burrows

> Exposing a vulnerability in a public forum is the fastest way to patch said vulnerability.

Unjustified empirical claim.

And even if it were true, it would still be insufficient for justifying public disclosure, classic is-ought.

Also, only nerds stand up for security nerds.

This is just some rationalization that security nerds like to regurgitate on each other.

Responsibility is a ghost. Like God, Love, Honor, etc. You’re not actually talking about anything.

The deepfaked ones actually speak.

You keep saying “we” and “us”. Who the fuck are you talking about? Speak for yourself.

What activity are you designating with the name “philosophy”?

Are you suggesting that some people hold the normative position, “One ought prefer situations with more possibilities to those with fewer, ceteris paribus.”

But isn’t that just some hidden metaphysical structure? That is, it’s unavailable as formal appearance?

> Arguably nothing is free, and nothing will ever be free, as long as private organizations want to make a profit.

For things to be free, I think a slave workforce will be necessary. But even then there is a cost to feeding and housing the slaves.

A tangential but related thought.

I’ve heard people say things like, “The world is math”, but it never seemed particularly coherent to me. Sometimes I’d assume they meant, “Inference systems with mathematical languages make useful predictions about my empirical experience.”

But now I’m favoring the interpretation that experience is purely formal/syntactic with no semantic component. There is no additional meaning beyond (or behind) appearance.

What are “foundations”?

Inference rules, axioms, language?

Do you use “math” and “deductive reasoning” to refer to distinct activities?

Does the word “civilized” have any content here?

Or are you just saying, “guns are illegal in countries where guns are illegal.”

> Is this a joke?

This string of symbols is extremely ambiguous and confusing for me.

Do you consider it equivalent to,

“The largest committer on the project will say that the project is a joke when I ask him if it is a joke.”

“Destiny has written in his little book that the project is a joke.”

“Did you laugh when you opened the project?”

Awaiting clarification.

> Intuitively it makes sense to me that more complex systems collapse faster because potentially they have more points and modes of failure.

For me, the word “complex” complicates the assertion without adding much value.

I prefer, “Systems fail faster as the number of modes and points of failure increase.”

A car can last a long time without the cup holders. And you can use the cup holders as ash trays.

> Ah, it sounds like you may need to study a little history if you’re curious about these terms.

I am a mind in thrall to delusion.

> Sex bias means a cultural bias or prejudice based on someone’s sex.

Using the word “prejudice” to define “bias” doesn’t help me to understand the term.

> Cultural bias is about having ingrained prejudices in large social groups.

Okay, so different people having different assumptions which they use to judge phenomena.

> The goal is to remove bias and prejudice that is hurting certain categories of people, preventing them from having equal access to opportunity to improve their lives, and to make decisions about people based on their interests and abilities, and to establish and respect some basic human rights across the board.

There are lots of things that lots of people will tell me are hurting them. Personally, I don’t care about any of them. But how do you prioritize one claimed hurt over another?

> but this sounds like a straw man and that you’re skeptical

Probably, I was just guessing.

> I will turn your question back on you: what is the alternative you’re suggesting, do you support having different standards for men and women in QA?

I don’t really care. The hiring/promoting practices of 2022 American QA departments doesn’t interest me. Let the Harvest Gods have their day.

> Do you support the idea that a woman developer who writes the same quality of code and works as hard and has the same level of experience as her male coworker should be paid the same amount?

Depends on the context. Does disqualifying the woman help me to get what I want, then I’m all for it. Otherwise, I don’t care.

> The question you need to be asking is the opposite: how can you demonstrate that bias has been eliminated? Sex bias was absolute and baked into law 100 years ago, and it has been slowly getting eliminated, but there has not been any point in time where we can demonstrate it’s gone, precisely because we have evidence it’s not gone yet. (Pay gap still exists, gender disparities between schooling and employment still exist, etc.)

I don’t understand the meaning of the term “sex bias”. So it’s completely unclear to me that it existed previously and that I want it to stop existing.

> We know for a fact that bias hasn’t been completely eliminated, because the ratios and disparities of many jobs including QA are changing quickly, they have not settled, and they are not the same from country to country. That is proof that cultural bias exists and is affecting today’s distributions. You can’t even reasonably ask the question of how to know how much a job depends on sex or gender until after you’ve eliminated cultural bias, because cultural bias masquerades as gender based preferences.

Cultural bias is about people from different cultural having different standards? What is the hypothetical ‘fix’, imposing uniform standards for judgement on everyone at all places in all times?

This is people self-reporting about unexperienced hypothetical situations?

Searching LinkedIn will show me that “there’s nothing gender or sex related to doing the job of QA”?

> Since there’s nothing gender or sex related to doing the job of QA,

How do you know this to be true?

> cultural bias

What definition are you using for this term?

NP

But are scientists able to guess with high accuracy whether an arbitrary situation will be a measurement or not?

> If you want a truly secure mailbox, it would be far better to use Google than Proton and just PGP encrypt anything truly sensitive.

You know this? How?

And you’re using what definition of “intent”?

Who guarantees the sun keeps running?

They will lose their jobs and will have to find new sources of incomes.

How are you able to appreciate people in a specific capacity without feeling like you need to become buds with them?

How do you avoid forming many negative opinions about a person just because you don’t see them as socially interesting?

Why should other companies do that?

Does “bad” have some technical definition here? Or are you just expressing dislike for the Russian regime and its actions?

> It's not controversial to acknowledge that lots of historical attempts to measure intelligence have been pretty biased in favor of English speaking white men.

Do you have some specific examples of this purported bias?

> Unfortunately some were also very deliberate spins (one notable example being the book The Bell Curve).

Specifically what spin are you referring to?

> I think it's reasonable to conclude that measuring intelligence isn't valuable enough for all of the negative externalities attached to it given how the world currently is.

Insufficiently valuable to whom?