4 ms·

A substantial part of my job is to eliminate scope creep, so yes you absolutely can “just stop”. Irrational people can use things like momentum and inertia in

A substantial part of my job is to eliminate scope creep, so yes you absolutely can “just stop”. Irrational people can use things like momentum and inertia in their arguments, but that’s quite easily stopped by a rational argument outlining the differences between the thing that was allowed and the proposed thing.

ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
if people could "just stop" before the creep happened, your job of eliminating said creep would be extraneous
- TameAntelope 4y ago
  I'm honestly confused about what your point is, because so far it seems like you're suggesting that since people sometimes act irrationally, there's no such thing as the logical fallacy called "Slippery Slope"...
  - JetAlone 4y ago
    They are saying that your job is about preventing a slippery slope phenomena as pertains to scope creep, where adopting one large change can increase the propensity to consider another. I think you could also more accurately refer to it as a "sunk cost fallacy", a concept which you should also be familiar with. Rather than keep the product at its current size and risk an underwhelming release, we've already gone this far, why not give the sharks in the tank the frikkin' laser beams Dr. Evil once suggested? I think the sunk cost is an example where there is a slope that actually is slippery due to to psychological biases. In the case of the live facial recognition, we are instead talking about a slope that is slippery because it gives power to the state, where governments are known for using their existing power to consolidate yet more power.
  - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
    It is unfortunate that you are confused, friend, but I stand ready to answer any questions you have, if you wish to rectify that situation.
accnumnplus1 4y ago
You can't stop it if you're not the one in power. The slope is the abuse of power. There is no fallacy, but apparently naivete.
- claudiawerner 4y ago
  If your legislature does not listen to you (because you're "not the one in power") then that's a far more serious issue than facial recognition by any metric. If the government is abusing power, that's not the same thing as doing it with the support of the populace, as the 'slippery slope' argument supposes. Devil's advocate: Why must facial recognition necessarily set us on the the slope to abuse of power? What precedent is there to suppose that?

ImPostingOnHN 4y ago

if people could "just stop" before the creep happened, your job of eliminating said creep would be extraneous

TameAntelope 4y ago
I'm honestly confused about what your point is, because so far it seems like you're suggesting that since people sometimes act irrationally, there's no such thing as the logical fallacy called "Slippery Slope"...
- JetAlone 4y ago
  They are saying that your job is about preventing a slippery slope phenomena as pertains to scope creep, where adopting one large change can increase the propensity to consider another. I think you could also more accurately refer to it as a "sunk cost fallacy", a concept which you should also be familiar with. Rather than keep the product at its current size and risk an underwhelming release, we've already gone this far, why not give the sharks in the tank the frikkin' laser beams Dr. Evil once suggested? I think the sunk cost is an example where there is a slope that actually is slippery due to to psychological biases. In the case of the live facial recognition, we are instead talking about a slope that is slippery because it gives power to the state, where governments are known for using their existing power to consolidate yet more power.
- ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
  It is unfortunate that you are confused, friend, but I stand ready to answer any questions you have, if you wish to rectify that situation.

accnumnplus1 4y ago

You can't stop it if you're not the one in power. The slope is the abuse of power. There is no fallacy, but apparently naivete.

claudiawerner 4y ago
If your legislature does not listen to you (because you're "not the one in power") then that's a far more serious issue than facial recognition by any metric. If the government is abusing power, that's not the same thing as doing it with the support of the populace, as the 'slippery slope' argument supposes. Devil's advocate: Why must facial recognition necessarily set us on the the slope to abuse of power? What precedent is there to suppose that?