431 karma · joined April 29, 2018
There's plenty of linux desktops out there. There is certainly a ways to go, I'm not trying to deny that, I'm just wondering what constitutes a successful linux desktop. User-friendliness? Where are the goalposts exactly?
I guess that's close enough.
The jury's still out on the health effects of our digital culture. It's too strange and too young to really get clean long-term results on it. But I would be utterly floored if it was having no significant effect on our well-being and culture. There's probably some positive and some negative, but hey--cigarettes help aid digestion, after all.
Sorry for contradicting you earlier. That still seems like a crazy way to manage IP, but after all I haven't got a better solution. Thanks for explaining. In my career I haven't been expected to produce patents very often. I'll try to remain a bit more humble.
People are willing to take some outrageous risks in exchange for a trivial amount of convenience. Ever see somebody cut across six lanes on the interstate to make an exit that's about twenty feet away at the very last second? Convenience and speed is everything, we don't give a damn about the consequences. And there are eventually going to be serious issues caused by our wild west data mining. Horrible damages have already happened. It's not just paranoia.
True, not every software company is abusing their default permissions and telemetry. But the fact that default-on is normalized and expected provides cover for many people who do abuse it. It's complicit. Anyone who cares about infosec knows that security has to be the default, not an obscure setting for power users or something that you have to reset and then it always clicks itself back on when you update or use a particular feature. That's wrong and it's very clear why it's wrong. But it's happening more and more often.
Also, security must be the default even if we don't currently see any way for a particular application to be abused, because later there will be attackers more creative than us and they will figure out a way to leverage it. This is like an ironclad law of nature. Pretty much anyone who has made networked software long enough in the past can attest that eventually there's attempts at exploitation that nobody was thinking about at the beginning. I'm sure some of y'all have stories. Every engineer must make it robust at the start, expecting that people will attack and misuse it resulting in damage to real people. Even if we don't see why that would ever happen at the time. We should all responsibly set software defaults to defend the helpless and ignorant, instead of depending on capable people to defend the software.
Always reminds me of part of the speech at the end of The Great Dictator.
"We think too much and feel too little. More than machinery we need humanity. More than cleverness we need kindness and gentleness. Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost."
And if you don't think such a thing would be useful to a company like this (if it could really be made to work) you aren't using your imagination properly.
Also forgive me if I don't 100% take their word for it that none of this shit has been implemented except a few tests in 2015. These companies are never forthcoming with the truth around these matters of privacy and security. Ever. Any breach, any shady practice is denied until it's not possible to deny anymore. Why should they be truthful? It can only bring bad PR and there has literally never been consequences for lying about it.
I personally go by the rule that if your service can work as a website, it should be a website. Not ever a standalone app unless there are important requirements which can't be met in a browser. That can only be good for feature creep, gimmicks, and of course data scraping and other violations. A lot of companies end up purposely hamstringing their website--or push you into a terrible mobile site and ignoring your browser's request for the desktop version, plus cover half the screen with multiple instances of begware. Yes I'm looking at you reddit, you filthy old turd. It's incredibly user-hostile. I'm sure it drives plenty of cheap, chintzy short-term engagement but y'all are going to perish like digg sooner or later.
I wish companies would start really putting forward desktop deployment as a major priority again. Maybe I'm old and behind the times. But it seems like all serious activity in my life is always done on the desktop. As soon as I encounter something where I'm going to be doing a lot of browsing or typing or any effort, I move to the desktop platform where the interface and experience are just plain better in every way. I hate interacting through a terrible, tiny touchscreen by swiping around like a finger-painting toddler or using a minuscule keyboard which autocorrects me into apparent illiteracy. If I'm not out in the field and have no other choice, I will always, always choose the desktop environment for its many enormous advantages over mobile. Mobile is here to stay, but the UX still sucks enormous ass and is only tolerable because it's ubiquitous, plus everybody sucks relatively the same from mobile platform to mobile platform so it kind of seems normal.
Once again, maybe I'm just old and now I'm like my mom who stubbornly sticks to VIM in CLI and resents anything that requires clicking a mouse. On the other hand, I kind of see her point and totally respect her cantankerous old-fashioned style of computer literacy. She may hate modern interfaces, but she still knows how to do plenty of fundamental things that even young people these days are clueless about. I believe that simplistic, overly-intuitive interfaces can cause people to live up to expectations and become worse with actual computer literacy, that the golden age of power users is fading, but that's another story.
I would love to have a phone that runs a desktop version of linux and has a slide-out keyboard like they had in the 2000s or whenever that was. Something that just sticks to a desktop user agent and runs desktop executables. Perhaps even something that runs x86 and has a swappable battery to compensate for its power inefficiency. Basically a desktop computer disguised as a mobile device that fits in your pocket. Not iOS or Android or some rooted variant of Android. I don't even give a damn if it has voice calling or not. I think that would have enormous potential and would command a small yet incredibly dedicated userbase, but so far I haven't found anything quite like it.
This guy's a psychology and computer linguistics major. That's great, and I'm sure he's got plenty of great ideas, but we computer science people have a bit of an issue with buying our own hype. Society greatly values our skills, many people consider us to be exceptionally bright, so we end up believing ourselves to be general-purpose geniuses much like aging physicists do: http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2012-03-21
We are not general-purpose geniuses. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Intellectual arrogance has caused many an engineer to meddle in things we don't properly understand and it occasionally causes catastrophes, or more often it merely spreads misinformation because most laymen put great value on our thoughts and view tech people as some kind of oracle.
In the article he lampshades sophistry early on, but that doesn't magically save it from being sophistry. It is absolutely sophistry, a transparent attempt to assuage some kind of guilt and justify a moral quandary through inventive story telling and evidence-free faux truthseeking.
He also calls out late in the article the fact that this thought experiment he's made only covers a single currency and a single commodity, which is an unreasonably simplistic model. The parable doesn't consider bad faith, market manipulation, monopoly, corruption, unsustainable expectations of growth, asymmetrical information, pricing inefficiency, and all sorts of other issues that crop in real life and can't simply be ignored. With a little charisma and eloquence it's pretty easy to make a self-consistent mental model by weaving a fictional story and it feels like truth, but in reality there are unanticipated complications and external interactions that screw things up and totally throw off your conclusions.
For instance, in real life there wouldn't be just one guy speculatively buying Congolese grain through a magic portal. There would be lots of speculators in wealthy nations, fueled by riches extracted from all over--including the Congo. What about when their speculative hoarding is actually the force which creates the shortage? Are we being such benevolent, wealthy overlords if we cause a famine, drive up costs, then sell the same product back to them at exorbitant prices through these rent-seeking practices? And speaking about rent, that's when multiple commodities come into play. What happens when our speculative buying-up of resources causes scarcity and makes them spend all their money on food and miss rent? Rent, by the way, which is also being artificially driven up by speculation and is not in line with natural supply / demand-based pricing. Because it's not just being sold as housing, an intrinsically valuable use; it's also being hoarded in order to speculatively extract wealth. People buying houses not because they need shelter, but because they simply expect somebody else to buy it at a higher price later on. Price does not magically match intrinsic value 1:1 at all times, which is an assumption his parable is dependent on. And money being an abstraction does not mean that extracting enormous dollar amounts from a local economy and hoarding it does not hurt that local economy. The amount of money you charge people for goods and services does not directly translate to how much value you've blessed their lives with. Consider our healthcare system. We pay far, far more than any other country, and that wealth is hoarded en masse by insurance companies--essentially speculative, unnecessary middle-men who only add to the cost of utterly essential services which must be bought at any cost--yet the intrinsic value of our healthcare is far lower. We have a very low life expectancy for a first-world country, let alone a superpower: https://ourworldindata.org/the-link-between-life-expectancy-...
That money sitting in a bank is not proof of our intrinsic value going up. It doesn't always work out that way in reality. So we aren't off the hook yet in our own affairs.
Economics is hard. Ethics is hard. We can't handwave it using fairy tales with magic doors. I'm no economist, so I don't want to claim any expertise either. Take all I have just said with an enormous punch of salt, as if you're boiling pasta. I only go into these diatribes to point out when others undeservedly claim authority on a subject. People need to know to view this with appropriate skepticism. People shouldn't make authoritative think-pieces about subjects like this just because their job exposes them to a good amount of math and logical problem-solving, thus causing us to assume we can apply that to anything without significant subject-specific study and actual gathering of observational evidence. Even expert economists do very poorly at predicting and properly understanding the way this all works. This subject defies translation into a simple analogy, and balks at being explained to somebody as if they are five. People who try to do that are usually fooling you and themselves as well.
Of course I'm also aware it's not nearly that simple, that if ham bands allowed lots of discrete encrypted communication they'd just get filled up with commercial and business users taking advantage of the privacy and snatching up free bandwidth. I'm not a genius by a long shot, but I have to wonder if there's some solution for this. Maybe some kind of open-source encrypted radio modem which operates in ham or underutilized radio bands that someone could design and put out on a torrent server for people in these situations to access and build. It would be highly illegal to possess one, but what about just designing it? People using it in desperate situations under authoritarian regimes would likely already be operating outside the law.
There just aren't reliable statistics on what the safety of this tech will be at this point in time. All we have is extrapolations with lots of bias and little independent review. Maybe it will eventually be worth it, but that experiment will come with a great many human deaths and we can't simply brush aside the ethics of that. I personally think it won't prove to be safer than humans for many decades. This is far more of a complex problem than a lot of the developers think, and I believe there's a case of engineering arrogance going on here as well.
On the surface it seems like we have something very close to a viable product, but the remaining little details and issues are important and represent an enormous amount of work, where we are going to see diminishing returns and enormous difficulty making a system that is flexible and robust enough to handle all the required situations more reliably than the average driver on its own for thousands of miles, scaled up to millions of units around the world. They will be good enough for niche applications, but the dream of a general self-driving infrastructure is pretty far off.
Any system that requires a human operator to passively observe a boring process for hours at a time, yet snap to attention immediately and without warning to take control and prevent human deaths is simply insane. That's the diametric opposite of how a safe system should be designed. If the human is required for safe operation, they should just be driving at all times to maintain vigilance. I don't see people talk about that much. The assumption seems to be that AI will quickly get better and the human back-up will not be needed--that the human is kind of a temporary workaround. Well I've seen plenty of engineering projects where the temporary fix becomes a long-term pain in the ass because the difficulty of the real solution was massively underestimated and under-budgeted. We might get stuck with these terribly designed AI-human hybrid systems for many decades as AI keeps getting pushed into the horizon and we slowly realize that this is one of those hard problems that doesn't progress the same as most other tech does.
There are pure driverless systems out there, but they don't cope well with many of the incongruities and fringe situations which are an unfortunate reality on the open road in most of our country. I think they will be confined to niche uses for a long, long time.
These are the kind of problems which have profound amounts of complexity lurking in every unexpected pitfall. We are going to discover that it's a lot more of a tangle than we thought before it becomes simple again. I think most of us here know a thing or two about that sinking feeling when you're attacking a problem and discover that what seemed like a minor pothole is actually a wormhole leading into an entire universe full of waist-high bullshit with submerged landmines, but this problem will be in another class entirely. Figuring out the brain is a species-level problem and it's going to be VERY long and arduous.
I also resent the article's assertion that "if an AI is a safer driver than a human, who cares if it's a black box?" Fallacious argument number one around self-driving cars. Hear it all the time, almost always from laymen. It's a nice way to sneak in the assumption that AI will be better than average human drivers any time soon. The way that metric has been measured has been very deceptive so far, and no AI has come close to matching human safety and robustness. Not in real life applications in the field at scale. Not even close. There's been shenanigans like discounting all driver interrupts, which by nature disguises any flaws of the AI and offloads that responsibility on a person as a sort of PR heat-sink.
We don't give ourselves enough credit for how well we handle driving. Reality is chock full of exceptions, quirks, and legacy systems that aren't going to go away for many decades, and compared to the progress we've made on AI so far it's going to be many, many times more work for us in the future to deal with those niggling details. The devil's in there, he really is.
We've already done damage that's difficult to even comprehend. There's dead zones all over the map, where there's nothing but a bunch of algae and isopods crawling around in the mud and bones on the sea floor. These are enormous amounts of surface area, but they also represent a huge depth, so it's actually a volume of completely ruined wilderness. It's many, many times worse than an equivalent amount of acreage on land turned barren. We don't really have the daily context to understand what a loss that is. If we cause a collapse of the ocean ecosystems, we are truly and fully ruined.
People like to think that rational responses to situations are always moderate and level-headed, but that depends on context. The rational response to what's happening in this context is to freak the fuck out. Literally any sacrifice is going to be worth averting this kind of catastrophe. We are quite literally like the frog which is slowly boiling in the pot; we are slowly boiling ourselves, but it's a generational process so nobody ever thinks it's time for drastic measures. We're not looking at a choice between winning or losing; we're looking at the difference between extinction and cataclysm. The choice between a death toll of merely hundreds of millions vs. billions. It's extremely likely that this situation is going to end both of our family lines at some point in the next several generations. It's awful, but unless we figure out time travel these are the choices we have.
Not like the KGB of old would tell a reporter the truth when they ask if the nameless detained man in a gulag somewhere requested his name be reported and let them blow open the fact that the government is arresting non-criminals for political purposes. I mean in that situation, Soviets already knew--it's not a perfect analogy. They'll just say he exercised his right to privacy.
It only works if the announcement of identity is public by default, unfortunately. Neither option is great at all, but I don't think I'm qualified to come up with a better plan.
It might have something to do with the fact that despite being free to operate above the table and having large revenue flows, user experience is often better on the dark side. Which is just baffling.
With a decent ad/popup blocker and browser setup, some shady server in Vietnam called "watchallseriesonline.interbutt" or whatever is simply more pleasant than hunting down which streaming service has your content, having to buy all of them anyway, dealing with strange and futile DRM plugins, deal with industry drama, deal with hostile "engagement-driving" user interfaces, etc etc. The IP owners are nearly always a convoluted web of big telecom corporations who are battling with each other to ensure that all users are losers by wantonly Balkanizing all our culture's media.
Add to that the fact that almost all legit streamers immediately triple-dip on their customers. They charge subscriptions, they shovel ads at their users despite the fact it's a paid service, and they suck up and gargle all their user's personal data and sell it to the highest bidder or fumble it to some hacker. Some torrent site will also try and do all that, but in a way that's a lot easier to sidestep.
I mean I guess it sucks for the content owners (often not the actual creators as stated above, but that's another story) but there needs to be at least some good faith from them before they expect an unorganized mass of millions of independent users to return good faith to them. Masses of people respond to incentives and are basically deterministic. Telling them "you should really do this, it's the right thing to do" and expecting a demand-side miracle is just irrational.
1. public information should be open by default to the public in a machine-readable format, where such publication doesn’t harm privacy or security
I'm sure literally everything that they wish to keep opaque will declared to be covered under one or both of these incredibly vague categories and nothing will significantly change. Is there any elaboration in the bill that defines what they can call a matter of privacy or security? Even if there is, it wouldn't matter much because how are people going to tell if they keep it locked down in the first place? And they would not risk any sort of real blowback for abusing this and getting caught. Tell me there have not been far, far worse scandals that resulted in no consequences for the perps and cowed silence from the public. I don't think they're hiding the X-Files in there or anything, but this won't magically cause a more transparent, just, or equitable government unless it has serious teeth and tight language.
And 2. federal agencies should use evidence when they make public policy
Somehow I wonder if the data from the Kansas experiment will be taken into consideration and turned into public policy by this current administration, or if they will cherry-pick evidence selectively to justify only wildly unpopular legislation because someone (possibly an industry with a conflict of interest?) contrives some p-hacked research to back it up. Just because something is scientific doesn't necessarily mean it's good government. It is often so, but I'm always very wary when they trot out a bill with lots of bold language touting justice and democracy, truth, stuff like that. If the US legislature passes a bill called "protect innocent puppies from being kicked in the name of god and freedom" you can be 95% sure that this bill will enable a great wave of puppy-kicking despite its holy name.
Nobody is 100% law-abiding or morally clean. Nobody. We're definitely all vulnerable to prosecution and blackmail. People who think they have nothing to hide aren't using their imagination properly.
Infosec conspiracy theories are different from normal conspiracy theories because while normal ones are pretty much always bullshit, infosec paranoia is always proven sensible on a long enough timeline. Yes, there will be an incident sometime soon where law enforcement builds a case through evidence gathered with a virtual assistant using AI or something to sift through all that audio. The constitutionality of this evidence-gathering will be superficially questioned but it'll end up getting admitted anyways, or used sneakily via parallel construction techniques. Assuming it hasn't already happened.
They've already done it with phones. Providers and manufacturers used to resist, but after lots of murky "national security" legislation they can't really refuse anymore. Ever read about how the stingray was first discovered, and that law enforcement was sneakily using it extra-legally to build cases? Now it's pretty common knowledge that your phone can be tricked by a fake cell tower and there's nothing you can really do. But does anyone give a single shit? Nah. It's normalized. Every successive technology that is developed and added to the panopticon toolkit will make us more and more accustomed to it. There's been enough overreaches and abuses of technology already that you shouldn't have this blase attitude about it. But that's not how people really work.
It's been a slow boil since then; people accept things today on a regular basis that would have caused riots just a couple decades ago. And I get it, there's lots of important and valid improvements to life thanks to smartphones and the modern internet. But I'm not talking about the way things are now. I'm talking about the way things will be soon. Very soon. Like the next 10-20 years up until we all die in the climate wars or whatever, hopefully not but that's a different story I guess.
People were worried about cell phones back when you had to pull up the antenna and checking your email was an incredibly exotic feat of mobile technology. They had no idea about the kind of big data extrapolations that would soon become possible. If they did, they would have been far, far more worried.
Digital assistants, ubiquitous computing, "smart" cities which keep tabs on your life better than you do and other advances in mobile tech are going to be the same way. Those ramifications we can think about now are only the very tip of the iceberg. Completely unexpected uses and exploitations are going to appear out of nowhere like black swans as the years unfold. We can't make informed decisions about what we're doing to our humanity because we really have no idea. This has always been the case with industrialized society, true. But it's happening faster and more dramatically each time.
I think it is true that there's less camaraderie among coworkers nowadays compared to a couple decades ago. I personally think it's because of different modes of communication making our immediate surroundings and company more distant by comparison, plus a little of the stress mentioned in this article--if you're anxious about your job, if you have long hours, if you have tons of other comorbid problems, you don't want to see your coworkers at the bar at five thirty. Or seven. Or whenever the hell we get out of work in 2018.