Re:Google Engineers Refused to Build Security Tool to Win Mi...
by woodruffw on Friday June 22, 2018 @11:45PM
(#17379429)
> If a particular means consistently yields good results, is it bad means?
I think so. Here's an example: over 3/4ths of released prisoners are re-arrested within five years. Half are re-arrested within a year of release[1]. If my end is substantially reducing the crime rate, I could reasonably claim that mandatory lifelong sentences would achieve that end: recidivism would be eliminated, and there would be a strong disincentive for anybody to commit even minor crimes. But this is clearly a terrible means, both legally and morally: the punishment doesn't fit the crime, and we end up condemning 25% of the prison population to a life in jail because of a statistic.
[1]: https://www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/recidivism/Pages/welc...
Re:Google Engineers Refused to Build Security Tool to Win Mi...
by pcwalton on Friday June 22, 2018 @07:07PM
(#17378270)
At the risk of sort of invoking Godwin, I'm curious if you'd apply the same logic to Stalin and the fall of Nazi Germany. What does the victory in the Battle of Berlin say about whether Stalin was good or bad?
You’re begging the question. If a particular means consistently yields good results, is it bad means? When the Roman Empire fell, we call the subsequent period the dark ages. What does that say about whether the Roman Army was good or bad?