4 ms·

I have a hard time connecting the dots in your argument? For starters, there are already desks out there on the market with this functionality build in. As an e

I have a hard time connecting the dots in your argument? For starters, there are already desks out there on the market with this functionality build in. As an example, my desk can be controlled through Bluetooth. It's why I also have trouble seeing the link you seem to find obvious, the global dystopian surveillance and data-brokering aspect. Specifically in relation to personal hobby projects like this, as the author is doing nothing new and there is absolutely no link to data-brokering...

netbioserror 2y ago
The line connecting the dots is that some who practice these skills end up adding those surveillance features to products in their careers. Not a hard leap to make, unsure why it wasn't obvious.
- godelski 2y ago
  > Not a hard leap to make, unsure why it wasn't obvious. Don't be dismissive. Just because others can't see it, doesn't mean we should be dismissive of __them__. I know it is subtle, but I think this is important, especially if we want to be taken seriously. The whole problem is about how small things add up, and often how we can't even see the issues with the small things themselves. People's views are going to be skewed by their experiences and often, with regards to this topic, how effective (or seemingly effective) their governments are. The line is thin and hard to see. That's the whole problem in the first place. So don't chastise people who can't see the spiderweb just because you were at the right angle to see it glistening in the sun.
- seanhunter 2y ago
  Some people who study computer science end up using those skills to write those products with the surveillance features. Should we not practise computer science as well, just to be on the safe side? I don't understand this argument at all.
  - netbioserror 2y ago
    This sort of braindead absurd reduction shouldn't belong in this place but is tragically what I've come to expect. Christ alive.
j45 2y ago
Agreed While iot is blurry a personal electronics project is not.
godelski 2y ago
> I have a hard time connecting the dots in your argument? Unfortunately, the root of the issue is that the line is very thin and hard to see. Which is why it gets crossed so often and only realized post hoc. I apologize for the lengthiness that is to follow. For a desk, it's something that seems nowhere near nefarious, even if it leaks to the internet, right? Well we could imagine a world where your boss can see this data because they set up such a system inside the office. Probably with some good intent too like raising all the desks at night to help janitors clean under them or something like that. But a new manager comes in and uses that data as a means of determining how much you are working. Might even implement policies like having to stand up and sit down every so often because they are reading blog posts on worker productivity and sitting too long. It can be "in the best interest" but can quickly become abusive. The concept of "turnkey tyranny" isn't limited to governments and it's important to remember tyrants don't view themselves as evil. More often they just view themselves as "better", "know what's best", or "ends justify the means." Generally it is an extreme version of Main Character Syndrome (which MCS is not too uncommon in our communities...) As a clearer example, where we have the advantage of hindsight, I think social media can fit in here. I very much don't think social media started with bad intentions and honestly, I don't think people today working on it have bad intentions. It's more the problem with "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions." Social media does good, it brings people together across the world, and allows us to have competing (in a healthy way or unhealthy) views. We're doing it this very instant! But one issue at the core of the problem is "engagement." We know these algorithms optimize for is, but what's it mean? We can see how it is based on activity. Things like post interactions, shares, commenting, likes, and so on. But think about this problem hard. How do you __actually__ measure engagement? How do you __actually__ differentiate "good" engagement from "bad" engagement? Can you find natural language words for this? I bet you're going to have a really hard time. And then an even harder time expressing this in code. So what happened? Well we got an overly simplified version (obviously, given that this concept is essentially intractable and highly dynamic), and got metric hacked. These people are trying to do the right things, but just have a limited scope. It's worse if they don't realize their scope is limited (see MCS). People who don't understand the metrics just understand that they are metrics and so optimize for them. Managers can dismiss engineer complaints because these people can't speak the same language and are working at different levels of abstractions. It's a whole complicated mess where the main issues come down to the chaotic interaction. It is almost never someone seeking out to perform evil, but people who can't see beyond themselves (which is hard!). And even when we can see beyond ourselves it is hard to see very far. Be that into the future, into other "tribes", or whatever. The best defense we have against these things is to stay defensive, communicate, acknowledge concerns (even if moving forward. Just means tread carefully), and to balance short term rewards and long term (short term is easy to measure, but can easily lead you away from huge future payouts). We live in such a complex world that to maximize your objectives you often need to maximize other peoples objectives in certain situations[0], because if we treat everything as "zero-sum", "single round", or similar naive approximations, we will push ourselves away from our goals. This is the tyranny of complexity, how trying to do what's best is always far harder than it seems. And worst of all, it's incredibly hard to measure the impact of your decisions through these chains of interaction. So if all this was hard to understand, I get it, because that's also the problem. It's the little things adding up, not any one or even a few big thing/s. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goQ4ii-zBMw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goQ4ii-zBMw

netbioserror 2y ago

The line connecting the dots is that some who practice these skills end up adding those surveillance features to products in their careers. Not a hard leap to make, unsure why it wasn't obvious.

godelski 2y ago
> Not a hard leap to make, unsure why it wasn't obvious. Don't be dismissive. Just because others can't see it, doesn't mean we should be dismissive of __them__. I know it is subtle, but I think this is important, especially if we want to be taken seriously. The whole problem is about how small things add up, and often how we can't even see the issues with the small things themselves. People's views are going to be skewed by their experiences and often, with regards to this topic, how effective (or seemingly effective) their governments are. The line is thin and hard to see. That's the whole problem in the first place. So don't chastise people who can't see the spiderweb just because you were at the right angle to see it glistening in the sun.
seanhunter 2y ago
Some people who study computer science end up using those skills to write those products with the surveillance features. Should we not practise computer science as well, just to be on the safe side? I don't understand this argument at all.
- netbioserror 2y ago
  This sort of braindead absurd reduction shouldn't belong in this place but is tragically what I've come to expect. Christ alive.

j45 2y ago

Agreed While iot is blurry a personal electronics project is not.

godelski 2y ago

> I have a hard time connecting the dots in your argument? Unfortunately, the root of the issue is that the line is very thin and hard to see. Which is why it gets crossed so often and only realized post hoc. I apologize for the lengthiness that is to follow. For a desk, it's something that seems nowhere near nefarious, even if it leaks to the internet, right? Well we could imagine a world where your boss can see this data because they set up such a system inside the office. Probably with some good intent too like raising all the desks at night to help janitors clean under them or something like that. But a new manager comes in and uses that data as a means of determining how much you are working. Might even implement policies like having to stand up and sit down every so often because they are reading blog posts on worker productivity and sitting too long. It can be "in the best interest" but can quickly become abusive. The concept of "turnkey tyranny" isn't limited to governments and it's important to remember tyrants don't view themselves as evil. More often they just view themselves as "better", "know what's best", or "ends justify the means." Generally it is an extreme version of Main Character Syndrome (which MCS is not too uncommon in our communities...) As a clearer example, where we have the advantage of hindsight, I think social media can fit in here. I very much don't think social media started with bad intentions and honestly, I don't think people today working on it have bad intentions. It's more the problem with "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions." Social media does good, it brings people together across the world, and allows us to have competing (in a healthy way or unhealthy) views. We're doing it this very instant! But one issue at the core of the problem is "engagement." We know these algorithms optimize for is, but what's it mean? We can see how it is based on activity. Things like post interactions, shares, commenting, likes, and so on. But think about this problem hard. How do you __actually__ measure engagement? How do you __actually__ differentiate "good" engagement from "bad" engagement? Can you find natural language words for this? I bet you're going to have a really hard time. And then an even harder time expressing this in code. So what happened? Well we got an overly simplified version (obviously, given that this concept is essentially intractable and highly dynamic), and got metric hacked. These people are trying to do the right things, but just have a limited scope. It's worse if they don't realize their scope is limited (see MCS). People who don't understand the metrics just understand that they are metrics and so optimize for them. Managers can dismiss engineer complaints because these people can't speak the same language and are working at different levels of abstractions. It's a whole complicated mess where the main issues come down to the chaotic interaction. It is almost never someone seeking out to perform evil, but people who can't see beyond themselves (which is hard!). And even when we can see beyond ourselves it is hard to see very far. Be that into the future, into other "tribes", or whatever. The best defense we have against these things is to stay defensive, communicate, acknowledge concerns (even if moving forward. Just means tread carefully), and to balance short term rewards and long term (short term is easy to measure, but can easily lead you away from huge future payouts). We live in such a complex world that to maximize your objectives you often need to maximize other peoples objectives in certain situations[0], because if we treat everything as "zero-sum", "single round", or similar naive approximations, we will push ourselves away from our goals. This is the tyranny of complexity, how trying to do what's best is always far harder than it seems. And worst of all, it's incredibly hard to measure the impact of your decisions through these chains of interaction. So if all this was hard to understand, I get it, because that's also the problem. It's the little things adding up, not any one or even a few big thing/s. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goQ4ii-zBMw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goQ4ii-zBMw