6 ms·

I strongly agree with this position. This is basically the foundation of Control Theory! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/

by jychang 11mo ago

I strongly agree with this position. This is basically the foundation of Control Theory! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_theory This is like arguing if "heater on" or "AC on" is better, which is a pointless argument. That entirely depends on what the temperature is!

mk89 11mo ago
Reminds me of the book Thinking in Systems. Thanks for the link.
SoftTalker 11mo ago
And, at least in your example, sometimes you need both at the same time!
bjourne 11mo ago
It is the perfect and correct antidote to any slippery slope argument. If the consequences of the law turns out to be as bad as you say they will be then we adjust the law.
- close04 11mo ago
  > If the consequences of the law turns out to be as bad This is the usual "the market will regulate itself" argument. It works when the imbalance arises organically, not so much when it's intentional on the side with more power and part of their larger roadmap. The conflict of interest needs to be accounted for. Consequences for whom? Think of initiatives like any generic backdooring of encrypted communication but legislators are exempt. If legislators aren't truly dogfooding the results of that law then there's no real "market pressure" to fix anything. There's only "deployment strategy", roll out the changes slowly enough that the people have time to acclimate. Control theory doesn't apply all that well to dynamical systems made entirely of human beings. You need psychohistory for that.
- wqaatwt 11mo ago
  > they will be then we adjust the law. Bizarrely horrible approach. A lot of damage would already be done, most importantly changing the status quo is inherently much harder than doing nothing. So going back won’t necessarily be straightforward. Claiming that “slippery slope” is always a fallacy is a gross misconception and misinterpretation. It varies case by case, very often it can be a perfectly rational argument. “Let’s restrict democracy and individual freedoms just a bit, maybe an authoritarian strongman is just what we need to get us out of this mess, we can always go back later..” “Let’s try scanning all personal communication in a non intrusive way, if it doesn’t solve CSAM problems we can always adjust the law”, right.. as if that was ever going to happen. Some lines need to be drawn that can never be crossed regardless of any good and well reasoned intentions.
  - jack_tripper 11mo ago
    >Some lines need to be drawn that can never be crossed regardless of any good and well reasoned intentions. Too late. We already let the government cross the lines during Covid with freedom of movement and freedom of speech restrictions, and they got away with it because it was "for your protection". Now a lot of EU countries are crossing them even more also "for your protection" due to "Russian misinformation" and "far right/hate speech" scaremongering, which at this point is a label applied loosely to anyone speaking against unpopular government policies or exposing their corruption. And the snowball effect continues. Governments are only increasing their grip on power(looking enviously at what China has achieved), not loosening it back. And worse, not only are they more authoritarian, but they're also practicing selective enforcement of said strict rules with the justification that it's OK because we're doing it to the "bad guys". I'm afraid we aren't gonna go back to the levels of freedom we had in 2014- 2019, that ship has long sailed.
    - pfdietz 11mo ago
      The libertarian approach to COVID would be that infecting someone is assault and you are justified in shooting someone who is trying to do that.
  - miki123211 11mo ago
- kriops 11mo ago
  Nothing is more permanent in politics than temporary solution. As a Norwegian, for example, I am still paying a temporary 25% on all spending that was enacted as a "temporary" measure over 100 years ago. Control Theory does not work (in the general) for politics for the simple reason that incentives are misaligned. That is to say that control theory itself obviosuly works, but for it to be a good solution in some political context you must additionally prove the existance of some Nash equilibrium where it is being correctly applied. Edit: See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs (CGP Grey - Why Do All Governments Work the Same Way?)
  - throw9018 11mo ago
    As a counterpoint to the selectorate theory, see Thorsen's PhD dissertation, "Only In It for Power and Wealth?", https://politica.dk/fileadmin/politica/Dokumenter/Afhandlinger/matilde_thorsen.pdf https://politica.dk/fileadmin/politica/Dokumenter/Afhandling... The thesis argues that dictators regularly both harm groups clearly inside the winning coalition, and please groups clearly outside of it. A common, but not the only reason, is ideology. One has to be careful when using game-theory models on messy human entities. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, and it's hard to determine just at what point the model breaks down. At least without empirical research. (Another example is that actual negotiation outcomes rarely end up at the minimax or Nash product equilibria that game theory sequential negotiation concepts would suggest.)
ttoinou 11mo ago
So, you do think “useCase.regulation” being a single dial. It’s a pretty reductive framework. I have an easier framework where in 90% of cases current law was already good enough and we don’t need to tweak that dial
- TylerE 11mo ago
  The road to hell is paved with “good enough”.
  - adi_kurian 11mo ago
    Is the road to nowhere paved with "perfect"? Perhaps not when it comes to matters like these.
    - TylerE 11mo ago
      That’s why you aim for at least actually good or even excellent, not mediocrity.
  - littlestymaar 11mo ago
    It's a funny thing to say because the popular saying you're modifying says the exact opposite.
    - TylerE 11mo ago
      In practice, “good enough” is rarely actually good enough.
amelius 11mo ago
> This is like arguing if "heater on" or "AC on" is better, which is a pointless argument. That entirely depends on what the temperature is! I think the problem here is more that _some_ people want the heater to be on and _other_ people want the heater to be off.
- BLKNSLVR 11mo ago
  And when it comes to privacy, consumer advocate types and privacy wonks (I include myself in this group) want the heater to be on, and technology companies and advertising companies and all of their hangers-on want the heater to be off. One group has a lot more money, power, and influence than the other.
  - asyncze 11mo ago
    [dead]

by jychang 11mo ago

mk89 11mo ago

Reminds me of the book Thinking in Systems. Thanks for the link.

SoftTalker 11mo ago

And, at least in your example, sometimes you need both at the same time!

bjourne 11mo ago

It is the perfect and correct antidote to any slippery slope argument. If the consequences of the law turns out to be as bad as you say they will be then we adjust the law.

close04 11mo ago
> If the consequences of the law turns out to be as bad This is the usual "the market will regulate itself" argument. It works when the imbalance arises organically, not so much when it's intentional on the side with more power and part of their larger roadmap. The conflict of interest needs to be accounted for. Consequences for whom? Think of initiatives like any generic backdooring of encrypted communication but legislators are exempt. If legislators aren't truly dogfooding the results of that law then there's no real "market pressure" to fix anything. There's only "deployment strategy", roll out the changes slowly enough that the people have time to acclimate. Control theory doesn't apply all that well to dynamical systems made entirely of human beings. You need psychohistory for that.
wqaatwt 11mo ago
> they will be then we adjust the law. Bizarrely horrible approach. A lot of damage would already be done, most importantly changing the status quo is inherently much harder than doing nothing. So going back won’t necessarily be straightforward. Claiming that “slippery slope” is always a fallacy is a gross misconception and misinterpretation. It varies case by case, very often it can be a perfectly rational argument. “Let’s restrict democracy and individual freedoms just a bit, maybe an authoritarian strongman is just what we need to get us out of this mess, we can always go back later..” “Let’s try scanning all personal communication in a non intrusive way, if it doesn’t solve CSAM problems we can always adjust the law”, right.. as if that was ever going to happen. Some lines need to be drawn that can never be crossed regardless of any good and well reasoned intentions.
- jack_tripper 11mo ago
  >Some lines need to be drawn that can never be crossed regardless of any good and well reasoned intentions. Too late. We already let the government cross the lines during Covid with freedom of movement and freedom of speech restrictions, and they got away with it because it was "for your protection". Now a lot of EU countries are crossing them even more also "for your protection" due to "Russian misinformation" and "far right/hate speech" scaremongering, which at this point is a label applied loosely to anyone speaking against unpopular government policies or exposing their corruption. And the snowball effect continues. Governments are only increasing their grip on power(looking enviously at what China has achieved), not loosening it back. And worse, not only are they more authoritarian, but they're also practicing selective enforcement of said strict rules with the justification that it's OK because we're doing it to the "bad guys". I'm afraid we aren't gonna go back to the levels of freedom we had in 2014- 2019, that ship has long sailed.
  - pfdietz 11mo ago
    The libertarian approach to COVID would be that infecting someone is assault and you are justified in shooting someone who is trying to do that.
- miki123211 11mo ago
kriops 11mo ago
Nothing is more permanent in politics than temporary solution. As a Norwegian, for example, I am still paying a temporary 25% on all spending that was enacted as a "temporary" measure over 100 years ago. Control Theory does not work (in the general) for politics for the simple reason that incentives are misaligned. That is to say that control theory itself obviosuly works, but for it to be a good solution in some political context you must additionally prove the existance of some Nash equilibrium where it is being correctly applied. Edit: See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs (CGP Grey - Why Do All Governments Work the Same Way?)
- throw9018 11mo ago
  As a counterpoint to the selectorate theory, see Thorsen's PhD dissertation, "Only In It for Power and Wealth?", https://politica.dk/fileadmin/politica/Dokumenter/Afhandlinger/matilde_thorsen.pdf https://politica.dk/fileadmin/politica/Dokumenter/Afhandling... The thesis argues that dictators regularly both harm groups clearly inside the winning coalition, and please groups clearly outside of it. A common, but not the only reason, is ideology. One has to be careful when using game-theory models on messy human entities. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, and it's hard to determine just at what point the model breaks down. At least without empirical research. (Another example is that actual negotiation outcomes rarely end up at the minimax or Nash product equilibria that game theory sequential negotiation concepts would suggest.)

ttoinou 11mo ago

So, you do think “useCase.regulation” being a single dial. It’s a pretty reductive framework. I have an easier framework where in 90% of cases current law was already good enough and we don’t need to tweak that dial

TylerE 11mo ago
The road to hell is paved with “good enough”.
- adi_kurian 11mo ago
  Is the road to nowhere paved with "perfect"? Perhaps not when it comes to matters like these.
  - TylerE 11mo ago
    That’s why you aim for at least actually good or even excellent, not mediocrity.
- littlestymaar 11mo ago
  It's a funny thing to say because the popular saying you're modifying says the exact opposite.
  - TylerE 11mo ago
    In practice, “good enough” is rarely actually good enough.

amelius 11mo ago

> This is like arguing if "heater on" or "AC on" is better, which is a pointless argument. That entirely depends on what the temperature is! I think the problem here is more that _some_ people want the heater to be on and _other_ people want the heater to be off.

BLKNSLVR 11mo ago
And when it comes to privacy, consumer advocate types and privacy wonks (I include myself in this group) want the heater to be on, and technology companies and advertising companies and all of their hangers-on want the heater to be off. One group has a lot more money, power, and influence than the other.
- asyncze 11mo ago
  [dead]