3 ms·

I've seen many of your comments here over time and thusly evaluated you and many others as fair and intelligent humans, long before this question. I respect you

by eth0up 5y ago

I've seen many of your comments here over time and thusly evaluated you and many others as fair and intelligent humans, long before this question. I respect your curiosity, but I respectfully decline. Indirectly, please consider the pace of evolution, which is not too brisk on the modern human timescale. Certain propensities, markedly those long enduring, are not inclined to suddenly disappear at the very moment others cease documenting them. The human mind does not change intrinsically over such short time nor turn upon such dimes, however compelling the eureka of the epoch. Every demon or villain of history is here, right now, under vastly different, but unfortunately accommodating circumstances.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago
First: It isn't often that I disagree with someone, and get complimented in return. So, thank you. Second, I'll return the compliment. You've made me think, which is about the highest praise that you can give to an HN comment. Like you, I do not believe in the perfectability of human nature. It's a very utopian idea, but bitter experience has shown us that it doesn't work, despite so many believing that it does. My starting position was that we're mostly better than that, and those experiments were aberrations. I'm no longer certain that that's a tenable position. What might be a realistic position is that we add processes that prevent (or at least limit) previous excesses. We add institutional review boards, for example. And yet, we recently saw the "lets deliberately add bugs to Linux to see if the review process catches them" fiasco, which an IRB should have stopped. The processes can be bypassed, ignored, rigged, or they can simply fail. People are still motivated to try to find ways to do what they want to do. I guess that leaves me somewhat more trusting of our institutions than you are, but somewhat less trusting of them than I was yesterday...
- eth0up 5y ago
  Not in proper condition for a pithy reply, so I'll link drop instead. 1. The widely revered Torvalds reverse nod: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7gRsgkdfYJ8 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7gRsgkdfYJ8 Thanks for the earnest, humble insight. Edit: Removed irrelevant link.
- cryptonector 5y ago
  We've seen IRBs fail. Transparency is needed too. And good oversight. And FOIA access. And third party auditability. The use of nuclear weapons is just too obvious. Chemical weapons -at least the ones previously used in various wars- are too. Biological weapons, however, have built-in plausible deniability. Therefore bioweapons and the labs they could be made in must be highly highly regulated -- at least as much as nuclear facilities! And the equipment needed to develop and manufacture bioweapons must also be highly regulated.

by eth0up 5y ago

AnimalMuppet 5y ago

First: It isn't often that I disagree with someone, and get complimented in return. So, thank you. Second, I'll return the compliment. You've made me think, which is about the highest praise that you can give to an HN comment. Like you, I do not believe in the perfectability of human nature. It's a very utopian idea, but bitter experience has shown us that it doesn't work, despite so many believing that it does. My starting position was that we're mostly better than that, and those experiments were aberrations. I'm no longer certain that that's a tenable position. What might be a realistic position is that we add processes that prevent (or at least limit) previous excesses. We add institutional review boards, for example. And yet, we recently saw the "lets deliberately add bugs to Linux to see if the review process catches them" fiasco, which an IRB should have stopped. The processes can be bypassed, ignored, rigged, or they can simply fail. People are still motivated to try to find ways to do what they want to do. I guess that leaves me somewhat more trusting of our institutions than you are, but somewhat less trusting of them than I was yesterday...

eth0up 5y ago
Not in proper condition for a pithy reply, so I'll link drop instead. 1. The widely revered Torvalds reverse nod: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7gRsgkdfYJ8 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7gRsgkdfYJ8 Thanks for the earnest, humble insight. Edit: Removed irrelevant link.
cryptonector 5y ago
We've seen IRBs fail. Transparency is needed too. And good oversight. And FOIA access. And third party auditability. The use of nuclear weapons is just too obvious. Chemical weapons -at least the ones previously used in various wars- are too. Biological weapons, however, have built-in plausible deniability. Therefore bioweapons and the labs they could be made in must be highly highly regulated -- at least as much as nuclear facilities! And the equipment needed to develop and manufacture bioweapons must also be highly regulated.