6 ms·

I think perhaps you need to consider that how you interpret something may not be how it was intended, nor what it was meant to convey, and often the best way to

I think perhaps you need to consider that how you interpret something may not be how it was intended, nor what it was meant to convey, and often the best way to respond to something that seems to deeply offend you is to first confirm that you understand what the other party was actually communicating. For example, what you seem to interpret as people finding humor in the indignity of a botched portion of someone's funeral, others might interpret as a cautionary tale about what can happen if people are not careful about how crematoriums are run, and the pain it can cause to loved ones and the indignity it can cause to the deceased when the people shirk the maintenance required by the tools they use to do their job in these industries. In that respect, it's no different than a story where a cemetary did not maintain their backhoe, and the family showed up for a burial and the grave was not dug because the machine broke. Given how the post was spawned from a someone noting a Crematorium Management System (and the lack of an open source option), I would hazard that a cautionary tale about what might happen if you aren't managing your Crematorium well is how it should have been interpreted.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
aea12 7y ago
Yeah, the guy arguing for, and being rather amusingly/disappointingly flagged off the site for (you all sure showed me, with my uncomfortable feelings), being human needs a condescending explanation on how to communicate with humans from first principles. That’s just about the right approach. Are you really that desperate for engineering requirements that you’re going after me for bucking the narrative? Perhaps I’d have found more purchase if we discussed the sexual habits and purchasing tendencies of those individuals blinded and killed by the Therac. One had blue eyes and liked Wagner. That’s at least three features for the model, right? At a meta level, if our conversation doesn’t make clear the very problem I’m trying to communicate to you in regard to engineering’s relationship with humanity, I’d implore you to resist the urge to shoot the person who seems wrong and maybe look at whether you’re on the right path. My only mistake is saying it here, because this is basically its nexus...
- kbenson 7y ago
  If you feel so boxed into a corner that someone saying maybe, just maybe, you jumped the gun and assumed some things that weren't actually valid and could do with some fresh eyes on the topic is attacking you, then I'm not sure what more I can say that is evidence more than that itself. Hiding behind a blanket of being "for human dignity" is no defense when your actions don't actually help that cause in any way. In fact, I think the original comment you've belittles so much does more for actually helping human dignity than anything you've said, as it outlines a real consequence to real people for others not taking into account what happens when they shirk their duties. The lip service you provide to that ideal doesn't come close to doing as much, but given your lack of evidence for your behavior, I think you know that deep down, and that's why you're attacking everyone's motivations and character (without cause). In any case, I think you'll find that attempting to win an argument through stoking people's indignity when there wasn't anything to indignant about is a losing argument here. You could try actually explaining why you think the original comment deserves your ire (that is, in more detail than something along the lines of "that's mean to people in a way that is so self-evident I refuse to explain it") rather than attacking everyone that asks you to explain it as too coldly analytical. Just because something's a feeling doesn't mean there shouldn't be a reason behind that feeling, at least if you plan to impose that behavior upon other people. > At a meta level, if our conversation doesn’t make clear the very problem I’m trying to communicate to you in regard to engineering’s relationship with humanity If by communicate you mean vilify without explanation... Put simply, the engineering discussion needs to be had. Just because you wrongly assume it means people don't have feelings on the subject doesn't mean there isn't a need for the discussion, whether you find it hard to stomach or not. People are hurt by systems all the time, and discussing how and why this happens helps those systems hurt less people. Stopping those conversations because you think it causes indignity so someone who was defined with all manner of anonymity doesn't help anyone. Not the people in question (which nobody here knows who they are), nor other people in similar situations, nor the engineers who might have ways of preventing some occurrences of the problem in the future.
  - aea12 7y ago
    What do you want, a map? 1) Unfortunately, someone took a conversation about a purchase request as a chance to speak to [me] in a personal capacity. He’s a genuinely nice guy though and [I] like him. Just didn’t know what his role was in [my] workplace, and it wasn’t putting that story in [my] ear at that time, but I suffered through it. 2) Now that [I] live with the story, [I’ve] been waiting for a chance to share it so [I] don’t have to live with it any more. 3) What’s this? A thread about Azure? Someone finally mentioned crematoria! Yes! Gather around, fellow engineers, to dissect a Therac type of thing none of you will ever interact with, but will nonetheless defend on the grounds of “yeah, airplanes crash too” or free speech or mumble mumble. By the way, the person was half burned and fat. Sucks, right? That’s a really insidious poison to accept, understand, and rationalize for your work, in ways that are not immediately obvious (clearly), and I lobby for ethics and licensing in our discipline for exactly the reasons on evident display this thread. This industry keeps turning out large-scale systems that are harmful to humanity. Do you think that came from postgraduate studies in evil, or a detached, clinical callousness and disregard for fellow people like the one you’re trying so hard to justify? That person had a family. THEY WERE THERE. Maybe even kids. Dreams. Hopes. Aspirations. You’ve reduced them to a fat, half-burned corpse in the name of ginning up useful engineering disaster warnings or something. No, the discussion doesn’t NEED to be had. I reject your premise outright. If it’s a problem that I care about those things, then, well, we are going to disagree. There is absolutely no small measure of irony in the numerous attempts across this entire thread to put my humanity into question for challenging yours. You’re only reinforcing for me that I’m absolutely right, and had underestimated the acceptability of the problem.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

aea12 7y ago

Yeah, the guy arguing for, and being rather amusingly/disappointingly flagged off the site for (you all sure showed me, with my uncomfortable feelings), being human needs a condescending explanation on how to communicate with humans from first principles. That’s just about the right approach. Are you really that desperate for engineering requirements that you’re going after me for bucking the narrative? Perhaps I’d have found more purchase if we discussed the sexual habits and purchasing tendencies of those individuals blinded and killed by the Therac. One had blue eyes and liked Wagner. That’s at least three features for the model, right? At a meta level, if our conversation doesn’t make clear the very problem I’m trying to communicate to you in regard to engineering’s relationship with humanity, I’d implore you to resist the urge to shoot the person who seems wrong and maybe look at whether you’re on the right path. My only mistake is saying it here, because this is basically its nexus...

kbenson 7y ago
If you feel so boxed into a corner that someone saying maybe, just maybe, you jumped the gun and assumed some things that weren't actually valid and could do with some fresh eyes on the topic is attacking you, then I'm not sure what more I can say that is evidence more than that itself. Hiding behind a blanket of being "for human dignity" is no defense when your actions don't actually help that cause in any way. In fact, I think the original comment you've belittles so much does more for actually helping human dignity than anything you've said, as it outlines a real consequence to real people for others not taking into account what happens when they shirk their duties. The lip service you provide to that ideal doesn't come close to doing as much, but given your lack of evidence for your behavior, I think you know that deep down, and that's why you're attacking everyone's motivations and character (without cause). In any case, I think you'll find that attempting to win an argument through stoking people's indignity when there wasn't anything to indignant about is a losing argument here. You could try actually explaining why you think the original comment deserves your ire (that is, in more detail than something along the lines of "that's mean to people in a way that is so self-evident I refuse to explain it") rather than attacking everyone that asks you to explain it as too coldly analytical. Just because something's a feeling doesn't mean there shouldn't be a reason behind that feeling, at least if you plan to impose that behavior upon other people. > At a meta level, if our conversation doesn’t make clear the very problem I’m trying to communicate to you in regard to engineering’s relationship with humanity If by communicate you mean vilify without explanation... Put simply, the engineering discussion needs to be had. Just because you wrongly assume it means people don't have feelings on the subject doesn't mean there isn't a need for the discussion, whether you find it hard to stomach or not. People are hurt by systems all the time, and discussing how and why this happens helps those systems hurt less people. Stopping those conversations because you think it causes indignity so someone who was defined with all manner of anonymity doesn't help anyone. Not the people in question (which nobody here knows who they are), nor other people in similar situations, nor the engineers who might have ways of preventing some occurrences of the problem in the future.
- aea12 7y ago
  What do you want, a map? 1) Unfortunately, someone took a conversation about a purchase request as a chance to speak to [me] in a personal capacity. He’s a genuinely nice guy though and [I] like him. Just didn’t know what his role was in [my] workplace, and it wasn’t putting that story in [my] ear at that time, but I suffered through it. 2) Now that [I] live with the story, [I’ve] been waiting for a chance to share it so [I] don’t have to live with it any more. 3) What’s this? A thread about Azure? Someone finally mentioned crematoria! Yes! Gather around, fellow engineers, to dissect a Therac type of thing none of you will ever interact with, but will nonetheless defend on the grounds of “yeah, airplanes crash too” or free speech or mumble mumble. By the way, the person was half burned and fat. Sucks, right? That’s a really insidious poison to accept, understand, and rationalize for your work, in ways that are not immediately obvious (clearly), and I lobby for ethics and licensing in our discipline for exactly the reasons on evident display this thread. This industry keeps turning out large-scale systems that are harmful to humanity. Do you think that came from postgraduate studies in evil, or a detached, clinical callousness and disregard for fellow people like the one you’re trying so hard to justify? That person had a family. THEY WERE THERE. Maybe even kids. Dreams. Hopes. Aspirations. You’ve reduced them to a fat, half-burned corpse in the name of ginning up useful engineering disaster warnings or something. No, the discussion doesn’t NEED to be had. I reject your premise outright. If it’s a problem that I care about those things, then, well, we are going to disagree. There is absolutely no small measure of irony in the numerous attempts across this entire thread to put my humanity into question for challenging yours. You’re only reinforcing for me that I’m absolutely right, and had underestimated the acceptability of the problem.