17 ms·

Every company I apply to is told during the interview process that I will not work on military projects, and that I would probably leave the company if they cho

Every company I apply to is told during the interview process that I will not work on military projects, and that I would probably leave the company if they chose to take on a military contract. If you have personal moral limits and you’re upfront about them then no-one is the worse off; I’ve yet to be turned down for a job over it and, somewhat the opposite, companies seem to appreciate frankness.

dev_dull 8y ago
If you contribute to open source software then you’re contributing to military projects.
- robin_reala 8y ago
  That’s the standard argument, and yes, it’s true. There’s a difference between actively working on a defined project and putting some stuff out into the open though, and that at least for me is a reasonable border.
  - ethbro 8y ago
    To me this is a non-trivial distinction. Especially with dual-use technology, e.g. open source infrastructure, open accessibility moots some qualms about empowering a specific military at the expense of others. (On the other hand, in terms of wars not happening and pure global peace and stability, there are arguments for elevating between 1 and 5 powers above others)
- berti 8y ago
  A side-effect, rather than the primary goal. There is a not-so-subtle difference.
- smcl 8y ago
  So this person shouldn't have any quandaries working on military projects, because they might have contributed a bugfix to some code in libcurl or some other library that is used somewhere in the vast US military? Seems like an awfully weak argument.
- adrianN 8y ago
  If you're paying taxes you're also contributing to military projects. There is a difference between working on a weapons system and working on an operating system that can also be used in weapons.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- webkike 8y ago
  God dammit, I knew my open source game framework was going to be used for nefarious purposes, how could I have been so short sighted?
  - rdtsc 8y ago
    You maybe joking but military loves them some games for training purposes. So ironically enough having a nice gaming platform actually gives you good chances of contributing (unwittingly) to military projects.
    - webkike 8y ago
      That's a good point!
  - XalvinX 8y ago
    Just kill yourself now.
    - sctb 8y ago
      Joking or not, commenting like this will get your account banned. Could you please re-read the guidelines? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- letsgetphysITal 8y ago
  Contributing to something which could be used by the military is different to contributing to something which will be used by the military specifically.
  - Crontab 8y ago
    IMO this is the correct answer.
- cs02rm0 8y ago
  I'm not quite sure why this is downvoted, although I understand the nuance, it seems an interesting and related point. Out of interest, are there open source licenses that prevent use in military projects? ISTR reading something recently about it being legally questionable to discriminate between who can accept a license, but that was in the context of allowing open source for non-commercial purposes.
  - robin_reala 8y ago
    Crockford’s original JSON licence banned the use of the technology for evil, but IBM’s lawyers knew that a bunch of their projects couldn’t be guaranteed to be 100% evil-free and negotiated an exemption.
  - hsivonen 8y ago
    By definition, a license that has Field of Use restrictions is not an Open Source license. Creative Commons NonCommercial licenses, for example, are neither Open Source nor Free Software licenses.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      I imagine that someone who wants to prevent use of their work by the military would not be concerned over whether something is technically not open source or not.
  - palotasb 8y ago
    I don't think the idea of free software and banning specific uses is compatible. OSI also says that they require no such discrimination: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd (points 5, 6)
  - r3bl 8y ago
    > Out of interest, are there open source licenses that prevent use in military projects? This question is an oxymoron. Both the definition of open source (by the Open Source Initiative) and the definition of free software (by the Free Software Foundation) explicitly forbid discriminating against any person or a group of people for software to be considered as open source / free software.
- acchow 8y ago
  And if you contribute to science, you're contributing to military projects. If you've taught kindergarten or middle school, you've probably helped raise a soldier. Yeah ok.
  - wolfgke 8y ago
    > If you've taught kindergarten or middle school, you've probably helped raise a soldier. I believe that on HN you perhaps talk to the wrong audience for this argument. If the teacher really had the "hacker spirit" in teaching, the pupils will be too freethinking (as in hacker) to be suitable soldiers.
    - pixl97 8y ago
      Ah, HackerNews' other greatest sin "If someone's freethinking, they'll think exactly like me"
      - wolfgke 8y ago
        > "If someone's freethinking, they'll think exactly like me" I claim that my point nevertheless stands. I was explicitly talking about "hacker spirit". If you read up on the hacker ethics > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hacker_ethic&oldid=841926692 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hacker_ethic&oldi... you will find many points that will make such a person a really unsuitable soldier, for example "Mistrust authority — promote decentralization", which is at least in my worldview quite the opposite of the life as a soldier, where obedience, chain of command etc. are central. The same holds for "All information should be free", which is quite in the spirit of Snowden and Assange, but quite the opposite of the values of being a soldier, where military secrets are (for good or bad) of importance.
        pixl97 8y ago
        >If the teacher really had the "hacker spirit" in teaching, the pupils will be too freethinking This is the comment I was shooting at. I don't believe this. Instead I believe something far more terrifying. "Society manages complexity by the occasional cull of the free thinker" Lots of smart people can bring a lot of good change to a society and culture, but one needs to be very careful to think the majority of the population in that society will accept those changes, and the faster they occur, the more resentment builds. Suddenly you have politicians and activists pining for the 'good old days'. Suddenly a nice authoritarian figure pops up and tells the masses that he can fix all their problems. There are ample examples in history to see where this leads.
- Derbasti 8y ago
  Also, to world peace. And crime. And law enforcement. And... humanity.
  - sslayer 8y ago
    Yes, until people understand the nature of duality, they struggle with simple concepts. If I choose to not protect myself , am I enabling murders and evil to flourish? Life and death, peace and war, these things are necessary for the engine of reality to continue to cycle. Living itself is a fight against death- would you deny death it due?
- Karishma1234 8y ago
  If you are in Oil industry you are helping military projects. Irrelevant because 99% of the use for that activity is non-military. In such cases military has million options if you refuse.
- jiveturkey 8y ago
  Because the GPL (and other such) is a license, that can apparently have almost arbitrary restrictions, can there exist a NMPL -- non-military public license -- that excludes military use? For a current and real example, much commercial software is licensed under terms that exclude use in nuclear or lifesaving critical applications. I'm not sure how one enforces such a license. Let's be real, even a successful lawsuit isn't going to remove said software from the military's hands. And to the extent it is honored, it has the negative effect of driving up the cost of developing military software, which of course comes out normal people's pockets. But it might be an interesting way to take up a principled stance.
tozeur 8y ago
I don’t think you realize the security of our country has been built by hundreds of thousands of mechanical and electrical engineers, computer scientists, and physicists. Sure, working on military contracts may include uncomfortable problem spaces. But is it morally wrong to work on contracts that ultimately protect American lives?
- robin_reala 8y ago
  I’m not American.
  - drawnwren 8y ago
    Good news then, you aren't eligible to work on the vast majority of USG software projects. Definitely anything remotely related to military drones.
    - chrisper 8y ago
      The US is not the only country with a military and companies...
      - drawnwren 8y ago
        No but in the context of Google refusing to work for the US DoD, it's pretty clear that most of the posters in this thread are talking about the US DoD/Silicon Valley relationship. Further, a comment like "I always tell employers I won't work for the military..." has a significantly different meaning if we're talking about Swedish tech companies and the Swedish military than if we're talking about US companies, so it would probably have been helpful to clear up the setting in this context.
- Rotten194 8y ago
  Do you sincerely believe that us dropping bombs in the middle east is "protecting American lives"? If anything, it's spawned a whole generation of terrorists who hate the US for destroying their country. The best way to protect Americans would be for our country to get out of expensive, overseas wars and invest that money in healthcare and ending the drug war, things that actually kill Americans in large numbers.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Vinnl 8y ago
> If you have personal moral limits and you’re upfront about them Problematic here is that I might not be aware of all my moral limits until I encounter a situation they might be relevant to.
- sshine 8y ago
  Temet nosce. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_thyself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_thyself
  - pixl97 8y ago
    What do you mean you don't know what you're going to do the first time you confront the Xeazyggus! You should know what to do from birth.
  - jeffreyrogers 8y ago
    Interestingly enough, "know thyself" in the original context actually means something like "know your place".
    - sshine 8y ago
      Yes, it seems that the earliest (Egyptian) references make it out as "know your place", and that even the earliest Greek references put a slightly nicer but still comparable "be moderate, self-restrained". But there are several references by Plato that are relevant to the interpretation that I implied (to know yourself = to know your moral standpoint) mentioned in the Wikipedia article: (Plato's Phaedrus dialogue) Socrates says, "But I have no leisure for them at all; and the reason, my friend, is this: I am not yet able, as the Delphic inscription has it, to know myself; so it seems to me ridiculous, when I do not yet know that, to investigate irrelevant things." (Plato's Protagoras dialogue) Socrates mentions "the far-famed inscriptions, which are in all men's mouths,--'Know thyself,' and 'Nothing too much'.". Having lauded the maxims, Socrates then spends a great deal of time getting to the bottom of what one of them means, the saying of Pittacus, 'Hard is it to be good.' The irony here is that although the sayings of Delphi bear 'great force,' it is not clear how to live life in accordance with their meanings. Although, the concise and broad nature of the sayings suggests the active partaking in the usage and personal discovery of each maxim; as if the intended nature of the saying lay not in the words but the self-reflection and self-referencing of the person thereof.
CamperBob2 8y ago
And if I were hiring, I'd certainly think less of you for taking that stance. Picture this: we're deep in the Cold War era, and Ronny Raygun is the president. The Star Wars initiative is in full swing. Nuclear mishaps and near-misses are still an all-too-frequent occurrence. Nena's red balloons are ready to fly. The President has just gone on the air and promised to "Outlaw Russia," and that "The bombing starts in five minutes." Some officers from the Pentagon approach your company's management and ask them to bid on a project that will involve launching dozens of military satellites equipped with atomic clocks, designed to locate any person, place, or thing on Earth at meter-scale accuracy. Do you threaten to quit the company, lecture everyone who will listen about the potential for misuse of such dangerous technology... and miss out on the chance to contribute to GPS? Or, how about a few years earlier, when they ask you to work on a colossal air-defense computer system using technology that hasn't even been invented yet. They want to use computers to vector fighters to intercept approaching Soviet bombers, and to target missiles to kill the ones the fighters miss. It's obvious to anyone not in uniform that the whole idea is insanely stupid, wasteful, and destabilizing. They want to spend $50 billion to develop a system that guarantees one whole 'nine' of uptime, that can be trivially jammed or disrupted, and that will literally be obsolete the day they turn it on since it can't deal with ballistic missiles. So you tell them, "No, I don't want to work on SAGE. Peace out and fuck off." As it turns out, the system is indeed useless at its stated purpose. The spinoffs, on the other hand, not only revolutionize the entire IT industry, but create it. The next thirty years' worth of progress in computer architecture, memory and storage, networking, display and human interaction, and fault-tolerance is traceable directly to this boondoggle. All of these things would probably have taken decades longer to evolve without military funding and backing. Nobody dies as a result, but a bunch of your coworkers do get to play with a lot of cool toys. Then there's the whole ARPAnet thing, funded by DoD to survive nuclear holocaust, asteroid strikes, plague, fire, and famine... any threat imaginable by anyone other than telecom-industry lobbyists. Even the very wise cannot see all ends, and that goes for modern-day hippies too.
- robin_reala 8y ago
  I don’t disagree that a lot of technological benefits have come out of military technology, it’s just that your comment completely ignores the death, destruction and calamity that’s also arisen. You’re fine to believe that the military is a net benefit for society, that’s your choice. I just don’t, and that’s mine. And while yes, I’m sure you’d think less of me in an interview situation that’s not been my general experience of hiring managers.
buro9 8y ago
It's not that black and white. Working on missile guidance? Then I can see your point of view... but everything else in some way facilitates or contributes to facilitating such things. One can rapidly reduce it to "fixing a Linux bug... facilitates the military industrial complex". You might wish to not work on things that directly are used by the military, but the vast majority of technology is indirectly used because the military and their supporting companies, processes, logistics is so broad that it's almost everything. At which point can you say your work truly does not facilitate or contribute?
- TotempaaltJ 8y ago
  Right, what about Microsoft Office? I'm sure that's used by some military. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it makes up a vital part in planning real military operations, where people die. But would you refuse to work on Office if you worked at MS?
  - implements 8y ago
    There's some in the military that'd beg you not to work on MS Office - specifically Powepoint: http://theweek.com/articles/673091/general-mattis-save-military-ban-powerpoint http://theweek.com/articles/673091/general-mattis-save-milit... [Genuine question: New here, is this style of post too Reddit for HN?]
    - majewsky 8y ago
      I think it's okay. Just a small quip thrown in from the side that's still relevant to the topic of discussion. It would not be okay (IMO) if you tried to derail the discussion to focus on your link instead; in this case, a regular submission should be made.
    - ethbro 8y ago
      Imho, the important thing is the degree to which a comment contributes or adds information to the discussion. So something like linking an article about PPT overuse in the military w/ a quip is much better than just a quip at PPT's expense. (Given that some people might not be aware of the reported overuse of PowerPoint in the US military)
derping_hacker 8y ago
The current era of peace between world powers is unprecedented in human history and is only possible because the power of the US military makes it pointless for anyone to start a war. The US military also makes your welfare state in Sweden possible, we've spent 10s of trillions over the last 70 years protecting Europe for free, the least you could do is show some appreciation. I look forward to the day America Shrugs and Europe learns what it's like to live in the real world. The US could do what's in it's own best interest and cut military spending and return to it's own shores where it's completely safe from invasion, but millions of people in Europe and Asia would die as a result when countries take the opportunity to seize power in the vacuum, an opportunity the US has never truly take advantage of for itself. I also find it odd nobody cares that Google opened an AI lab in China, where every bit of research is going to end up in the hands of the Chinese government. https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/12/google-opening-an-office-focused-on-artificial-intelligence-in-china/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/12/google-opening-an-office-f...
- omnimus 8y ago
  Are you a troll? How is it even related to the comment? I don't understand.
- jopsen 8y ago
  Peace is because everybody agrees that war is despicable, borders shouldn't move, prosperity is achieved through technology not conquest. 150 years ago the British was the dominant military power. That didn't stop European countries from starting an avg. of 2 wars per year. US military dominance is not without positive effect, but the main driver of change is public opinion.
  - v_lisivka 8y ago
    All that is gone in 2014 when Russian Federation started war in Ukraine to move borders.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- 8y ago
JarlUlvi 8y ago
if 10,000 more fellow brits had said the same 78 years ago, you might be speaking german now. Moral? No.
6ue7nNMEEbHcM 8y ago
I've seen that kind of thinking in the past and it's pretty popular view. I'm just not so sure about this moral aspect. Why do you think it's more moral/ethical to abstain of supporting military? Maybe you won't do this but be sure that in some other country some similarly talented people will. If you (and many others) abstain from it on similar basis you and closest people you know may be in danger of being affected by more advanced military equipment other (possibly hostile) armies can get. Maybe it's just not in people heads that world and homeland safety is not given for free and granted forever.
- sp332 8y ago
  It's a moral point. Maybe I'd rather be dead than kill someone.
  - 6ue7nNMEEbHcM 8y ago
    Is it still moral if by your decision not only you but many other people die?
    - quakenul 8y ago
      Is it okay to not torture someone, if by doing so other people might die? Is it okay to not (legally or illegally) surveil a people, if that might result in physical harm to them? How much does the chance of missing out on action x to (maybe) defer undesirable outcome y weight against the mere consequences of pursuing action x in the first place? You tell me and then I'll tell you. It is a question of morality and as such has an infinite number of right and wrong answers.
      - v_lisivka 8y ago
        If we are in peaceful state, then it isn't. If we are in state of war, then it may be okay (it depends). My turn: when war starts, is it okay to send someone else to die at war to protect your children? Or it better to let your children die, but save soldier lives instead? http://justiceharvard.org/justicecourse/ http://justiceharvard.org/justicecourse/
JustSomeNobody 8y ago
And if we eliminate our military altogether you think things would just stay the same? If you don't want to be a part of it, good for you. But those freedoms didn't come cheap.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
wmeredith 8y ago
You know the internet (ARPANET) and the microprocessor were largely birthed from military contracts in the 60’s right?

dev_dull 8y ago

If you contribute to open source software then you’re contributing to military projects.

robin_reala 8y ago
That’s the standard argument, and yes, it’s true. There’s a difference between actively working on a defined project and putting some stuff out into the open though, and that at least for me is a reasonable border.
- ethbro 8y ago
  To me this is a non-trivial distinction. Especially with dual-use technology, e.g. open source infrastructure, open accessibility moots some qualms about empowering a specific military at the expense of others. (On the other hand, in terms of wars not happening and pure global peace and stability, there are arguments for elevating between 1 and 5 powers above others)
berti 8y ago
A side-effect, rather than the primary goal. There is a not-so-subtle difference.
smcl 8y ago
So this person shouldn't have any quandaries working on military projects, because they might have contributed a bugfix to some code in libcurl or some other library that is used somewhere in the vast US military? Seems like an awfully weak argument.
adrianN 8y ago
If you're paying taxes you're also contributing to military projects. There is a difference between working on a weapons system and working on an operating system that can also be used in weapons.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
webkike 8y ago
God dammit, I knew my open source game framework was going to be used for nefarious purposes, how could I have been so short sighted?
- rdtsc 8y ago
  You maybe joking but military loves them some games for training purposes. So ironically enough having a nice gaming platform actually gives you good chances of contributing (unwittingly) to military projects.
  - webkike 8y ago
    That's a good point!
- XalvinX 8y ago
  Just kill yourself now.
  - sctb 8y ago
    Joking or not, commenting like this will get your account banned. Could you please re-read the guidelines? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
letsgetphysITal 8y ago
Contributing to something which could be used by the military is different to contributing to something which will be used by the military specifically.
- Crontab 8y ago
  IMO this is the correct answer.
cs02rm0 8y ago
I'm not quite sure why this is downvoted, although I understand the nuance, it seems an interesting and related point. Out of interest, are there open source licenses that prevent use in military projects? ISTR reading something recently about it being legally questionable to discriminate between who can accept a license, but that was in the context of allowing open source for non-commercial purposes.
- robin_reala 8y ago
  Crockford’s original JSON licence banned the use of the technology for evil, but IBM’s lawyers knew that a bunch of their projects couldn’t be guaranteed to be 100% evil-free and negotiated an exemption.
- hsivonen 8y ago
  By definition, a license that has Field of Use restrictions is not an Open Source license. Creative Commons NonCommercial licenses, for example, are neither Open Source nor Free Software licenses.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    I imagine that someone who wants to prevent use of their work by the military would not be concerned over whether something is technically not open source or not.
- palotasb 8y ago
  I don't think the idea of free software and banning specific uses is compatible. OSI also says that they require no such discrimination: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd (points 5, 6)
- r3bl 8y ago
  > Out of interest, are there open source licenses that prevent use in military projects? This question is an oxymoron. Both the definition of open source (by the Open Source Initiative) and the definition of free software (by the Free Software Foundation) explicitly forbid discriminating against any person or a group of people for software to be considered as open source / free software.
acchow 8y ago
And if you contribute to science, you're contributing to military projects. If you've taught kindergarten or middle school, you've probably helped raise a soldier. Yeah ok.
- wolfgke 8y ago
  > If you've taught kindergarten or middle school, you've probably helped raise a soldier. I believe that on HN you perhaps talk to the wrong audience for this argument. If the teacher really had the "hacker spirit" in teaching, the pupils will be too freethinking (as in hacker) to be suitable soldiers.
  - pixl97 8y ago
    Ah, HackerNews' other greatest sin "If someone's freethinking, they'll think exactly like me"
    - wolfgke 8y ago
      > "If someone's freethinking, they'll think exactly like me" I claim that my point nevertheless stands. I was explicitly talking about "hacker spirit". If you read up on the hacker ethics > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hacker_ethic&oldid=841926692 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hacker_ethic&oldi... you will find many points that will make such a person a really unsuitable soldier, for example "Mistrust authority — promote decentralization", which is at least in my worldview quite the opposite of the life as a soldier, where obedience, chain of command etc. are central. The same holds for "All information should be free", which is quite in the spirit of Snowden and Assange, but quite the opposite of the values of being a soldier, where military secrets are (for good or bad) of importance.
      - pixl97 8y ago
        >If the teacher really had the "hacker spirit" in teaching, the pupils will be too freethinking This is the comment I was shooting at. I don't believe this. Instead I believe something far more terrifying. "Society manages complexity by the occasional cull of the free thinker" Lots of smart people can bring a lot of good change to a society and culture, but one needs to be very careful to think the majority of the population in that society will accept those changes, and the faster they occur, the more resentment builds. Suddenly you have politicians and activists pining for the 'good old days'. Suddenly a nice authoritarian figure pops up and tells the masses that he can fix all their problems. There are ample examples in history to see where this leads.
Derbasti 8y ago
Also, to world peace. And crime. And law enforcement. And... humanity.
- sslayer 8y ago
  Yes, until people understand the nature of duality, they struggle with simple concepts. If I choose to not protect myself , am I enabling murders and evil to flourish? Life and death, peace and war, these things are necessary for the engine of reality to continue to cycle. Living itself is a fight against death- would you deny death it due?
Karishma1234 8y ago
If you are in Oil industry you are helping military projects. Irrelevant because 99% of the use for that activity is non-military. In such cases military has million options if you refuse.
jiveturkey 8y ago
Because the GPL (and other such) is a license, that can apparently have almost arbitrary restrictions, can there exist a NMPL -- non-military public license -- that excludes military use? For a current and real example, much commercial software is licensed under terms that exclude use in nuclear or lifesaving critical applications. I'm not sure how one enforces such a license. Let's be real, even a successful lawsuit isn't going to remove said software from the military's hands. And to the extent it is honored, it has the negative effect of driving up the cost of developing military software, which of course comes out normal people's pockets. But it might be an interesting way to take up a principled stance.

tozeur 8y ago

I don’t think you realize the security of our country has been built by hundreds of thousands of mechanical and electrical engineers, computer scientists, and physicists. Sure, working on military contracts may include uncomfortable problem spaces. But is it morally wrong to work on contracts that ultimately protect American lives?

robin_reala 8y ago
I’m not American.
- drawnwren 8y ago
  Good news then, you aren't eligible to work on the vast majority of USG software projects. Definitely anything remotely related to military drones.
  - chrisper 8y ago
    The US is not the only country with a military and companies...
    - drawnwren 8y ago
      No but in the context of Google refusing to work for the US DoD, it's pretty clear that most of the posters in this thread are talking about the US DoD/Silicon Valley relationship. Further, a comment like "I always tell employers I won't work for the military..." has a significantly different meaning if we're talking about Swedish tech companies and the Swedish military than if we're talking about US companies, so it would probably have been helpful to clear up the setting in this context.
Rotten194 8y ago
Do you sincerely believe that us dropping bombs in the middle east is "protecting American lives"? If anything, it's spawned a whole generation of terrorists who hate the US for destroying their country. The best way to protect Americans would be for our country to get out of expensive, overseas wars and invest that money in healthcare and ending the drug war, things that actually kill Americans in large numbers.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

Vinnl 8y ago

> If you have personal moral limits and you’re upfront about them Problematic here is that I might not be aware of all my moral limits until I encounter a situation they might be relevant to.

sshine 8y ago
Temet nosce. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_thyself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_thyself
- pixl97 8y ago
  What do you mean you don't know what you're going to do the first time you confront the Xeazyggus! You should know what to do from birth.
- jeffreyrogers 8y ago
  Interestingly enough, "know thyself" in the original context actually means something like "know your place".
  - sshine 8y ago
    Yes, it seems that the earliest (Egyptian) references make it out as "know your place", and that even the earliest Greek references put a slightly nicer but still comparable "be moderate, self-restrained". But there are several references by Plato that are relevant to the interpretation that I implied (to know yourself = to know your moral standpoint) mentioned in the Wikipedia article: (Plato's Phaedrus dialogue) Socrates says, "But I have no leisure for them at all; and the reason, my friend, is this: I am not yet able, as the Delphic inscription has it, to know myself; so it seems to me ridiculous, when I do not yet know that, to investigate irrelevant things." (Plato's Protagoras dialogue) Socrates mentions "the far-famed inscriptions, which are in all men's mouths,--'Know thyself,' and 'Nothing too much'.". Having lauded the maxims, Socrates then spends a great deal of time getting to the bottom of what one of them means, the saying of Pittacus, 'Hard is it to be good.' The irony here is that although the sayings of Delphi bear 'great force,' it is not clear how to live life in accordance with their meanings. Although, the concise and broad nature of the sayings suggests the active partaking in the usage and personal discovery of each maxim; as if the intended nature of the saying lay not in the words but the self-reflection and self-referencing of the person thereof.

CamperBob2 8y ago

And if I were hiring, I'd certainly think less of you for taking that stance. Picture this: we're deep in the Cold War era, and Ronny Raygun is the president. The Star Wars initiative is in full swing. Nuclear mishaps and near-misses are still an all-too-frequent occurrence. Nena's red balloons are ready to fly. The President has just gone on the air and promised to "Outlaw Russia," and that "The bombing starts in five minutes." Some officers from the Pentagon approach your company's management and ask them to bid on a project that will involve launching dozens of military satellites equipped with atomic clocks, designed to locate any person, place, or thing on Earth at meter-scale accuracy. Do you threaten to quit the company, lecture everyone who will listen about the potential for misuse of such dangerous technology... and miss out on the chance to contribute to GPS? Or, how about a few years earlier, when they ask you to work on a colossal air-defense computer system using technology that hasn't even been invented yet. They want to use computers to vector fighters to intercept approaching Soviet bombers, and to target missiles to kill the ones the fighters miss. It's obvious to anyone not in uniform that the whole idea is insanely stupid, wasteful, and destabilizing. They want to spend $50 billion to develop a system that guarantees one whole 'nine' of uptime, that can be trivially jammed or disrupted, and that will literally be obsolete the day they turn it on since it can't deal with ballistic missiles. So you tell them, "No, I don't want to work on SAGE. Peace out and fuck off." As it turns out, the system is indeed useless at its stated purpose. The spinoffs, on the other hand, not only revolutionize the entire IT industry, but create it. The next thirty years' worth of progress in computer architecture, memory and storage, networking, display and human interaction, and fault-tolerance is traceable directly to this boondoggle. All of these things would probably have taken decades longer to evolve without military funding and backing. Nobody dies as a result, but a bunch of your coworkers do get to play with a lot of cool toys. Then there's the whole ARPAnet thing, funded by DoD to survive nuclear holocaust, asteroid strikes, plague, fire, and famine... any threat imaginable by anyone other than telecom-industry lobbyists. Even the very wise cannot see all ends, and that goes for modern-day hippies too.

robin_reala 8y ago
I don’t disagree that a lot of technological benefits have come out of military technology, it’s just that your comment completely ignores the death, destruction and calamity that’s also arisen. You’re fine to believe that the military is a net benefit for society, that’s your choice. I just don’t, and that’s mine. And while yes, I’m sure you’d think less of me in an interview situation that’s not been my general experience of hiring managers.

buro9 8y ago

It's not that black and white. Working on missile guidance? Then I can see your point of view... but everything else in some way facilitates or contributes to facilitating such things. One can rapidly reduce it to "fixing a Linux bug... facilitates the military industrial complex". You might wish to not work on things that directly are used by the military, but the vast majority of technology is indirectly used because the military and their supporting companies, processes, logistics is so broad that it's almost everything. At which point can you say your work truly does not facilitate or contribute?

TotempaaltJ 8y ago
Right, what about Microsoft Office? I'm sure that's used by some military. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it makes up a vital part in planning real military operations, where people die. But would you refuse to work on Office if you worked at MS?
- implements 8y ago
  There's some in the military that'd beg you not to work on MS Office - specifically Powepoint: http://theweek.com/articles/673091/general-mattis-save-military-ban-powerpoint http://theweek.com/articles/673091/general-mattis-save-milit... [Genuine question: New here, is this style of post too Reddit for HN?]
  - majewsky 8y ago
    I think it's okay. Just a small quip thrown in from the side that's still relevant to the topic of discussion. It would not be okay (IMO) if you tried to derail the discussion to focus on your link instead; in this case, a regular submission should be made.
  - ethbro 8y ago
    Imho, the important thing is the degree to which a comment contributes or adds information to the discussion. So something like linking an article about PPT overuse in the military w/ a quip is much better than just a quip at PPT's expense. (Given that some people might not be aware of the reported overuse of PowerPoint in the US military)

derping_hacker 8y ago

The current era of peace between world powers is unprecedented in human history and is only possible because the power of the US military makes it pointless for anyone to start a war. The US military also makes your welfare state in Sweden possible, we've spent 10s of trillions over the last 70 years protecting Europe for free, the least you could do is show some appreciation. I look forward to the day America Shrugs and Europe learns what it's like to live in the real world. The US could do what's in it's own best interest and cut military spending and return to it's own shores where it's completely safe from invasion, but millions of people in Europe and Asia would die as a result when countries take the opportunity to seize power in the vacuum, an opportunity the US has never truly take advantage of for itself. I also find it odd nobody cares that Google opened an AI lab in China, where every bit of research is going to end up in the hands of the Chinese government. https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/12/google-opening-an-office-focused-on-artificial-intelligence-in-china/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/12/google-opening-an-office-f...

omnimus 8y ago
Are you a troll? How is it even related to the comment? I don't understand.
jopsen 8y ago
Peace is because everybody agrees that war is despicable, borders shouldn't move, prosperity is achieved through technology not conquest. 150 years ago the British was the dominant military power. That didn't stop European countries from starting an avg. of 2 wars per year. US military dominance is not without positive effect, but the main driver of change is public opinion.
- v_lisivka 8y ago
  All that is gone in 2014 when Russian Federation started war in Ukraine to move borders.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
8y ago

JarlUlvi 8y ago

if 10,000 more fellow brits had said the same 78 years ago, you might be speaking german now. Moral? No.

6ue7nNMEEbHcM 8y ago

I've seen that kind of thinking in the past and it's pretty popular view. I'm just not so sure about this moral aspect. Why do you think it's more moral/ethical to abstain of supporting military? Maybe you won't do this but be sure that in some other country some similarly talented people will. If you (and many others) abstain from it on similar basis you and closest people you know may be in danger of being affected by more advanced military equipment other (possibly hostile) armies can get. Maybe it's just not in people heads that world and homeland safety is not given for free and granted forever.

sp332 8y ago
It's a moral point. Maybe I'd rather be dead than kill someone.
- 6ue7nNMEEbHcM 8y ago
  Is it still moral if by your decision not only you but many other people die?
  - quakenul 8y ago
    Is it okay to not torture someone, if by doing so other people might die? Is it okay to not (legally or illegally) surveil a people, if that might result in physical harm to them? How much does the chance of missing out on action x to (maybe) defer undesirable outcome y weight against the mere consequences of pursuing action x in the first place? You tell me and then I'll tell you. It is a question of morality and as such has an infinite number of right and wrong answers.
    - v_lisivka 8y ago
      If we are in peaceful state, then it isn't. If we are in state of war, then it may be okay (it depends). My turn: when war starts, is it okay to send someone else to die at war to protect your children? Or it better to let your children die, but save soldier lives instead? http://justiceharvard.org/justicecourse/ http://justiceharvard.org/justicecourse/

JustSomeNobody 8y ago

And if we eliminate our military altogether you think things would just stay the same? If you don't want to be a part of it, good for you. But those freedoms didn't come cheap.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

wmeredith 8y ago

You know the internet (ARPANET) and the microprocessor were largely birthed from military contracts in the 60’s right?