Of possible interest, Ballard's The Atrocity Exhibition is themed abut mass media intrusion into private mind spaces, Carey's Bliss about an ad exec whose heart stops, re-awakening convinced he is in hell (but merely life with the scales fallen from his eyes).
Such things are still not reason to dis other HN commentators - there's always reddit for that.
> Such things are still not reason to dis other HN commentators - there's always reddit for that.
Mmm, this I disagree with particularly. I view HN as a forum dedicated to the technology professions, and as such, it’s an extremely appropriate place to shame those in the profession who refuse to consider the second-order effects of their work.
We (those in the technology profession) have no union through which we can encourage professional standards and ethics and codes of conduct. Shame is pretty much the only and last bastion for those of us who care about how we make our money, and not just the amount written on the paycheck.
I know there are some people, both in this forum, and who I’ve met in person - (“Raytheon? How do you feel about the moral dilemma of working for a weapons manufacturer?” … “We manufacture weapons? I just work in HR.”) - who will never lose an ounce of sleep considering their line of work due to an underdeveloped sense of ethics.
But there are some people who are in the middle ground who can still be won over. Every year that passes it becomes more important that technologists are aware of the ethical implications of their work - no matter how much capital incentivizes the opposite. Don’t let a paycheck delude you.
I'd suggest taking that up with Paul Graham, @dang, and @tomhow - they would respond that curious conversation about second order effects is what they seek - sans the direct personal attacks seeking to directly shame another person for their choices.
> How do you feel about the moral dilemma of working for a weapons manufacturer?
Weapons, of course, cut both ways; Ukraine is pushing back against an aggressor by using weapons, long range sensing, passive radar, etc.
> Every year that passes it becomes more important that technologists are aware of the ethical implications of their work
Agreed - that doesn't imply you should call perceived less enlightened others names or champion throwing them in the stocks .. such things rarely convert and often harden resistance.
> it’s an extremely appropriate place to shame those in the profession who refuse to consider the second-order effects of their work.
The HN guidelines follow the approach which Martin Luther King Jr. criticized:
> [the] moderate who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice
Politeness is considered more important than holding people to account. This acts as a strong protection of the status quo, i.e. it’s fundamentally conservative.
I’ve been observing another institution which follows that approach: the US Congress and Senate. It hasn’t been working out so well.
(Side note: I had to wait a few hours to be allowed to post this comment; how many comments are abandoned for that reason, or result in people going elsewhere, leaving this site to its self-reinforcing prejudices. It’s not the discourse encourager that some people imagine it is.)
Of possible interest, Ballard's The Atrocity Exhibition is themed abut mass media intrusion into private mind spaces, Carey's Bliss about an ad exec whose heart stops, re-awakening convinced he is in hell (but merely life with the scales fallen from his eyes).
Such things are still not reason to dis other HN commentators - there's always reddit for that.
> Such things are still not reason to dis other HN commentators - there's always reddit for that.
Mmm, this I disagree with particularly. I view HN as a forum dedicated to the technology professions, and as such, it’s an extremely appropriate place to shame those in the profession who refuse to consider the second-order effects of their work.
We (those in the technology profession) have no union through which we can encourage professional standards and ethics and codes of conduct. Shame is pretty much the only and last bastion for those of us who care about how we make our money, and not just the amount written on the paycheck.
I know there are some people, both in this forum, and who I’ve met in person - (“Raytheon? How do you feel about the moral dilemma of working for a weapons manufacturer?” … “We manufacture weapons? I just work in HR.”) - who will never lose an ounce of sleep considering their line of work due to an underdeveloped sense of ethics.
But there are some people who are in the middle ground who can still be won over. Every year that passes it becomes more important that technologists are aware of the ethical implications of their work - no matter how much capital incentivizes the opposite. Don’t let a paycheck delude you.
> Mmm, this I disagree with particularly.
I'd suggest taking that up with Paul Graham, @dang, and @tomhow - they would respond that curious conversation about second order effects is what they seek - sans the direct personal attacks seeking to directly shame another person for their choices.
> How do you feel about the moral dilemma of working for a weapons manufacturer?
Weapons, of course, cut both ways; Ukraine is pushing back against an aggressor by using weapons, long range sensing, passive radar, etc.
> Every year that passes it becomes more important that technologists are aware of the ethical implications of their work
Agreed - that doesn't imply you should call perceived less enlightened others names or champion throwing them in the stocks .. such things rarely convert and often harden resistance.
5 replies →
> it’s an extremely appropriate place to shame those in the profession who refuse to consider the second-order effects of their work.
The HN guidelines follow the approach which Martin Luther King Jr. criticized:
> [the] moderate who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice
Politeness is considered more important than holding people to account. This acts as a strong protection of the status quo, i.e. it’s fundamentally conservative.
I’ve been observing another institution which follows that approach: the US Congress and Senate. It hasn’t been working out so well.
(Side note: I had to wait a few hours to be allowed to post this comment; how many comments are abandoned for that reason, or result in people going elsewhere, leaving this site to its self-reinforcing prejudices. It’s not the discourse encourager that some people imagine it is.)
3 replies →