Maybe the "hero" shouldn't be throwing insults on twitter like a child. I thought the insult was well considered because, in context, the diver was going after kids. It's a sly kind of funny that someone from another country might think is very funny.
This is the first comment I’ve seen approving that tweet and it’s every bit as deluded and cringeworthy as I’d expect. Musk never even apologized for that one did he?
> it’s every bit as deluded and cringeworthy as I’d expect.
Not deluded at all. Sorry if you didn't get it. It's very strange that puritanical adherence of America has been rolled back (mostly) but the pedo label is still so toxic in American culture that it's assumed that other cultures share the same values.
> Nothing will change because no one addressing or discussing the underlying causes
What exactly are you describing? I don't see the same world you do. These stories are top concern and referenced in almost every forum from niche game communities to political discourse (ie everywhere). The underlying causes are assessed and measured in various countries (eg http://www.thejournal.ie/gender-equality-countries-stem-girl...) and is a topic of serious discussion. Seriously, what are you talking about, that you think it's being ignored in any fashion?
There is plenty of article like that which explore a single area of gender segregation and ask the question of why, and those that are close to a popular political subject like STEM get attention. What is missing is the larger context where those studies are cross referenced from multiple professions and applied with behavioral science to find common theory of underlying causes.
In the context of this (and the linked) article however, there is not much serious discussion that explore the cause of work place harassment. If I take a random article on school bullying it will contain a magnitude of deeper thinking and serious discussion compared to ones like this. A major reason for that is that school bullying is not politically polarized into a them vs us narrative, and society in general seems to be more focus on trying to understand why and how to prevent it from a perspective of behavioral science.
As long are this topic get more polarized we will likely not see any change.
I disagree. The larger context and underlying causes are not possible without the groundwork. The claims that it isn't being done reads like you just want the answers faster, while simultaneously implying that proper rigor is not being applied. I'm surprised that someone thinks this way. The studies in the nordic countries are far more aggressive than anything else in existence, but you seem unfamiliar. SMH
Applied ethics, are what most people mean when talking about Ethics. They are industry specific and defined by the industry. Normative ethics are near equivalent to morality. Meta-ethics are what Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson like to argue about.
Rules are defined by industry. Applied ethics, or commonly used in the adjective form ethical, applies to the directness of a decision point to the governing rule and perceptions or right/wrong. Ethics are evaluated the same even when the rules change. Likewise ethics are violated for similar reasons regardless of industry.
This is very simple for most professions that are defined by licensing or certifications which require conformance to a code of ethics. Ethics in law are not dissimilar from ethics in medicine. In software there is no commonly accepted code of ethics. Instead there are "terms and conditions" and "employment agreements", which typically do not isolate ethical standards to the software profession.
> The only true authority stems from knowledge, not from position
Try telling that to the boss of your boss. Authority does not birth from knowledge. Compared to what you learn i school, processes and practices guide the vast majority of the decisioning you make day-to-day.
I don't understand why this is so interesting, as it doesn't seem to be anything about regression per se.
A userland tool supported functionality that it can't anymore, because it isn't available in a new kernel. This is not surprising, as people find ways to access and change data outside of published APIs all the time and they get patched away. The userland author said that the kernel upgrade would break old versions of the tool. So what?
> Because voting softwares don't solve any real problem while creating a horde of its own
It solves some problems that have been introduced over time in most election systems. Primarily, time to count/verify, ease of access and verifiability. To say that paper doesn't have these problems shows a lack of understanding or a willful intent to mislead. The boxes of uncounted votes from the Bush/Gore election (https://www.theacru.org/horace_cooper_bush_v_gore_redux/) were a watershed moment that could have affected change beyond the locality.
> Paper ballot is a perfect technology once you introduce optical readers, and when in doubt, you can always re-count everything again.
There are weaknesses with transport or tampering the same as any mechanical recording or electronic recording.
It's important to narrow the intent of a typical modern voting system, with "should haves" rather than hand waving away useful tools.
* Votes should have only been counted from voting membership (registered voters, for example).
* The intent (choices)/member information should have confidence that this data is opaque to inspection without a private/public key respectively. Yes, voters would have to generate their own, as that's an attack vector.
* A voting member should have the ability to track that the vote was counted at all in a given race via a reversible process, which would necessarily include the public and private key.
> You can't get that kind of transparency with voting software.
You can, but the US wont. It's an important distinction that is patently obvious.
Today, most vote tracking systems are electronic, although the ballot was paper. What's the point of half the process being paper? The US government is too inefficient, demotivated, and lacking the impetus to retrain the populace to make any system that is reliable.
> To say that paper doesn't have these problems shows a lack of understanding or a willful intent to mislead.
Of course using paper doesn't magically solve away your problems. The point is that paper-based systems without these problems do exist in the world and they've been successfully used for decades. You just have to copy the successful ones.
Or, put another way, if your government is too incompetent to run paper-based ballots, using electronic system won't make them suddenly competent either.
> There are weaknesses with transport or tampering the same as any mechanical recording or electronic recording.
The really really really nice thing about paper is that the required size of the attack gets proportionally large as stakes get higher. If you try really hard, you can probably sneak a few votes and change one of the twenty town council members, but does anyone care? On the other hand, to hack a presidential election you will have to exchange at least a thousand boxes or so. With a thousand co-conspirators. While everyone is watching.
...And if you're worried about organized gangs replacing a thousand ballot boxes on your election day, you have more problems than voting systems.
> What's the point of half the process being paper?
That it works. Technology is not meant to be cool; it's meant to work.
I read a few articles suggesting that the electronic voting systems in use on the USA wasn't working very well. Even suggesting some kind of malicious manipulation.
I would keep using the paper system that we have on Spain. It's secure and confiable, as a lot of eyes tare watching that no body is doing something dirty.
The recount is done by a few random citizens plus a few political parties representatives watching it. And it's fast. Usually takes 3-4 hours to know is who win.
> Are computerized elections understandable to laypersons?
What do you mean "No"? The ubiquity of cell phones alone makes it self-evident. What YOU mean is not described by your assertion.
> Worse; even if the election was tallied faithfully by a computerized system, a demagogic candidate can whip up fervour and call the election into question.
That's not worse. That's part of the path to acceptance.
> The paper ballot industry doesn't exist.
Tell that to the Lottery machine makers and ticket manufacturers. It's a much stronger lobby than the "e-voting" block (if you can even cobble together such an alliance).
> What YOU mean is not described by your assertion.
I've ran a paper election for a federal race here in Canada. Anyone with the ability to form a complete sentence could understand the security of our election. We're talking 2 standard deviations below median or worse here.
The number of people that can understand the security of an electronic voting system is vanishingly small. The only security mechanisms that make the election trustable are the ones that are analogous to paper elections:
On premise ballot counts by humans with public observers and physical artifacts retained by receiving officers and other poll workers.
Come tell me how a machine with a touch screen is as understandable to someone that can't even explain how electricity works, much less hashing algorithms or compilers.
> That's not worse. That's part of the path to acceptance.
It is worse that a fair election is distrusted than it is for us to be unsure of the veracity of an election yet proceed as if it were honest despite misgivings. The subversion of truth is an anathema to our democratic process. Our social fabric depends on collective reasoning operating on shared understanding. Minds operate by cohering senses into understanding and understanding into action. Discordancy is doubt's inferior. Under stress it trades quiet, humble investigation for paroxysmal rage.
> Tell that to the Lottery machine makers and ticket manufacturers.
These are not the people that manufactured our paper ballots and they never were.
> if you can even cobble together such an alliance
Having a cellphone != understanding the technology and how it works. People don't get this stuff, and something as fundamental as your civil liberties should not be predicated on a black box no one person can understand.
Re: ballot lobby:
If there's any paper ballot lobby it's HP - when I've voted it was on ballots printed by a traditional office printer/Xerox.
You don't need bizarre forms and crank levers to make a ballot, just a piece of paper and a marking device.
> Having a cellphone != understanding the technology and how it works
That wasn't the assertion made, nor related directly to the assertion I responded to. Having an understanding of "how it works" is a weak way of couching a ton of assumptions without explaining what you mean. There's no point in trying to argue about what's in your head.
The statement I take issue with is:
> Are computerized elections understandable to laypersons?
Yes. How they work at a cursory level of practical operation and effect, is less sophisticated than any cellphone since flip-phones.
This story was part of a news report sourced by the daughter of a general on NBC. I saw it between 1987ish (I may be off by a year).
> The project never recovered from this ignominious retreat, and it was canceled in 1944.
It was "cancelled" after a shockingly effective test because the first A-bomb was going to be ready. Multiple projects were going on in parallel. Because bat-instigated fire was still an uncontrollable and unpredictable force to unleash on a population, it was wisely cancelled (the research kept, which is all that mattered) in favor of a more pointed and well-understood system. A big targeted explosion.
I don't think that the effects of the bomb were as well understood as we imagine, I think that unleashing the bomb on Japan was also a test. It was targeted at civilians and they just HAD to see what it would do, they knew that what it would do was going to be bad, but they didn't really know how bad. IMO they didn't really care how unpredictable or targeted it would be, they knew it would affect Japan only though, so thats all that mattered.
