NoImmatureAdHom

Yep, true. I can imagine cases where it is relevant, though. Like...something happens in the past, and people only become interested in it at some point in the future.

For instance, Alice is accused of a crime that happened a month ago. There exists photo / video of Alice that is attested this way proving she hasn't committed the crime, and this is taken by Bob who seems to be an uninterested third party.

It doesn't preclude criminal Alice from setting up this situation in advance given her intent to commit a crime, but it does seem to make it way harder.

All good points, thank you

If you want to prove provenance without centralization of power like certificate authorities, you could do it with a blockchain. I'm sure someone has implemented this.

Alice wants to prove to everyone that she took a photo. Or, at least, she wants to attest that it is hers from a given time on.

1) Alice takes photo at t=0

2) Hash is calculated of photo

3) Hash is signed with Alice's private key

4) Signed hash is uploaded to Ethereum blockchain (probably bundled with thousands of others to save money, or on some other cheaper/faster blockchain)

5) Bob can verify that Alice had this photo starting at t=0

Combined with other information (like "This is a photo of events that happened on Tuesday starting around 11AM"), this could be useful in the context of journalism or whatever's replacing it on the web.

This is really helpful for understanding, thank you. Perhaps the question is improved by incorporating the intent of the maintainers. An example:

If we're interested in whether WhatsApp's developers have implemented the Signal protocol in good faith, because we suspect they have not (we suspect they've put in backdoors at the behest of bad governments), then having the source available (and reproducible builds to use) allows us to check that more easily than analysis on the binary's behavior.

This is because the primary way the duplicitous maintainers would do this is in their own source. It's possible (and for three letter agencies probably common and desirable) to deliberately introduce bugs in dependencies that provide the desired behavior in some end product, but it probably shouldn't be our base case. Our base case should be: you swear your code implements the Signal protocol without backdoors...ok, great, you show us the code.

Would it be unfair of me to rephrase as, "It is possible to do this ridiculous, difficult thing that doesn't even always work in order to get some insight into a situation which would be trivial if the source were available with reproducible builds"?

I'd like to echo the sentiments about this app not providing enough guidance, and also ask the HN community a question: is there an app out there that does provide lots of guidance?

I've been doing 3 days / week GZCL with this for a year: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=co.braindead.g...

It's a 2/5. It works, kinda. I suffer from moderate ADHD and need an app that requires little decision-making. Big buttons, pre-programmed workouts, etc. It does that pretty well.

co.braindead.gzcl doesn't do several things I want: --Tell me what to do with no ambiguity (GZCL often has "accessory exercises" that are a free-for-all. No, I need the app to tell me exactly what to do. Which exercise, how many reps, what weight, what rest interval). --Explain what's going on. What is "TM"? Why is it always zero? --Facilitate deloading weeks + make reasonable calculations and / or expose the calculations --be FOSS --allow data export --offline-first

Is there anything out there that does this, or a significant subset?

...and the latest entry in "sentences I wasn't expecting"

What could go wrong?

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q="martha nussbaum" "consider the lobster" "beautiful and moving"

points only to your post for me.

I'd also hasten to add that Nussbaum and Singer aren't exactly known for doing philosophy for philosophers. They're both public intellectuals with political axes to grind.

I passed out, but luckily I was already lying on the couch

Yeah...without more context the quote says nothing. The rest of it could have been, "They're talking as if we are operating as a fcking unlicensed securities exchange in the USA bro"

P.S.: I sit here wondering, is it the court system that doesn't want to write "fucking" or is it a quote where the author himself bowdlerized?

Consider the Lobster is pretty sophomoric from the philosopher's point of view. I'm a big DFW fan otherwise, but he's out of his depth here.

Yeah sorry, I don't mean to presume. I just mean that you need to know the magnitude and have comparisons to really have a meaningful opinion.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6870484/ doesn't make your argument.

It's a sample of people who were admitted to the hospital for "LSD psychosis" compared to people who were admitted for a first schizoid break. They conclude that there are a lot of similarities.

What you really want to know is: the probability of a schizoid break given you have a predisposition P(break|predisposition), the probability of a break given LSD use P(break|LSD, predisposition), the prevalence of predisposition to schizophrenia P(break), or P(break|human). And maybe P(break|LSD), too, for kicks (probability non-predisposed person gets a schizoid break given taking LSD).

With those pieces you can come to some sort of reasonable conclusion about the risk. The paper tells you very little to nothing about it since the samples don't tell you anything about the population. It's like a mechanic concluding Toyotas all need work because all the ones he sees need work.

> You can do everything right, and still come away with trauma and psych issues

Yes, but the question is: how likely are "trauma & psych issues"? How dangerous is the drug in comparison to going out and having six drinks over the course of the night, or (if you do LSD say once a year) a year's worth of drinking? Or, how about in comparison to living somewhere that means you need to drive to work every weekday?

You can't make a meaningful comparison without numbers, so I'm not sure where you get your confidence. As it happens, my intuition is that your comparison is wrong.

I would bet that people who are predisposed to e.g. schizophrenia are, for the most part, going to experience some insult that makes it come on at some point before 30 years old. It's just a question of when, where, what, but it'll happen.

I bet the group of people who could develop schizophrenia were they to experience the right insult, but don't, is very small.

> The risk of psychedelic drugs is more comparable to motorsports, the more involved action sports, heavy equipment operation, etc.

Yeah...I'm going to need to see some numbers to believe that.

I have similar sentiments...

Whatever's happening now seems to work, in that it results in the best we've got for privacy-respecting phones. Obviously Daniel's communication style isn't what most people would like, but we all have our difficulties in life.

I wish him and the project well.

I don't think you understand what I mean. This page describes the difference between "normative" and "descriptive": https://www.miamioh.edu/hcwe/hwac/teaching-support/disciplin...

I'm not making the claim that the conclusion that WWII U.S. governments came to was right (in a moral sense), or correct (in that it was going to reduce the probability of sabotage given their knowledge at the time), I'm making the claim that knowing about Ni'ihau makes their actions make more sense. It is an important piece of context. It allows you to better-understand their state of mind and the state of the world while they were making these decisions.

Haha, yeah I know people use it that way (as I noted). In that particular sentence it seemed wrong because the prima facie contradiction is, well, right in your face.

This is a really thoughtful comment, thank you. I agree with everything you've said with one exception, and I appreciate the additional context I didn't know about.

I would say that it is very reasonable to argue that "...they are so distant from anything that might actually remotely justify the action...", but that does not imply that "...there is a very good reason they aren’t highlighted..." is the actual reason Ni'ihau isn't highlighted. I'm still pretty convinced it's because it's inconvenient, awkward, uncomfortable...not because those events and the context they were part of made a bad justification for trampling the rights of 125,000 people.

As I think about it more, the thing I'm stuck on is more like...Ni'ihau and the stuff you mention, and the context that makes for, all make the people involved seem more reasonable, less kind of...crazily racist and afraid...a little less cartoonishly evil. And a lot of people these days don't like that. They want an "other", an enemy that is simple and easy to hate. Clear right and wrong. Red and Blue, D and R, Tory and Labour. And I think that's childish and wrong and bad in almost all circumstances. Pointing out Ni'ihau amidst the self-flagellation about Japanese internment in WWII makes that sort of person look at something he doesn't want to look at, but that he looks at it is good for him and for the rest of us.

Ethnicities aren't races, so it seems awkward.

You're making a normative claim ("this is wrong"), and I'm making a descriptive claim ("this is what people back then might have been thinking based on the evidence").

In fact, we make the exact same normative claim in the end (that internment was wrong).

Interesting, do you have a cite?

It doesn't look like Japanese internment was under the auspices of the Alien Control program, because [0] refers to, "By the end of the war, over 31,000 suspected enemy aliens and their families, including a few Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany, had been interned at Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS) internment camps and military facilities throughout the United States."

Whereas I think >100,000 Japanese were incarcerated.

0: https://www.archives.gov/research/immigration/enemy-aliens/w...

I hear you. I think that you're maybe half-right about why it's not discussed. The reason I bring it up is the other half...it's not discussed because it runs counter to the narrative that sells in today's market.

In a situation where you have no data (hostilities just started), this incident being one of the first things that happen is, in fact, quite striking. And, critically, these people weren't spies or saboteurs. They were rando civilians who, without premeditation or contact with enemy government, decided on the spot to help the enemy. If you were a commander in that war you would rightly find it terrifying. It is, we might say, a bad look.

If you read the Wikipedia article the situation will become clear.

I bring it up in response to the story because it's an obvious part of the narrative about Japanese internment camps in the U.S. in WWII that is suppressed because it is inconvenient and uncomfortable. That doesn't mean we should ignore it, though.

Obviously, this event makes the actions the U.S. government took look more justifiable. The fact that it happened so quickly after hostilities started is also striking. The idea that Japanese immigrants and Japanese-Americans are more likely to turn against their adopted country than, say, German or Italian immigrants seems more plausible in this light, and that helps understand the decisions made by people in power (in addition to stuff you already know, like Japanese is a very different language to English and culture to American, far more different than either German or Italian, and Japanese people and other East Asians are much more easily visually distinguished, etc.).

And, I will reiterate, in my mind it doesn't justify interning tens of thousands of citizens on the basis of ethnicity. It seems obviously wrong to me, either you're a citizen and you get the same rights as everyone else, or you're not. Discriminating on the basis of ethnicity is...racism? Not quite, but I suppose that's the word people use. It is a stain on the country's history.

On reflection, I think what really grinds my gears is that shaping the public consciousness with lies and half-truths is so effective...

It seems obviously wrong to incarcerate citizens on the basis of ethnicity. That said, an important part of the discussion that usually isn't discussed at all is the Ni'ihau incident: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niihau_incident

TLDR: The first thing that happened in WWII for the United States was the attack on Pearl Harbor. The second thing is a Japanese pilot crash-landed on Ni'ihau on his way home from bombing Pearl, and a Japanese immigrant and a couple Japanese-Americans decided to take his side and help him (treason, of course). In the end a couple people were shot.

Edit: I'll add some discussion from below to the top-level comment, I think it improves it.

In a situation where you have no data (hostilities just started), this incident being one of the first things that happen is, in fact, quite striking. And, critically, these people weren't spies or saboteurs. They were rando civilians who, without premeditation or contact with enemy government, decided on the spot to help the enemy. If you were a commander in that war you would rightly find it terrifying. It is, we might say, a bad look.

I bring it up in response to the story because it's an obvious part of the narrative about Japanese internment camps in the U.S. in WWII that is suppressed because it is inconvenient and uncomfortable. That doesn't mean we should ignore it, though.

Obviously, this event makes the actions the U.S. government took look more justifiable. The fact that it happened so quickly after hostilities started is also striking. The idea that Japanese immigrants and Japanese-Americans are more likely to turn against their adopted country than, say, German or Italian immigrants seems more plausible in this light, and that helps understand the decisions made by people in power (in addition to stuff you already know, like Japanese is a very different language to English and culture to American, far more different than either German or Italian, and Japanese people and other East Asians are much more easily visually distinguished, etc.).

And, I will reiterate, in my mind it doesn't justify interning tens of thousands of citizens on the basis of ethnicity. It seems obviously wrong to me, either you're a citizen and you get the same rights as everyone else, or you're not. Discriminating on the basis of ethnicity is...racism? Not quite, but I suppose that's the word people use. It is a stain on the country's history.

I think we agree?

"It is not normal to have people go into schools and start shooting children and teachers at random."

We agree about that. If you mean "it's not okay" OR if you mean "it doesn't happen often".

Per capita comparisons aren't informative because you should care about the ABSOLUTE risk, rather than relative risk.

The ABSOLUTE risk (as I calculate in another comment, charitably about 0.000043% per year per student risk of being killed at school) is extremely small. The fact that it's 5x Greece's or something is irrelevant, because both are tiny. If you're trying to answer the question "How do I make sure my kid grows up happy and healthy?" worrying about school shootings is a waste of time. The kid has a 22x higher likelihood of being killed by drowning, focus on that. Or responsible drug use. Or physical fitness. Or driving safely (or not driving!).

Another basic thing you might want to keep in mind is: kids don't die much. Their overall risk of being killed from ANY cause is quite low. If you're worried about maximizing happiness or something, I wouldn't even worry too much about death. Sure, teach them to swim and when they're little make sure there's a lifeguard, but don't stress about them being killed unless you live in a war zone. (And I recognize that too many people live in war zones, and that's a real problem that real people have)

Yep, you're right. In other places, places where pistols are hard to get, violence still happens...it's just somewhat less deadly. UK for instance:

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/8/10/e023114

The children just get stabbed instead

# K-12 kids killed (specifically in this case shot dead) at school in the U.S. in a given year / # K-12 kids total who go to school

This: https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2020/demo/school-enrollme...

Makes it look like there are 55,548,000 K-12 kids enrolled in school in the U.S. in 2020

This: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/a01 Makes it look like there are between 12 and 35 homicides of kids 5-18 years of age at school per year in the years 1992-2019.

The average of 12 and 35 is 23.5, call it 24 kids on average murdered at school per year in the United States in recent years.

Note that this is not quite correct because it includes murders other than shootings, so it's a little inflated. But anyway.

Also note they say, "“At school” includes on the property of a functioning elementary or secondary school, on the way to or from regular sessions at school, and while attending or traveling to or from a school-sponsored event. In this indicator, the term “at school” is comparable in meaning to the term “school-associated." So again, it's going to be a little inflated because a bunch of these are going to be murders that people wouldn't intuitively understand to be a school shooting (e.g., kid murdered on the way to school in gang crossfire).

Okay, so 24 / 55,548,000 = 0.000043% chance per year of dying in a school shooting for a given U.S. child who attends school, all else being equal.

And of course, all else isn't equal. School shootings aren't random, and are much more common in the types of environments other shootings are common (poor cities, high % black populations, gangs, etc.).

For context, about 520 kids 5-19 die via drowning in the U.S. per year, making it about 22x the risk of being killed at school, all else being equal.

(https://wisqars.cdc.gov/data/explore-data/explore/selected-y... for death by drowning)

Edit: this data makes it seem like 11.5 or so deaths per year rather than 24 (because it's shootings specifically, I think), and gives more colour: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_th...