38C3: Illegal Instructions
media.ccc.de
media.ccc.de
This is saying the opposite?
I would guess it comes from not knowing what you want. If you don't go through the Uberman process, then you end up saying things like that.
The fact they do that is nice, but I am not aware US hacker conferences offer translations into other languages.
This nationalistic spirit wouldn't fit in CCC anyway so I don't get why you feel so strongly about this.
Also, quote from the first comment in this discussion tree: not all contain translations then another person It's a .de site, for a German conference and then the post I responded to: I don't see how this is related.
My response was aimed at the anglosphere arrogance of assuming naturally that everyone has to do everything in their language.
Nobody assumed that "everyone has to do everything in their language", and please remember that english specifically is not used because of this but rather because it plays the role of a "lingua franka". The real arrogance is when there is an active attempt to exclude people by third parties in an event that explicitly attempting to be international, inclusive, antiracist, antinationalist, antiborder, etc.
I invite you to look at this thread.
> would you demand that a conference in the US or China offer translations on their recordings, and call them racist if they didn't?
I am sure that an imaginary version of me would respond to this completely unrelated hypothetical question. But personally I really don't see how it fits into anything.
Edit: the dubbing (like everything at the conference) is done by volunteers.
You can also contribute the language filtering yourself: https://github.com/voc/voctoweb
And by the way, here’s the language filter issue – not a lot of discussion since it was created in 2019, though: https://github.com/voc/voctoweb/issues/399
The team is working very hard to make this happen. Still, they are all volunteers.
> 'We have a duty to act': hundreds ready to go to jail over climate crisis This article is more than 6 years old
> Rowan Williams backs call for mass civil disobedience ‘to bypass the government’s inaction and defend life itself’
Even cliche children stories know your reasoning is ridiculous at best.
It's further ironic for you to mention this in a thread that was kicked off with this:
> The price of freedom is disobedience.
(a statement heavily dealing in absolutes)
"At their best, hackers lift their heads up above the masses to see how the world actually works, not how it purports to work, and then take action to make the world a better place."
https://paulgraham.com/founders.html
> 4. Naughtiness: Though the most successful founders are usually good people, they tend to have a piratical gleam in their eye. They're not Goody Two-Shoes type good. Morally, they care about getting the big questions right, but not about observing proprieties. That's why I'd use the word naughty rather than evil. They delight in breaking rules, but not rules that matter. This quality may be redundant though; it may be implied by imagination.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignment_(Dungeons_%26_Dragon...
> A chaotic good character does whatever is necessary to bring about change for the better, disdains bureaucratic organizations that get in the way of social improvement, and places a high value on personal freedom, not only for oneself but for others as well. Chaotic good characters usually intend to do the right thing, but their methods are generally disorganized and often out of sync with the rest of society.
If you're here, you're likely not just smart, but your brain likely works in a way where you can rapidly deconstruct a system or build a mental model of one up, understanding how and where all of the parts must operate for the system to function. Many rules matter, but some don't; you are outcome oriented while operating within the system you exist in. You are willing to operate outside of the system when the situation dictates.
"Hacker" is an interesting term, but overloaded from both a historical and persona perspective. I propose "Adaptive Strategist," "Outcome Engineer," or "Creative Resolver" to better describe this type of human. Someone highly capable, adaptable, and with the fortitude and grit to grind toward success in a morally directional manner.
That's how you end up with price-collusion-as-a-service for landlords to price-gouge. When you don't define "the big questions", every evil can just be something naughty and you can explain it away by saying that the person has "the big questions" in mind, and not these small ones. Is anyone surprised that most startups that "just ignore the small things" also ignore the big ones once they are big?
> Someone highly capable, adaptable, and with the fortitude and grit to grind toward success in a morally directional manner.
What do you mean by "morally directional"? What do you call a person with the same abilities and traits but concern for ethics? Are they not a hacker?
By “morally directional” I mean fundamentally a good person. Ethics are mostly easy imho although there are edge cases that are tricky or aggressively debatable due to nuance.
Do you consider 'hacker' to be tied to some ethical concept? Makes it a difficult definition to work with because you and I will draw the line of "justified by the intentions" (e.g. invading privacy of 1, 100, 1m to draw attention to some big issue) in a different place, and on top of that a hacker will stop being a hacker when they overstep the line?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_ethic#The_hacker_ethics
https://archive.org/details/TheHackerEthicAndTheSpiritOfTheI...
"The social machine’s limit is not attrition, but rather its misfirings; it can operate only by fits and starts, by grinding and breaking down, in spasms of minor explosions. The dysfunctions are an essential component of its very ability to function, which is not the least important aspect of the system of cruelty. The death of a social machine has never been heralded by a disharmony or a dysfunction; on the contrary, social machines make a habit of feeding on the controversies they give rise to, on the crises they provoke, on the anxieties they engender, and on the infernal operations they regenerate.[...] No one has ever died from contradictions. And the more it breaks down, the more it schizophrenizes, the better it works, the American way."
One is "hey, terrorists or enemy states could destroy our entire grid, we'd all be fucked if this happened, here's what needs to be done to protect ourselves", the other is "hey, these powerful groups are destroying the planet for personal gain, do you think it might be justified to sabotage the tools they use to do that?"
Mass outages harm the public, sabotaging fossil fuel infrastrusture protects it. Even if the methods of the grid talk were applicable to such sabotage, which they really aren't, I don't see how hosting both of these discussions is a bad thing.
The second talk is especially ridiculous when the speaker suggests to sabotage datacenters, because they use a lot of resources. I guess it is part of the "degrowth" ideology, which I find deeply flawed.
It's entirely arbitrary to propose that only "peaceful" (an inherently relative term depending on your personal belief system) action can speed this up, while non-peaceful action cannot, that this property is a necessary requirement.
Unless of course your definition of "peaceful" is "thing that speeds up this transition". Would be pretty different from the average definition of the word, though.
They also didn't say that it's the peacefulness aspect of the ongoing peaceful changes that is accelerating transition.
You're trying to outreason an opinion, and not only that, but you're also attempting to do so by putting words into their mouth. Please reconsider.
Debating the unspecified nature of a word isn't exactly the most productive thing in the world either. The vast, vast majority of natural language is that way. Kind of a pivotal feature of natural languages really.
Do a mental experiment, flip around the sides. Is it OK to propose for oil executives to sabotage the lives of ecological activists with violence? Perhaps, burn their houses, deface the headquarters, that kind of thing?
I'm trying to apply good faith, in which case I'm going to assume you're not arguing that there has never existed a set of circumstances under which such actions would be "OK". Could you explain directly what your PoV is instead? If it is that "It's OK if Ukrainians take such actions against Russian generals, but not if Tuvaluans/___ take them against oil executives", then why?
To see if your methods will actually result in anything good.
> Is it OK to propose for Ukrainians to sabotage the lives of Russian generals?
Of course. Top military personnel are a valid target in a war.
> I'm trying to apply good faith, in which case I'm going to assume you're not arguing that there has never existed a set of circumstances under which such actions would be "OK".
Pretty much. If you have to resort to terrorism, then your goal is probably indefensible.
Violence is defensible only as a response to violence.
How about if I flood your entire state/region permanently, both destroying your living, as well as that of your friends and families, as well as forcing you to relocate to a region you have nothing in common with?
Someone throwing a punch in your face is violence. Is that more acceptable to counter with violence than the previous scenario? I haven't met a single person who genuinely believes that.
"violence" can express itself in many ways.
> Pretty much. If you have to resort to terrorism, then your goal is probably indefensible.
Terrorism is a meaningless tern used to appeal to emotion. One's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Nearly every colonizer was overthrown by such a group. In many places, slavery was overturned by such groups.
I don't see how infrastructure is somehow special in this.
To that end, the obvious answer to the person in that opening ceremony is "if people had further picture of the impact" [1].
Justice is in the eye of the beholder. The way they can make people sympathize with their intents of sabotage is by providing a justification, and enabling people to provide themselves one of their own. Otherwise, people will work with what they have, and what they have is mostly just their moral standards.
Evidently, the thread starter's moral standards do not condone this. Mine don't either. The way one can change this is by providing more information that would enable us to change our minds. This isn't really what's happening so far (although neither sides are communicating in a way that would make an open ended discussion of this super viable).
[1] and have that picture be such that it supports their conclusion. Note how this doesn't mean that picture must be:
- truthful
- balanced
- reasonable
And provided all parties are aware of this, they'll be more critical and suspecting of the other. For good reasons, I'd say.
And in the end most criticisms about consequentialism are either about how to retroactively declare something moral or immoral (which is irrelevant for deciding the best path now without future knowledge) or are qualms with one particular way of weighing harm vs benefit. I'm perfectly fine with considering third order effects in the calculation, and an action that saves a life but errodes society is not necessarily "good" since the ultimate harm may outweigh the benefit. In fact it's this very kind of reasoning about higher-order-effects that would lead you to the conclusion that sabotage could be justified in some cases
Oh, is it that simple, really? Or does it come with a lot of unintended consequences, fueling conflict and paving the way for a more suppressive government?