence over the code, then I would be opposed to it. There are plenty of angry, uncivil, misogynistic and racist 'thought leaders' in tech who are respected not for their political views (although sometimes, yes) but for the quality and popularity of their projects, so I think the premise of software being meritocratic is fairly well established.
Robin_Message 10y ago
I'm glad you didn't; I think picturing and calling three judges 'enemies of the people' was one of many steps in a long descent from news to reactionary propoganda; and as such should be shunned by all civilized people everywhere. (Or possibly just fascist propaganda, since conservatives usually believe in the rule of law.)
- zigzigzag 10y ago
  The Daily Mail is simply a somewhat (but not very) right wing paper, which attracts a lot of bile because it's successful. I routinely read far more extreme, nasty and divisive stuff in the Guardian these days. The headline in question is because the judges had made an illogical judgement that wasn't supported by law or common sense, which had only one possible outcome; potentially delaying or blocking the implementation of a referendum result. Seeing them as enemies of democracy i.e. the people, is thus an entirely rational viewpoint even if you might not agree with it. Just like it'd be rational to call judges that if they decided that their personal interpretation of the law was that the last general election was void and they were now personally in charge. Being a judge does not give you carte blanche to do whatever you like.