3 ms·

> It would be inconvenient, but not an existential crisis. Don't generalise from your life; you only have to take care of yourself and Ayaya. A majority of peo

by bmn__ 6y ago

> It would be inconvenient, but not an existential crisis. Don't generalise from your life; you only have to take care of yourself and Ayaya. A majority of people are deeply committed to a relationship/family/tribe, where losing all one's money definitely constitutes a crisis.

jrockway 6y ago
Hey now, leave my Ayaya out of this. Here is my point -- the potential losses are bounded. They can't unteach you what you've learned in 30 years of work, so you can probably earn income even after losing the biggest lawsuit EvilCorp can muster. Or go work at Starbucks if you are somehow banned from using computers, which is not really something that can happen for violating a software EULA. Compare this to driving to work -- you could get in a car accident that leaves you with a permanent brain injury. You'd never work again. You'd never recognize your family again. It's a big downside! And yet we drive. Furthermore, I would be a little surprised to be reading "Extreme Car News" and seeing the first comment say "wow, you shouldn't modify your car to have that kind of acceleration, you could die!" People are aware of the risk, as they are experts in the field, and we are here to learn what we can from their experience without taking the risk ourselves. It therefore surprises me that everyone on a forum called "Hacker News" is speculating about the worst case outcome for writing a single mailing list post. The discussion has devolved into a trainwreck of "look at what could happen to that guy, I'm glad that's not me," which I think is pretty nasty to the author of the mailing list post, and kind of against the hacker spirit. He took a risk. Let's learn what we can.
- Delk 6y ago
  > Here is my point -- the potential losses are bounded. Are potential liabilities conjured up by corporate lawyers and awarded by courts limited by the amount of property or income you have right now, though? Because if they aren't, you could end up owing and paying from your future income as well. Also, we have bounded time, and having your goals significantly postponed by financial setbacks isn't necessarily just a temporary inconvenience. I'm not saying it's necessarily likely that one would end up paying anything, or a huge amount, or that people on HN (or elsewhere) wouldn't overestimate that probability or the potential damage, so of course this may be just a technicality. (Also, the comparison to driving may not be very good, depending on where you live. While accidents obviously do happen, and the results can be devastating or fatal, in many developed countries the probability of an individual ending up in a major accident isn't really that great if one does not engage in specifically risky behaviour.)
- perl4ever 6y ago
  Every now and then you read a news story about something that you might expect would be a civil litigation matter becoming a criminal case. If you are going around thinking "potential losses are bounded" you should read some of those stories and think about tail risk. Corporations seem benign when you take for granted that their power isn't directed by anyone who has it in for you personally, and their employees are just going through the motions.

by bmn__ 6y ago

jrockway 6y ago

Hey now, leave my Ayaya out of this. Here is my point -- the potential losses are bounded. They can't unteach you what you've learned in 30 years of work, so you can probably earn income even after losing the biggest lawsuit EvilCorp can muster. Or go work at Starbucks if you are somehow banned from using computers, which is not really something that can happen for violating a software EULA. Compare this to driving to work -- you could get in a car accident that leaves you with a permanent brain injury. You'd never work again. You'd never recognize your family again. It's a big downside! And yet we drive. Furthermore, I would be a little surprised to be reading "Extreme Car News" and seeing the first comment say "wow, you shouldn't modify your car to have that kind of acceleration, you could die!" People are aware of the risk, as they are experts in the field, and we are here to learn what we can from their experience without taking the risk ourselves. It therefore surprises me that everyone on a forum called "Hacker News" is speculating about the worst case outcome for writing a single mailing list post. The discussion has devolved into a trainwreck of "look at what could happen to that guy, I'm glad that's not me," which I think is pretty nasty to the author of the mailing list post, and kind of against the hacker spirit. He took a risk. Let's learn what we can.

Delk 6y ago
> Here is my point -- the potential losses are bounded. Are potential liabilities conjured up by corporate lawyers and awarded by courts limited by the amount of property or income you have right now, though? Because if they aren't, you could end up owing and paying from your future income as well. Also, we have bounded time, and having your goals significantly postponed by financial setbacks isn't necessarily just a temporary inconvenience. I'm not saying it's necessarily likely that one would end up paying anything, or a huge amount, or that people on HN (or elsewhere) wouldn't overestimate that probability or the potential damage, so of course this may be just a technicality. (Also, the comparison to driving may not be very good, depending on where you live. While accidents obviously do happen, and the results can be devastating or fatal, in many developed countries the probability of an individual ending up in a major accident isn't really that great if one does not engage in specifically risky behaviour.)
perl4ever 6y ago
Every now and then you read a news story about something that you might expect would be a civil litigation matter becoming a criminal case. If you are going around thinking "potential losses are bounded" you should read some of those stories and think about tail risk. Corporations seem benign when you take for granted that their power isn't directed by anyone who has it in for you personally, and their employees are just going through the motions.