4 ms·

Do you not feel unsafe sharing this publicly?

whatshisface 2y ago
That is not really relevant, because you sort of have to say what's true whatever happens to you, as required at the intersection of the duties of a scientist, of a citizen of a republic, and even on the basis of the basic tenants of the country's majority religion. In some sense to live a steady life you have to be resigned to potential misfortunes, even if you do not want them to happen to you.
- roxolotl 2y ago
  I’ve been struggling with this. I’ve recently started using a new handle as a way to distance myself a bit. I wouldn’t expect it to hold up under scrutiny though. And then I wonder about the moral obligation to say what is right. So is it worth, or even morally right, to create a new pseudoanoynomous identity?
  - lantry 2y ago
    It is easier to change your behavior, but it is better to change your government.
    - stevenAthompson 2y ago
      We can not change the government without changing the people, and the people do not want to change.
      - mfuzzey 2y ago
        why? Serious question - as a European I'm really baffled by the US these days?
        stevenAthompson 2y ago
        I can only speculate, but I suspect it's related to our infantilization. A proper democracy requires an informed and rational electorate, and we just don't have that. As I said elsewhere in this post, most adults now read below the sixth grade level. Popular media has been getting shorter and shorter, all while relying less and less on the printed word. Meanwhile the most popular news sources are targeted to people with the comprehension and reading skills of children, and the most popular movies are literally based on children's comic books. Hell, video games outsell movies by an ever increasing margin and the majority of adults now find it impossible/unpleasant to sit through even an entire comic book film without checking their cell phones. Even music has become increasing simple and repetitive, designed not to challenge the listener. Our shared culture is almost entirely the culture of children. So then, do we really expect these adult-sized children to be capable of facing down hard choices, or making rational informed decisions? No, they accept the "obvious" (but often incorrect) answers offered by charlatans and simpletons in lieu of genuine reason and the hard work of finding actual (and often painful) solutions for the very messy real world.
        masfuerte 2y ago
        I find it unpleasant to sit through an entire comic book film. The problem is not my attention span.
        ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
        I don't think it's fair to characterise all "comic book" films as being immature, although there's a lot of shallow super-hero films being pumped out of Hollywood these days. Maybe if more people in the U.S. were familiar with "V For Vendetta" (despite Alan Moore's loathing for that film) then their attitude towards government might well be different. (Trying to think of another good example and the Watchmen series tackled racism head-on, also Persepolis is a great animation covering the Iranian revolution)
        SauciestGNU 2y ago
    - muzzledman 2y ago
      >> it is better to change your government. Not really possible in the US since 2023. Specific political speech, even writing op-eds, has been criminalized or black-list-worthy by both sides of the political spectrum -- democrat and and republican.
      - pk-protect-ai 2y ago
        Wait... Trump did it, and he violates the constitution every day since he took office... The democrats and republicans are irrelevant already. He and those money behind him, already changing the government. Do I get it wrong?
  - lukan 2y ago
    "So is it worth, or even morally right, to create a new pseudoanoynomous identity?" It is your life, you choose your battles. But if not enough dare to speak their mind openly, then this will be the new normal.
  - stevenAthompson 2y ago
    Fifty four percent of American adults read below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level. The situation in America is not some temporary aberration, it is a permanent change in the status quo. Anti-intellectual populism is the new normal, and any thinking person who values their safety should be weighing anonymity and silence as viable options.
    - whatshisface 2y ago
      The Bolsheviks didn't want people who got the message and shut up. They were extremely paranoid about them. They wanted people who had been raised in the new system or who had supported it when the choice was free. I don't think that self-interest is morally right as a guiding principle or that people who have written things as clearly "aware" as your comment have the option you're suggesting.
      - stevenAthompson 2y ago
        I understand and respect your moral position, I just feel that I have an even stronger moral requirement to take care of myself and my family first, and I think that others should do the same. As the stewardesses say, you should always put on your own oxygen mask first.
        whatshisface 2y ago
        Sure, but nobody is going to read that comment and think, "this guy is a solid Bolshevik."
        stevenAthompson 2y ago
        You're not wrong.
    - kenfox 2y ago
      I wonder if the low literacy rate is partly an artifact of non-English speakers. The 54% stat seems to come from PIAAC which only evaluates English literacy in the US https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/piaac/faq.asp https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/piaac/faq.asp The US hasn’t historically had high literacy rates though I definitely agree we are back to McCarthy levels of anti-intellectualism. Probably worse.
- stevenAthompson 2y ago
  It is incredibly relevant. Thomas Payne published "Common Sense" anonymously, and had that not happened the United States may not exist. It is a relatively obvious fact that there can be no freedom of speech without anonymous speech. Especially in the face of tyranny.
  - javajosh 2y ago
    I agree that anonymous speech is an important right in free societies. A novel attack on such a right in the Internet Age is to allow so much speech, anonymous or otherwise, ensure that most of it of is of very low quality, that thoughtful criticisms are ignored or, more accurately, overlooked. A related attack is to "flood the zone with shit", low-quality but emotionally resonant criticisms of speech, generated by hired humans and/or software. (Anecdotally most readers will see any coherent pushback as a signal about the OP's veracity.)
    - kmeisthax 2y ago
      "Censorship through free speech", in other words.
      - lovich 2y ago
        It’s just a special case of signal jamming. If you add enough random energy to any channel, it becomes impossible to filter signal from noise
        kragen 2y ago
        This is what Shannon disproved in the paper that founded information theory. It never becomes impossible, even at a fixed signal power; the noise reduces the channel capacity, but never to zero. https://people.math.harvard.edu/~ctm/home/text/others/shannon/entropy/entropy.pdf https://people.math.harvard.edu/~ctm/home/text/others/shanno...
        lovich 2y ago
godelski 2y ago
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. —Martin Niemöller At some point you have to be brave and face your fears. If you do not, then the light slowly dies and the darkness grows. By putting your head down and hiding you protect yourself but empower the very thing you are hiding from. It is a classic fallacy as you are taking short term rewards at a much higher cost in the long run. What you gain you borrow from the future, interest applies. However vast the darkness, we must supply our own light. - Stanley Kubrick
- dataflow 2y ago
  The question wasn't about "speaking out", it was about publicly disclosing your own strategy. You can do one without the other.
  - godelski 2y ago
    What risk do they have sharing that strategy? It is an extremely basic and common strategy >>> the use of minimalist phone and a laptop is something I'm planning for all my travel This is a strategy recommended to literally every employee that works at a national lab. Similarly to anyone who works with a security clearance, SBU (secure but unclassified) materials, or even ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) (which includes anyone that works in aerospace. A rocket or a jet is "missile technology") I don't think their comment has any PII or even signals to adversaries how to fight back. It's just common for people to have lots of information. Sure, adversaries can press you about this but at that point they're probably going to press you for another reason anyways.
    - dataflow 2y ago
      > What risk do they have sharing that strategy? It is an extremely basic and common strategy Do you also reveal your hand when playing card games? On the basis that the other players already know all the cards anyway?

That is not really relevant, because you sort of have to say what's true whatever happens to you, as required at the intersection of the duties of a scientist, of a citizen of a republic, and even on the basis of the basic tenants of the country's majority religion. In some sense to live a steady life you have to be resigned to potential misfortunes, even if you do not want them to happen to you.

roxolotl 2y ago
I’ve been struggling with this. I’ve recently started using a new handle as a way to distance myself a bit. I wouldn’t expect it to hold up under scrutiny though. And then I wonder about the moral obligation to say what is right. So is it worth, or even morally right, to create a new pseudoanoynomous identity?
- lantry 2y ago
  It is easier to change your behavior, but it is better to change your government.
  - stevenAthompson 2y ago
    We can not change the government without changing the people, and the people do not want to change.
    - mfuzzey 2y ago
      why? Serious question - as a European I'm really baffled by the US these days?
      - stevenAthompson 2y ago
        I can only speculate, but I suspect it's related to our infantilization. A proper democracy requires an informed and rational electorate, and we just don't have that. As I said elsewhere in this post, most adults now read below the sixth grade level. Popular media has been getting shorter and shorter, all while relying less and less on the printed word. Meanwhile the most popular news sources are targeted to people with the comprehension and reading skills of children, and the most popular movies are literally based on children's comic books. Hell, video games outsell movies by an ever increasing margin and the majority of adults now find it impossible/unpleasant to sit through even an entire comic book film without checking their cell phones. Even music has become increasing simple and repetitive, designed not to challenge the listener. Our shared culture is almost entirely the culture of children. So then, do we really expect these adult-sized children to be capable of facing down hard choices, or making rational informed decisions? No, they accept the "obvious" (but often incorrect) answers offered by charlatans and simpletons in lieu of genuine reason and the hard work of finding actual (and often painful) solutions for the very messy real world.
        masfuerte 2y ago
        I find it unpleasant to sit through an entire comic book film. The problem is not my attention span.
        ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
        I don't think it's fair to characterise all "comic book" films as being immature, although there's a lot of shallow super-hero films being pumped out of Hollywood these days. Maybe if more people in the U.S. were familiar with "V For Vendetta" (despite Alan Moore's loathing for that film) then their attitude towards government might well be different. (Trying to think of another good example and the Watchmen series tackled racism head-on, also Persepolis is a great animation covering the Iranian revolution)
        SauciestGNU 2y ago
  - muzzledman 2y ago
    >> it is better to change your government. Not really possible in the US since 2023. Specific political speech, even writing op-eds, has been criminalized or black-list-worthy by both sides of the political spectrum -- democrat and and republican.
    - pk-protect-ai 2y ago
      Wait... Trump did it, and he violates the constitution every day since he took office... The democrats and republicans are irrelevant already. He and those money behind him, already changing the government. Do I get it wrong?
- lukan 2y ago
  "So is it worth, or even morally right, to create a new pseudoanoynomous identity?" It is your life, you choose your battles. But if not enough dare to speak their mind openly, then this will be the new normal.
- stevenAthompson 2y ago
  Fifty four percent of American adults read below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level. The situation in America is not some temporary aberration, it is a permanent change in the status quo. Anti-intellectual populism is the new normal, and any thinking person who values their safety should be weighing anonymity and silence as viable options.
  - whatshisface 2y ago
    The Bolsheviks didn't want people who got the message and shut up. They were extremely paranoid about them. They wanted people who had been raised in the new system or who had supported it when the choice was free. I don't think that self-interest is morally right as a guiding principle or that people who have written things as clearly "aware" as your comment have the option you're suggesting.
    - stevenAthompson 2y ago
      I understand and respect your moral position, I just feel that I have an even stronger moral requirement to take care of myself and my family first, and I think that others should do the same. As the stewardesses say, you should always put on your own oxygen mask first.
      - whatshisface 2y ago
        Sure, but nobody is going to read that comment and think, "this guy is a solid Bolshevik."
        stevenAthompson 2y ago
        You're not wrong.
  - kenfox 2y ago
    I wonder if the low literacy rate is partly an artifact of non-English speakers. The 54% stat seems to come from PIAAC which only evaluates English literacy in the US https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/piaac/faq.asp https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/piaac/faq.asp The US hasn’t historically had high literacy rates though I definitely agree we are back to McCarthy levels of anti-intellectualism. Probably worse.
stevenAthompson 2y ago
It is incredibly relevant. Thomas Payne published "Common Sense" anonymously, and had that not happened the United States may not exist. It is a relatively obvious fact that there can be no freedom of speech without anonymous speech. Especially in the face of tyranny.
- javajosh 2y ago
  I agree that anonymous speech is an important right in free societies. A novel attack on such a right in the Internet Age is to allow so much speech, anonymous or otherwise, ensure that most of it of is of very low quality, that thoughtful criticisms are ignored or, more accurately, overlooked. A related attack is to "flood the zone with shit", low-quality but emotionally resonant criticisms of speech, generated by hired humans and/or software. (Anecdotally most readers will see any coherent pushback as a signal about the OP's veracity.)
  - kmeisthax 2y ago
    "Censorship through free speech", in other words.
    - lovich 2y ago
      It’s just a special case of signal jamming. If you add enough random energy to any channel, it becomes impossible to filter signal from noise
      - kragen 2y ago
        This is what Shannon disproved in the paper that founded information theory. It never becomes impossible, even at a fixed signal power; the noise reduces the channel capacity, but never to zero. https://people.math.harvard.edu/~ctm/home/text/others/shannon/entropy/entropy.pdf https://people.math.harvard.edu/~ctm/home/text/others/shanno...
        lovich 2y ago

godelski 2y ago

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. —Martin Niemöller At some point you have to be brave and face your fears. If you do not, then the light slowly dies and the darkness grows. By putting your head down and hiding you protect yourself but empower the very thing you are hiding from. It is a classic fallacy as you are taking short term rewards at a much higher cost in the long run. What you gain you borrow from the future, interest applies. However vast the darkness, we must supply our own light. - Stanley Kubrick

dataflow 2y ago
The question wasn't about "speaking out", it was about publicly disclosing your own strategy. You can do one without the other.
- godelski 2y ago
  What risk do they have sharing that strategy? It is an extremely basic and common strategy >>> the use of minimalist phone and a laptop is something I'm planning for all my travel This is a strategy recommended to literally every employee that works at a national lab. Similarly to anyone who works with a security clearance, SBU (secure but unclassified) materials, or even ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) (which includes anyone that works in aerospace. A rocket or a jet is "missile technology") I don't think their comment has any PII or even signals to adversaries how to fight back. It's just common for people to have lots of information. Sure, adversaries can press you about this but at that point they're probably going to press you for another reason anyways.
  - dataflow 2y ago
    > What risk do they have sharing that strategy? It is an extremely basic and common strategy Do you also reveal your hand when playing card games? On the basis that the other players already know all the cards anyway?