5 ms·

The vegetables of truth

50 points by joosters 12y ago

gadders 12y ago
I don't know why people always post this stream of conciousness and non-sequiters from Adam Curtis. You can pretty summarise all of them as "Rah rah socialism!".
Houshalter 12y ago
This went from the dangers of technology, to criticism of scientific studies, to baseless accusations that the scientists' were politically biased about vegetables.
nycticorax 12y ago
One idea from the world of science that might benefit articles like this is that of the abstract. It's a one-paragraph summary that helps the reader decide whether they should bother reading the whole article.
nl 12y ago
Earlier today there was a HN discussion[1] about a rather average Techcrunch article about the internet of thing. To me, one thread stood out. There was a suggestion[2] about the amazing and undeniable benefits an intelligent toilet would have (stool samples can be analysed for bowel cancer, and early detection dramatically changes the projected outcome for bowel cancer). The sad, tragic response to a truly life saving technology was this: How about not just "no", but "hell no"? This is the surveillance era - do you really want the NSA logging a continuous stream of your health data?[3] I don't want to get into an NSA discussion here, but instead relate it to the linked article. Increasingly I see a rejection of real technological improvements because of fear. I think this is similar to the rejection of science: some industrial applications of advanced science created risks and when those risks were realised people reacted by rejecting science. Now we see technology being used to surveil us and there is a rejection of technology itself, rather than looking for ways to address the genuine risks that it can bring. It makes me sad. I believe science and technology can bring a better life to everyone, and rejecting it rather than solving the problems associated with it leaves us no better off than we were yesterday. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8442266 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8442266 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8443063 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8443063 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8442266 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8442266
- lazyjones 12y ago
  > Increasingly I see a rejection of real technological improvements because of fear. Calling it just "fear" is not doing it justice, it's an attempt to paint it irrational to be against these things. The NSA isn't some imaginary monster in the dark, it's a real organization with a proven track record of infuriating privacy violations. It has to be taken into account and some people might prefer living in freedom with their privacy respected instead of some protection from the risk of colon cancer (which, by the way, is also just something we "fear").
- tomjen3 12y ago
  If you want the public not to reject science and technology then work on science and technology that makes those in power transparent. We can't win on privacy, protecting computers are far too difficult, but at least we can all be naked (metaphorically).
- barrkel 12y ago
  Why does a toilet need to be connected to the internet to do analysis? I'd like to use Google Now to its full capability, but I don't want the code running on Google's servers - I want it running on my machine, on my data, held locally. My fear isn't about technology, but data sovereignty. The closer it's held, the better. And certainly the US is not a trustworthy place to store any data.
- mindslight 12y ago
  I'm firmly in the "hell no" camp. I realize how these devices can benefit me. As an embedded designer, I eagerly thought about these types of devices 15 years ago. The problem is that we, the technical community, got hoodwinked away from open protocols into thinking that closed systems based on dumping data to someone else's server is an acceptable basis for much of anything. Manufacturers are quite happy to foist these proprietary solutions on us because it lets them create lock in, differentiate on superficial features, keep hiding sloppy development, and derive licensing fees for any third parties that think they can help analyze your data (with your consent, or not). The "average" user sees no difference because it's all magic boxen to them, and we've done them a great disservice by shirking our professional duty and being "yes men" for this backwards environment. My rejection doesn't come from "fear" of "risks" - it comes from the rational assessment that once this data is out there, especially in such collated form, you've lost control of how it is used against your interests. The only way to brush that off as "fear" is to say the future where cloud-big-brother knows more about me than I do is inevitable. So rather than being scared, I should learn to love the rats on my face. I am hoping this is wrong. Furthermore, reliance upon any technology makes it de facto mandatory which becomes much harder to extricate yourself from to switch to something with a less hostile architecture. Especially as more open architectures will be less polished due to less funding as creating freedom isn't lucrative. And it's not just the NSA - there's the much larger and better poised threat from the commercial side as well, via insurance / background check companies. How long until "I have to do 500 more steps today so I don't have to pay $50 extra on my health insurance" ? (PS Never mind getting on the upgrade treadmill for fixtures who's lifetime has traditionally been decades, just for software bugfixes and upgrades. And the input response time on many of these products - looking at you Nest - show that it's amateur hour)
JonnieCache 12y ago
The leek film at the end of the article is an absolute joy.
leoc 12y ago
This article on lead http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29568505 http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29568505 just showed up on the BBC. While I absolutely dislike the post-'60s attitude of kneejerk hostility to technology and industry, the article's a sensible corrective to the opposing attitude that things were great in the good old days when everyone trusted in technology and didn't worry about risks.

50 points by joosters 12y ago

I don't know why people always post this stream of conciousness and non-sequiters from Adam Curtis. You can pretty summarise all of them as "Rah rah socialism!".

Houshalter 12y ago

This went from the dangers of technology, to criticism of scientific studies, to baseless accusations that the scientists' were politically biased about vegetables.

nycticorax 12y ago

One idea from the world of science that might benefit articles like this is that of the abstract. It's a one-paragraph summary that helps the reader decide whether they should bother reading the whole article.

nl 12y ago

Earlier today there was a HN discussion[1] about a rather average Techcrunch article about the internet of thing. To me, one thread stood out. There was a suggestion[2] about the amazing and undeniable benefits an intelligent toilet would have (stool samples can be analysed for bowel cancer, and early detection dramatically changes the projected outcome for bowel cancer). The sad, tragic response to a truly life saving technology was this: How about not just "no", but "hell no"? This is the surveillance era - do you really want the NSA logging a continuous stream of your health data?[3] I don't want to get into an NSA discussion here, but instead relate it to the linked article. Increasingly I see a rejection of real technological improvements because of fear. I think this is similar to the rejection of science: some industrial applications of advanced science created risks and when those risks were realised people reacted by rejecting science. Now we see technology being used to surveil us and there is a rejection of technology itself, rather than looking for ways to address the genuine risks that it can bring. It makes me sad. I believe science and technology can bring a better life to everyone, and rejecting it rather than solving the problems associated with it leaves us no better off than we were yesterday. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8442266 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8442266 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8443063 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8443063 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8442266 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8442266

lazyjones 12y ago
> Increasingly I see a rejection of real technological improvements because of fear. Calling it just "fear" is not doing it justice, it's an attempt to paint it irrational to be against these things. The NSA isn't some imaginary monster in the dark, it's a real organization with a proven track record of infuriating privacy violations. It has to be taken into account and some people might prefer living in freedom with their privacy respected instead of some protection from the risk of colon cancer (which, by the way, is also just something we "fear").
tomjen3 12y ago
If you want the public not to reject science and technology then work on science and technology that makes those in power transparent. We can't win on privacy, protecting computers are far too difficult, but at least we can all be naked (metaphorically).
barrkel 12y ago
Why does a toilet need to be connected to the internet to do analysis? I'd like to use Google Now to its full capability, but I don't want the code running on Google's servers - I want it running on my machine, on my data, held locally. My fear isn't about technology, but data sovereignty. The closer it's held, the better. And certainly the US is not a trustworthy place to store any data.
mindslight 12y ago
I'm firmly in the "hell no" camp. I realize how these devices can benefit me. As an embedded designer, I eagerly thought about these types of devices 15 years ago. The problem is that we, the technical community, got hoodwinked away from open protocols into thinking that closed systems based on dumping data to someone else's server is an acceptable basis for much of anything. Manufacturers are quite happy to foist these proprietary solutions on us because it lets them create lock in, differentiate on superficial features, keep hiding sloppy development, and derive licensing fees for any third parties that think they can help analyze your data (with your consent, or not). The "average" user sees no difference because it's all magic boxen to them, and we've done them a great disservice by shirking our professional duty and being "yes men" for this backwards environment. My rejection doesn't come from "fear" of "risks" - it comes from the rational assessment that once this data is out there, especially in such collated form, you've lost control of how it is used against your interests. The only way to brush that off as "fear" is to say the future where cloud-big-brother knows more about me than I do is inevitable. So rather than being scared, I should learn to love the rats on my face. I am hoping this is wrong. Furthermore, reliance upon any technology makes it de facto mandatory which becomes much harder to extricate yourself from to switch to something with a less hostile architecture. Especially as more open architectures will be less polished due to less funding as creating freedom isn't lucrative. And it's not just the NSA - there's the much larger and better poised threat from the commercial side as well, via insurance / background check companies. How long until "I have to do 500 more steps today so I don't have to pay $50 extra on my health insurance" ? (PS Never mind getting on the upgrade treadmill for fixtures who's lifetime has traditionally been decades, just for software bugfixes and upgrades. And the input response time on many of these products - looking at you Nest - show that it's amateur hour)

JonnieCache 12y ago

The leek film at the end of the article is an absolute joy.

leoc 12y ago

This article on lead http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29568505 http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29568505 just showed up on the BBC. While I absolutely dislike the post-'60s attitude of kneejerk hostility to technology and industry, the article's a sensible corrective to the opposing attitude that things were great in the good old days when everyone trusted in technology and didn't worry about risks.