6 ms·

“It's funny that 15 years back I was so anti MS and pro Google and now I think it's the other way!” Stay skeptical of all of them. No need to be fan of one of

“It's funny that 15 years back I was so anti MS and pro Google and now I think it's the other way!” Stay skeptical of all of them. No need to be fan of one of the big techs. In the end they are all greedy organizations that want to dominate. None of them should be trusted.

bovermyer 7y ago
I'm both wary of and hopeful about Microsoft and Google. "Trust but verify" and all that.
- spectramax 7y ago
  I’ve always found this phrase an oxymoron.
  - bovermyer 7y ago
    Where humans are involved, mistakes will happen. Trusting someone but verifying their work is a safe and sane pairing.
    - apetresc 7y ago
      But the whole point of trusting is that you get to skip verifying. What's the difference between trusting and not trusting if you still have to put in the work of verification anyway?
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - thaumasiotes 7y ago
        The difference is in when you begin cooperating. You can work much faster by immediately acting on agreements and later making sure the other party is attempting to hold up their end than you can by waiting until you can prove something about the other party and only then starting whatever it is you were supposed to do. Consider these different hiring schemes: 1. Hire whoever applies, and keep them forever, no matter what. ("Trust, don't verify.") 2. Hire whoever applies, and fire them later if they don't seem to be working out. ("Trust, but verify.") 3. Full background check and extensive additional vetting before an offer is made. ("Don't trust, do verify.") 4. Never hire anyone. ("Don't trust, don't verify.") Aside from the obvious pacing differences, note that what's verified (or not) in options 1/2 is different from what is verified in option 3. That's not a coincidence -- before you start working with someone, you can't assess whether they're doing a good job. You have to rely on more general (and therefore less reliable) markers of trustworthiness. (You may think option 4 sounds ridiculous. It isn't -- that is the historical norm for cooperation outside of very well-defined groups like your family or your tribe.)
    - stupidcar 7y ago
      How is verifying everything because you don't trust people not to make a mistake operationally different from verifying everything because you suspect bad faith? To the supposed trusted party, the result is the same: you not taking them at their word and instead checking whatever they do. Even if you're being honest about only verifying to avoid mistakes, you can never prove it. This definition of "trust but verify" would be better reduced to "verify", since it essentially claims that trust is, if not impossible, not practically applicable in any situation.
      - scarejunba 7y ago
        The trust part is me trusting you to want to do the right thing. The verify part is me checking that nothing went wrong - either through a mistake on your part, a misunderstanding on mine, or just the signal loss from the fact that human communication is imperfect.
        stupidcar 7y ago
        You've just restated the original post and ignored my question. Again: how does this definition of supposed trust differ from distrust in any verifiable way?
        scarejunba 7y ago
        It affects our interaction. Because I assume you'll act in good faith, I only add verification in the range of errors not in the range of malice.
        stupidcar 7y ago
        It seems to me that the range of human error is rarely smaller than that of malice, so again I'm not sure there will be much apparent difference between an exhaustive verification of either sort.
        scarejunba 7y ago
  - levesque 7y ago
    Don't trust, verify.
    - amelius 7y ago
      And how do you do that? E.g. how do you verify that Google deletes your data when you tell it to?
      - levesque 7y ago
        No idea, was just messing around. If one really were to do this, the best way would probably be to trick them into employing you, and then verify from the inside (and even then, good luck!). I do believe it's going to be an issue in the future, if it isn't already one. Even as a government, how do you really make sure that company X erases the data?
  - jasonlotito 7y ago
    It's not. The trust is in the good intentions, the verification is that people do make mistakes. I trust myself, but I still verify my own work.
  - rurp 7y ago
    It is, but also carries a clear message; I think that dichotomy is why it's been such an enduring phrase. The term became well known in the US during the cold war, in the context of arms treaties. The US and Russia were making agreements that relied on at least the appearance of, and some degree of actual, trust. Meanwhile they were undertaking extensive efforts to check if the other party was actually following their obligations.
  - hathawsh 7y ago
    You're correct: an oxymoron is a phrase that is seemingly self-contradictory. While "trust but verify" is an oxymoron, it is not a contradiction or paradox. A simpler oxymoron is "to make haste slowly". In that phrase, the "make haste" part describes velocity, while "slowly" describes acceleration. Anyone who has taken Calculus knows that velocity and acceleration can be independent variables. Thus "to make haste slowly" is an oxymoron but not self-contradictory. Similarly, "trust but verify" describes two possibly independent variables: your attitude about the future and your behavior regarding the past. You can choose to trust people to make good decisions for the future, while simultaneously verifying they made good decisions in the past. Alternatives to "trust but verify" include "always trust", which has obvious bad consequences; "never trust", which has different but also bad consequences; "trust sometimes", which is ambiguous; and "verify always", which is unrealistic. The phrase "trust but verify" describes a healthy attitude and behavior.
    - spectramax 7y ago
      I wasn't 100% sure if I chose the correct term, thanks for the explanation!
  - CodeMage 7y ago
    What it means is "Trust the intentions, but verify the results." It's just that "trust, but verify" is shorter and more memorable.
  - Isamu 7y ago
    It's a punchline from a joke that Reagan told repeatedly around the time of US-USSR weapons treaties. It's supposed to be funny. Something along the lines of: "Q: Can we trust these guys to uphold their side of the deal? A: Sure, trust but verify." Edit: here it is, it's actually a funny Russian proverb that Reagan was repeating. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust,_but_verify https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust,_but_verify
  - marmaduke 7y ago
    it's like preparing for the worst, while hoping for the best
- make3 7y ago
  trust enough to use but keep your eyes open
- maxxxxx 7y ago
  "Vertrauen ist gut, Kontrolle ist besser" for the Germans here :-)
  - sooper 7y ago
    I think this is a better aphorism than "trust, but verify". I work in the information security assurance field, I swear that 90% of the issues I see at companies with external service providers comes back to the fact that their contract does not have anywhere enough ability to hold the service provider to task... Get everything you need in the contract / agreement, then hope you never have to use it.
    - maxxxxx 7y ago
      From my experience it’s close to impossible to have a 100% bullet proof contract. If you try that you end up with the typical government contracting style where you spend a lot of time with specs and requirements upfront but it falls apart as soon as it touches reality. In the end you need to pick suppliers you can work with productively no matter what the correct details are.
ticmasta 7y ago
As a developer MS has treated me really well, IMO. They churn out as much short-lived tech as the next company but I think their windows-based culture of backwards compatibility carried over into the developer ecosystem, and the future of .Net Core running in Linux containers with docker and k8s, against SQL Server on Linux would make anyone who's been away from their tech for the past 5 years think they stepped out of a time machine.
- phkahler 7y ago
  On backwards compatibility. I recently learned that apple has deprecated OpenGL and soon will not support it at all. What a slap to developers... so yeah there is some value to Microsofts approach.
  - megy 7y ago
    There is an advantage and a disadvantage to backwards compatibility. Letting people keep using old technology that hampers progress. You have to devote resources to ensuring that it still works, and you have less people using the new stuff.
  - SpikeDad 7y ago
    Apple isn't afraid of ditching tech when it becomes clear it's a dead end. In almost all cases they've been correct and the rest of the industry soon follows their leads. Think how reliable Windows would be today if they hadn't left in all the cruft as far back as Windows 2000.
    - yellowapple 7y ago
      > In almost all cases they've been correct and the rest of the industry soon follows their leads. Counterpoint: 3.5mm jacks are perfectly fine and were never a "dead end". OpenGL's indeed pretty crusty, but Vulkan is not. Apple would be better off participating in that ecosystem instead of letting NIH syndrome take hold. > Think how reliable Windows would be today if they hadn't left in all the cruft as far back as Windows 2000. Counterpoint: an x86 Linux executable statically compiled/linked any time after the a.out → ELF migration (so... predating Windows 2000) can be expected to run without issue on a bleeding-edge x86 kernel today (and if it's not able to do so, then that's a bug, and Linus will personally descend upon and eviscerate the one unfortunate enough to have introduced that bug).
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
redisman 7y ago
Tech giants are the biggest companies by market cap and run the world now. They're not the lovable runts from the 90's anymore.

bovermyer 7y ago

I'm both wary of and hopeful about Microsoft and Google. "Trust but verify" and all that.

spectramax 7y ago
I’ve always found this phrase an oxymoron.
- bovermyer 7y ago
  Where humans are involved, mistakes will happen. Trusting someone but verifying their work is a safe and sane pairing.
  - apetresc 7y ago
    But the whole point of trusting is that you get to skip verifying. What's the difference between trusting and not trusting if you still have to put in the work of verification anyway?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - thaumasiotes 7y ago
      The difference is in when you begin cooperating. You can work much faster by immediately acting on agreements and later making sure the other party is attempting to hold up their end than you can by waiting until you can prove something about the other party and only then starting whatever it is you were supposed to do. Consider these different hiring schemes: 1. Hire whoever applies, and keep them forever, no matter what. ("Trust, don't verify.") 2. Hire whoever applies, and fire them later if they don't seem to be working out. ("Trust, but verify.") 3. Full background check and extensive additional vetting before an offer is made. ("Don't trust, do verify.") 4. Never hire anyone. ("Don't trust, don't verify.") Aside from the obvious pacing differences, note that what's verified (or not) in options 1/2 is different from what is verified in option 3. That's not a coincidence -- before you start working with someone, you can't assess whether they're doing a good job. You have to rely on more general (and therefore less reliable) markers of trustworthiness. (You may think option 4 sounds ridiculous. It isn't -- that is the historical norm for cooperation outside of very well-defined groups like your family or your tribe.)
  - stupidcar 7y ago
    How is verifying everything because you don't trust people not to make a mistake operationally different from verifying everything because you suspect bad faith? To the supposed trusted party, the result is the same: you not taking them at their word and instead checking whatever they do. Even if you're being honest about only verifying to avoid mistakes, you can never prove it. This definition of "trust but verify" would be better reduced to "verify", since it essentially claims that trust is, if not impossible, not practically applicable in any situation.
    - scarejunba 7y ago
      The trust part is me trusting you to want to do the right thing. The verify part is me checking that nothing went wrong - either through a mistake on your part, a misunderstanding on mine, or just the signal loss from the fact that human communication is imperfect.
      - stupidcar 7y ago
        You've just restated the original post and ignored my question. Again: how does this definition of supposed trust differ from distrust in any verifiable way?
        scarejunba 7y ago
        It affects our interaction. Because I assume you'll act in good faith, I only add verification in the range of errors not in the range of malice.
        stupidcar 7y ago
        It seems to me that the range of human error is rarely smaller than that of malice, so again I'm not sure there will be much apparent difference between an exhaustive verification of either sort.
        scarejunba 7y ago
- levesque 7y ago
  Don't trust, verify.
  - amelius 7y ago
    And how do you do that? E.g. how do you verify that Google deletes your data when you tell it to?
    - levesque 7y ago
      No idea, was just messing around. If one really were to do this, the best way would probably be to trick them into employing you, and then verify from the inside (and even then, good luck!). I do believe it's going to be an issue in the future, if it isn't already one. Even as a government, how do you really make sure that company X erases the data?
- jasonlotito 7y ago
  It's not. The trust is in the good intentions, the verification is that people do make mistakes. I trust myself, but I still verify my own work.
- rurp 7y ago
  It is, but also carries a clear message; I think that dichotomy is why it's been such an enduring phrase. The term became well known in the US during the cold war, in the context of arms treaties. The US and Russia were making agreements that relied on at least the appearance of, and some degree of actual, trust. Meanwhile they were undertaking extensive efforts to check if the other party was actually following their obligations.
- hathawsh 7y ago
  You're correct: an oxymoron is a phrase that is seemingly self-contradictory. While "trust but verify" is an oxymoron, it is not a contradiction or paradox. A simpler oxymoron is "to make haste slowly". In that phrase, the "make haste" part describes velocity, while "slowly" describes acceleration. Anyone who has taken Calculus knows that velocity and acceleration can be independent variables. Thus "to make haste slowly" is an oxymoron but not self-contradictory. Similarly, "trust but verify" describes two possibly independent variables: your attitude about the future and your behavior regarding the past. You can choose to trust people to make good decisions for the future, while simultaneously verifying they made good decisions in the past. Alternatives to "trust but verify" include "always trust", which has obvious bad consequences; "never trust", which has different but also bad consequences; "trust sometimes", which is ambiguous; and "verify always", which is unrealistic. The phrase "trust but verify" describes a healthy attitude and behavior.
  - spectramax 7y ago
    I wasn't 100% sure if I chose the correct term, thanks for the explanation!
- CodeMage 7y ago
  What it means is "Trust the intentions, but verify the results." It's just that "trust, but verify" is shorter and more memorable.
- Isamu 7y ago
  It's a punchline from a joke that Reagan told repeatedly around the time of US-USSR weapons treaties. It's supposed to be funny. Something along the lines of: "Q: Can we trust these guys to uphold their side of the deal? A: Sure, trust but verify." Edit: here it is, it's actually a funny Russian proverb that Reagan was repeating. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust,_but_verify https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust,_but_verify
- marmaduke 7y ago
  it's like preparing for the worst, while hoping for the best
make3 7y ago
trust enough to use but keep your eyes open
maxxxxx 7y ago
"Vertrauen ist gut, Kontrolle ist besser" for the Germans here :-)
- sooper 7y ago
  I think this is a better aphorism than "trust, but verify". I work in the information security assurance field, I swear that 90% of the issues I see at companies with external service providers comes back to the fact that their contract does not have anywhere enough ability to hold the service provider to task... Get everything you need in the contract / agreement, then hope you never have to use it.
  - maxxxxx 7y ago
    From my experience it’s close to impossible to have a 100% bullet proof contract. If you try that you end up with the typical government contracting style where you spend a lot of time with specs and requirements upfront but it falls apart as soon as it touches reality. In the end you need to pick suppliers you can work with productively no matter what the correct details are.

ticmasta 7y ago

As a developer MS has treated me really well, IMO. They churn out as much short-lived tech as the next company but I think their windows-based culture of backwards compatibility carried over into the developer ecosystem, and the future of .Net Core running in Linux containers with docker and k8s, against SQL Server on Linux would make anyone who's been away from their tech for the past 5 years think they stepped out of a time machine.

phkahler 7y ago
On backwards compatibility. I recently learned that apple has deprecated OpenGL and soon will not support it at all. What a slap to developers... so yeah there is some value to Microsofts approach.
- megy 7y ago
  There is an advantage and a disadvantage to backwards compatibility. Letting people keep using old technology that hampers progress. You have to devote resources to ensuring that it still works, and you have less people using the new stuff.
- SpikeDad 7y ago
  Apple isn't afraid of ditching tech when it becomes clear it's a dead end. In almost all cases they've been correct and the rest of the industry soon follows their leads. Think how reliable Windows would be today if they hadn't left in all the cruft as far back as Windows 2000.
  - yellowapple 7y ago
    > In almost all cases they've been correct and the rest of the industry soon follows their leads. Counterpoint: 3.5mm jacks are perfectly fine and were never a "dead end". OpenGL's indeed pretty crusty, but Vulkan is not. Apple would be better off participating in that ecosystem instead of letting NIH syndrome take hold. > Think how reliable Windows would be today if they hadn't left in all the cruft as far back as Windows 2000. Counterpoint: an x86 Linux executable statically compiled/linked any time after the a.out → ELF migration (so... predating Windows 2000) can be expected to run without issue on a bleeding-edge x86 kernel today (and if it's not able to do so, then that's a bug, and Linus will personally descend upon and eviscerate the one unfortunate enough to have introduced that bug).

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

redisman 7y ago

Tech giants are the biggest companies by market cap and run the world now. They're not the lovable runts from the 90's anymore.