5 ms·
I think this is a systemic issue on hackernews. People forgetting reality exists, and always pointing at the rules and acting as if they're infallible. You'd th
by yunohn 6y ago
I think this is a systemic issue on hackernews. People forgetting reality exists, and always pointing at the rules and acting as if they're infallible. You'd think /hackers/ would understand that rules are for show.
I've seen this regarding serious legislation like this or even something as mundane as Apple's app store "guidelines".
- shadowgovt 6y ago> You'd think hackers would understand that rules are for show. I may be misinterpreting your wording here (my apologies if I am), but I'd assume the opposite. I'd think people who operate in a realm where text becomes action executed by a machine designed wholly around faithful, reliable execution of text fed to it would come to learn the reality-defining power of rules.
- majormajor 6y ago> I'd think people who operate in a realm where text becomes action executed by a machine designed wholly around faithful, reliable execution of text fed to it would come to learn the reality-defining power of rules. Ah, but don't forget how often the code that gets written doesn't do exactly what the writer expected! Or is exploited by another party...
- shadowgovt 6y agoIndeed. I wouldn't say the law is for show; I would say the written law isn't the whole story. Reality is a three-edged sword: the law, the intent, and the implementation. "For show," to me, implies you can ignore it and charge forward, bull-in-a-china-shop-style. That doesn't work in law or computers; naive invalid input gets rejected by the first-stage parser, and a court complaint completely ignorant of the law can get tossed by the clerk before it even sees a judge's desk. Rather, hacking is understanding and exploiting the consequences of, and nuances within, the rules.
- tomcam 6y agoUsername strangely appropriate
- shadowgovt 6y agoI can highly recommend the discography of They Might Be Giants. ;)
- tomcam 6y agoThat is always a solid recommendation
- bilegeek 6y agoThis is my first time seeing a Babylon 5 reference in the wild. Well said.
- jfengel 6y agoWe're acutely aware, I think, of the vast gap between computer interpreted rules and human interpreted ones. The computer's interpretation may be hard to fathom but is ultimately rigorous. Human interpreted rules are basically vacuous: a human can make anything mean anything, no matter how rigorous it may seem. All it requires is for other humans to accept your interpretation. That depends both on the text, your position in society, and that of the other person. The text will convince a few people when the difference in power is small. When the difference in position is large, no text will support the person in the subordinate position. Lawyers pretend that this is not the case, and that they have mastered objective interpretation of the rules. It is unclear whether they say that because they are stupid, or because they think you are stupid. As programmers, who really are trained in objective interpretation of rules, it's laughable either way.
- shadowgovt 6y agoI believe you are underestimating the work lawyers do. I try to avoid the error of confusing my lack of knowledge of the grammar of a system with the system itself being stupid. Law and its application have flaws, but it's not an "anything goes" system as you seem to be describing it here.
- shredprez 6y agoHackers are specifically interested in exploring/exploiting the way human nature makes all machines vulnerable. IE taking a reasonably well-defined system of rules built with good intentions and using them for something entirely unintended. In this sense, law is similar to code, but far easier to exploit.
- shadowgovt 6y ago> In this sense, law is similar to code, but far easier to exploit. I see way too few computer engineer criminal masterminds to accept this hypothesis at face value. ;)
- shredprez 6y agoA better measuring stick might be lawyers and judges regularly applying the law in inconsistent ways.
- toomuchtodo 6y agoPolice discretion is a great example imho. Watch everywhere in your day to day as laws are applied based on a subjective real time evaluation of the situation.
- shakezula 6y agoAnd most cops barely even know the laws themselves. There have been multiple times I’ve heard cops incorrectly cite state laws.
- ctrl-j 6y agoThe biggest thing I've learned from good lawyers, is that with the law - there's always an appeal, a different interpretation, and a challenge or request for exemption from a rule. Applying to be a lawyer in and of itself can be a process of figuring out the correct paperwork to fill out and asking for a special exemption on a piece of missing information or a missed deadline.
- 6y ago
- yunohn 6y agoI understand and agree with what you mean, but that's what I'd associate with Engineers. I was thinking Hackers understand that the code running on the machine can be exploited.
- ideamotor 6y agoHackers don't read news on Hacker News. Programmers do. So, quite ironically, you are doing precisely what you are talking about when you take the words "hacker news" too literally.
- yunohn 6y agoSure, I know. HN is about tech news, maybe with a startup bent. But, I thought what a lot of programmers would have in common were innovative or uncommon angles, "hacking" of a sort. I don't think rulebook following coders are particularly interested in debating like this on HN.
- ideamotor 6y agoI don't really have the pulse of programmers but I'd imagine this is precisely the sort of thing they'd prefer doing over hard work. It may change, but there is still quite a bit of DIY culture in programming for better and worse. Just look at all the daily new syntactic sugar you can find. What are those if not innovative angles to get things to work more literally?
- pico303 6y agoLaws aren’t like code. Laws are like specifications...everyone has their own interpretation.
- zbyte64 6y agoYet code is meant to conform to specifications. Removing the specifications doesn't make the code any more clear.
- klyrs 6y agoCan't social engineer without understanding how human agents differ from mechanical ones. Can't hack without understanding the difference between specification and implementation. To know C is to understand the true meaning of "undefined behavior." From my social experience in high school, the board game rules nerds were more likely to become programmers than lawyers. The worst of them went on to be a pro poker player.
- x86_64Ubuntu 6y agoPeople aren't forgetting reality exists, they are falling in love with how the rules will actually be enforced, but know that the only morally defensible position to take is as it's written.
- RangerScience 6y ago> /hackers/ When man found Truth, a worried demon went to the Devil who nonchalantly said; "Eh, I'll get them to institutionalize it".
- CyberRabbi 6y agoHacker news is a very big site. It’s unreasonable to expect that the average commenter is an upper-percentile person in any dimension.
- specialist 6y agoRiffing on Principle of Charity, Uncle Bob Martin's grumpyness, Mark Twain's many observations, and William Gibson's insight about the uneven distribution of the future: Cone of ignorance expands further, faster than the cone of understanding. Unlearning is even harder than learning, which contributes the durability of ignorance. "You'd think /hackers/ would understand that rules are for show." Ya. I'd like someone to explain cognitive certainty. The opposite of "strong opinions, loosely held". How is everyone else so sure of what they know? The only certainty I have is knowing that I'm probably wrong.
- whateveracct 6y agoHackernews users take the principle of charity too far. I have seen too many people here take Trump in good faith, for example. When you give authoritarians the benefit of the doubt, they'll take it and RUN.