5 ms·

It's not necessarily a problem that the older generation can only think about technology in a metaphorical sense, the problem is that the metaphors they are usi

It's not necessarily a problem that the older generation can only think about technology in a metaphorical sense, the problem is that the metaphors they are using are idiotic. I think, by and large, people are constrained to thinking about things they can describe. To that extent, being able to accurately describe something is meaningful, and is therefore a linguistic issue. Semantics are very important when you are dealing with minutiae, and the law hinges on comparisons and extremely complex semantic arguments. To that extent, it makes sense that we argue about the metaphors.

ljm 8y ago
On reflection I think the metaphor itself is a red herring; we're always using them because they serve a great purpose. Tell an aspiring developer they can use goroutines to build a decently concurrent app, without much fuss, and they'll be delighted because the language provides a metaphor for it (way beyond a simple abstraction); tell them they have to understand mutexes, locks, processes, forks, and you've lost them. What I see is a tendency towards the metaphor because that abstraction itself poses a challenge on top of the original one and the original problem itself is less interesting than the linguistic magic layered on top of it. You can talk at length about how bad the dog > animal OOP example is but you won't have much to say about OOP without that. It's basically bike-shedding.
jopsen 8y ago
No OP has a point, we shouldn't talk in metaphors so much... It's not necessary. The web is in many ways a huge collection of resources that reference each other. Some of these references are explicit in links, others in text, and some are available for programmatic access. In fact many resources can be discovered by programmatic access, and there is no inherent reason to think this is wrong. Just because an API isn't documented doesn't make using it illegal. For example, many URLs are actually permalinks, you can bookmark them, or send them to a friend. While most websites don't document this API, it's very common. Lots of people configure search keywords in Firefox by injecting queries in bookmarked URLs. Few of these URL patterns are formally documented, but that doesn't make their usage illegal.
- rayiner 8y ago
  > In fact many resources can be discovered by programmatic access, and there is no inherent reason to think this is wrong. Just because an API isn't documented doesn't make using it illegal. The license to access private property is based on the intent of the property owner. Where the intent is made express (through a sign), that governs. Where the intent is not made express, we try to figure out what a reasonable person would infer about the property owner's intent. The method of access, therefore, is relevant insofar as it tells you about what the owner of the web server intended people to have access to. The fact that content on a website meant for the public to access is only accessible by "programmatic" means that ordinary users would not know, is strong evidence that the owners of the web server did not intend for people to access those documents.
  - letlambda 8y ago
    Isn't the assumption always that accessing a web page programmatically is allowed unless specifically asked not to in robots.txt?
  - shkkmo 8y ago
    > The fact that content on a website meant for the public to access is only accessible by "programmatic" means that ordinary users would not know, is strong evidence that the owners of the web server did not intend for people to access those documents Sorry, that is complete BS. Have you scanned the entire internet and sure sure there are no links to these files on other public pages? Files publicly hosted by a web server (software explicitly designed and installed to make those files public) is in no shape or form private property. Furthermore, in this specific case, there is an explicit statement saying the files are public and saying nothing about them not being accessible: "The Access to Information website allows you to submit, pay and receive FOIPOP requests online. The Nova Scotia Government also posts responses to formal FOIPOP requests online on the Disclosure log. This is a free public repository of FOIPOP responses that have been approved for publication and have met a specific set of criteria (PDF file 800 KB)." https://novascotia.ca/is/programs-and-services/information-access-and-privacy.asp https://novascotia.ca/is/programs-and-services/information-a...
  - 8y ago
munk-a 8y ago
Maybe we need to shift the metaphor. A situation like this (security wise) isn't like leaving a window unlocked and having someone rob your house it's like 1. Leaving a pie on the window sill overhanging the side walk with paper plates and plastic utensils beside it. 2. A man knocking on your door, asking you for your bank account number without impersonating anyone of authority, you offering it up freely, then suing the man because you forgot to ask who he was first.
- ljm 8y ago
  The problem is the metaphor itself. The metaphor avoids the problem by providing a more trivial or palatable debate, it takes the attention away from the teen in trouble to the definition of the problem and at that point you've stopped caring about the person, you're caring about the problem. This guy facing prison doesn't give a shit about it feeling like a man stealing a pie from your window. It's nothing close to that because you can steal pies from windows and be held accountable in a much more reasonable way, and trying to reframe the situation only helps to an extent.
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    Reframing is a favorite tool of authoritarians. They just turn a knob and the new frame gets parroted by the media for weeks.

ljm 8y ago

On reflection I think the metaphor itself is a red herring; we're always using them because they serve a great purpose. Tell an aspiring developer they can use goroutines to build a decently concurrent app, without much fuss, and they'll be delighted because the language provides a metaphor for it (way beyond a simple abstraction); tell them they have to understand mutexes, locks, processes, forks, and you've lost them. What I see is a tendency towards the metaphor because that abstraction itself poses a challenge on top of the original one and the original problem itself is less interesting than the linguistic magic layered on top of it. You can talk at length about how bad the dog > animal OOP example is but you won't have much to say about OOP without that. It's basically bike-shedding.

jopsen 8y ago

No OP has a point, we shouldn't talk in metaphors so much... It's not necessary. The web is in many ways a huge collection of resources that reference each other. Some of these references are explicit in links, others in text, and some are available for programmatic access. In fact many resources can be discovered by programmatic access, and there is no inherent reason to think this is wrong. Just because an API isn't documented doesn't make using it illegal. For example, many URLs are actually permalinks, you can bookmark them, or send them to a friend. While most websites don't document this API, it's very common. Lots of people configure search keywords in Firefox by injecting queries in bookmarked URLs. Few of these URL patterns are formally documented, but that doesn't make their usage illegal.

rayiner 8y ago
> In fact many resources can be discovered by programmatic access, and there is no inherent reason to think this is wrong. Just because an API isn't documented doesn't make using it illegal. The license to access private property is based on the intent of the property owner. Where the intent is made express (through a sign), that governs. Where the intent is not made express, we try to figure out what a reasonable person would infer about the property owner's intent. The method of access, therefore, is relevant insofar as it tells you about what the owner of the web server intended people to have access to. The fact that content on a website meant for the public to access is only accessible by "programmatic" means that ordinary users would not know, is strong evidence that the owners of the web server did not intend for people to access those documents.
- letlambda 8y ago
  Isn't the assumption always that accessing a web page programmatically is allowed unless specifically asked not to in robots.txt?
- shkkmo 8y ago
  > The fact that content on a website meant for the public to access is only accessible by "programmatic" means that ordinary users would not know, is strong evidence that the owners of the web server did not intend for people to access those documents Sorry, that is complete BS. Have you scanned the entire internet and sure sure there are no links to these files on other public pages? Files publicly hosted by a web server (software explicitly designed and installed to make those files public) is in no shape or form private property. Furthermore, in this specific case, there is an explicit statement saying the files are public and saying nothing about them not being accessible: "The Access to Information website allows you to submit, pay and receive FOIPOP requests online. The Nova Scotia Government also posts responses to formal FOIPOP requests online on the Disclosure log. This is a free public repository of FOIPOP responses that have been approved for publication and have met a specific set of criteria (PDF file 800 KB)." https://novascotia.ca/is/programs-and-services/information-access-and-privacy.asp https://novascotia.ca/is/programs-and-services/information-a...
- 8y ago

munk-a 8y ago

Maybe we need to shift the metaphor. A situation like this (security wise) isn't like leaving a window unlocked and having someone rob your house it's like 1. Leaving a pie on the window sill overhanging the side walk with paper plates and plastic utensils beside it. 2. A man knocking on your door, asking you for your bank account number without impersonating anyone of authority, you offering it up freely, then suing the man because you forgot to ask who he was first.

ljm 8y ago
The problem is the metaphor itself. The metaphor avoids the problem by providing a more trivial or palatable debate, it takes the attention away from the teen in trouble to the definition of the problem and at that point you've stopped caring about the person, you're caring about the problem. This guy facing prison doesn't give a shit about it feeling like a man stealing a pie from your window. It's nothing close to that because you can steal pies from windows and be held accountable in a much more reasonable way, and trying to reframe the situation only helps to an extent.
- jessaustin 8y ago
  Reframing is a favorite tool of authoritarians. They just turn a knob and the new frame gets parroted by the media for weeks.