7 ms·

So only after it’s precedent and harder to undo then does it matter? This is basically saying there’s no point in testing software, ship every line to prod and

So only after it’s precedent and harder to undo then does it matter? This is basically saying there’s no point in testing software, ship every line to prod and see what happens. This is exactly the kind of political ennui the system purposely tries to inculcate. Not fine grain mind control, but indifference. Laws dictate acceptable social agency. One might think we’d take what ends up in them at least as seriously as rich man’s busy work.

FDSGSG 5y ago
notTheAuth is a pedophile! What are you going to do to fight this? Maybe it's just not something worth pursuing?
- tombert 5y ago
  I understand the point you're trying to make (e.g. making a hyperbolic claim and leaving the onus on the accused to disprove it), but I think if you wanted to avoid downvotes while making the same point, you might have better luck saying something like: > How would you feel if I said "<username> is a pedophile! What are you going to do to fight this? Maybe it's just not something worth pursuing?" And then spend a bit of time explaining why this reasoning doesn't make sense to you. I'm a relative veteran of HN and even I had to do a double-take because I thought you were genuinely accusing the person of being a pedophile.
  - FDSGSG 5y ago
    Honestly, I really hope that I don't need to explain the logic behind my comment. It should be obvious to anyone willing to spend more than a couple of seconds thinking about it. I would hope that on HN we'd actually try to read and understand the comment we're voting on. Of course I'm being overly optimistic, but I'd prefer to be naive and wrong than cynical and right.
    - tombert 5y ago
      Sure, and as someone who grew up on Something Awful and 4chan I'm not familiar with the concept of hyperbole and sarcasm, but keep in mind that a lot of people on HN speak English as a second language, or just have more trouble picking up on sarcasm in general, and as such it might come off as a legitimate accusation. I'm not trying to be the tone police, I don't really care, I was just explaining why you might have been downvoted. Take my statements with as large of a grain of salt as you would like.
      - FDSGSG 5y ago
        English is a third language for me, I would expect that regardless of language everyone can understand the concepts of sarcasm and irony if they're willing to spend any time thinking about what they are reading. There's literally zero context to suggest that I might be serious in accusing another poster of being a pedophile, even if they were it wouldn't make sense for me to randomly drop that.
        tphyahoo2 5y ago
        I think it's common for non-neurotypical folks to struggle with sarcasm and irony. Even for neurotypicals, it can go over your head because it's hard to tell tone from a text.
        notTheAuth 5y ago
        Leon Cooperman was quoted today as saying if people don’t follow along with billionaires they’ll deviate into unnatural behavior. If that guy and anyone who believes the masses kowtowing to politically insulated old men LARPing Alexander the Great is natural, we’re doomed. This is what we are now; low effort taxonomists, defending syntactic hierarchy when we know there is no center of reality. Maybe the neuro-typicals are the real problem? The ones who have hierarchical visuals put in front of them their whole lives, who can then only repeat “this is the way”. Seems like a sure fire way to improve the probability taxes won’t go up, which exactly why Cooperman was interviewed; reiterating the hierarchy. I really want to play Lemmings for some reason. Borrowing from Greer’s “code the perimeter, not the area” we need a new political perimeter. Humans know the value of technology now. We don’t need old geezers to confirm what we can all see and touch for ourselves.
gizmo686 5y ago
Trial courts do not set precedent. The only way precedent will get set is if this arguement is taken up on appeal.
PeterisP 5y ago
It would be appropriate to start such a discussion once a single court ever has accepted such an argument and it gets appealed and starts a years-long process where it might become precedent for some wider area; it would be absolutely ridiculous to consider every theory put forth by a litigating lawyer as worth of a public discussion - I mean, there are so many of them and usually the judges shoot many of them down without a discussion because it's not worth a discussion even for the people it directly affects, much less general public.
- notTheAuth 5y ago
  Replies seems to be of the perspective I was suggesting we target courts proactively. I don’t think anything I wrote constrains public response to lobbying courts. We could lobby to legislate open access to privacy tech and encryption. One of the big papers wrote today how state legislatures are effectively gerrymandered for one party or the other. There’s a whole lot of political effort the public could participate in that would prevent ideas like this specific one from getting beyond a back room rant between elected officials. And frankly it wouldn’t have to impact our real logistics at all; we could collectively take ownership of our own agency and refuse to login unless legal ownership is reassessed. The internet community seems to have forgotten SOPA blackouts worked. The political reality is not accepting the literal one; a real majority with nothing to lose is quickly losing patience with the real minority gaming everyone’s society.
Aeolun 5y ago
What do you think will happen if you start campaigning against a certain interpretation of the law now? The court will still decide based on what is actually written down. If it needs to be changed that has to come from the politicians.

FDSGSG 5y ago

notTheAuth is a pedophile! What are you going to do to fight this? Maybe it's just not something worth pursuing?

tombert 5y ago
I understand the point you're trying to make (e.g. making a hyperbolic claim and leaving the onus on the accused to disprove it), but I think if you wanted to avoid downvotes while making the same point, you might have better luck saying something like: > How would you feel if I said "<username> is a pedophile! What are you going to do to fight this? Maybe it's just not something worth pursuing?" And then spend a bit of time explaining why this reasoning doesn't make sense to you. I'm a relative veteran of HN and even I had to do a double-take because I thought you were genuinely accusing the person of being a pedophile.
- FDSGSG 5y ago
  Honestly, I really hope that I don't need to explain the logic behind my comment. It should be obvious to anyone willing to spend more than a couple of seconds thinking about it. I would hope that on HN we'd actually try to read and understand the comment we're voting on. Of course I'm being overly optimistic, but I'd prefer to be naive and wrong than cynical and right.
  - tombert 5y ago
    Sure, and as someone who grew up on Something Awful and 4chan I'm not familiar with the concept of hyperbole and sarcasm, but keep in mind that a lot of people on HN speak English as a second language, or just have more trouble picking up on sarcasm in general, and as such it might come off as a legitimate accusation. I'm not trying to be the tone police, I don't really care, I was just explaining why you might have been downvoted. Take my statements with as large of a grain of salt as you would like.
    - FDSGSG 5y ago
      English is a third language for me, I would expect that regardless of language everyone can understand the concepts of sarcasm and irony if they're willing to spend any time thinking about what they are reading. There's literally zero context to suggest that I might be serious in accusing another poster of being a pedophile, even if they were it wouldn't make sense for me to randomly drop that.
      - tphyahoo2 5y ago
        I think it's common for non-neurotypical folks to struggle with sarcasm and irony. Even for neurotypicals, it can go over your head because it's hard to tell tone from a text.
        notTheAuth 5y ago
        Leon Cooperman was quoted today as saying if people don’t follow along with billionaires they’ll deviate into unnatural behavior. If that guy and anyone who believes the masses kowtowing to politically insulated old men LARPing Alexander the Great is natural, we’re doomed. This is what we are now; low effort taxonomists, defending syntactic hierarchy when we know there is no center of reality. Maybe the neuro-typicals are the real problem? The ones who have hierarchical visuals put in front of them their whole lives, who can then only repeat “this is the way”. Seems like a sure fire way to improve the probability taxes won’t go up, which exactly why Cooperman was interviewed; reiterating the hierarchy. I really want to play Lemmings for some reason. Borrowing from Greer’s “code the perimeter, not the area” we need a new political perimeter. Humans know the value of technology now. We don’t need old geezers to confirm what we can all see and touch for ourselves.

gizmo686 5y ago

Trial courts do not set precedent. The only way precedent will get set is if this arguement is taken up on appeal.

PeterisP 5y ago

It would be appropriate to start such a discussion once a single court ever has accepted such an argument and it gets appealed and starts a years-long process where it might become precedent for some wider area; it would be absolutely ridiculous to consider every theory put forth by a litigating lawyer as worth of a public discussion - I mean, there are so many of them and usually the judges shoot many of them down without a discussion because it's not worth a discussion even for the people it directly affects, much less general public.

notTheAuth 5y ago
Replies seems to be of the perspective I was suggesting we target courts proactively. I don’t think anything I wrote constrains public response to lobbying courts. We could lobby to legislate open access to privacy tech and encryption. One of the big papers wrote today how state legislatures are effectively gerrymandered for one party or the other. There’s a whole lot of political effort the public could participate in that would prevent ideas like this specific one from getting beyond a back room rant between elected officials. And frankly it wouldn’t have to impact our real logistics at all; we could collectively take ownership of our own agency and refuse to login unless legal ownership is reassessed. The internet community seems to have forgotten SOPA blackouts worked. The political reality is not accepting the literal one; a real majority with nothing to lose is quickly losing patience with the real minority gaming everyone’s society.

Aeolun 5y ago

What do you think will happen if you start campaigning against a certain interpretation of the law now? The court will still decide based on what is actually written down. If it needs to be changed that has to come from the politicians.