They will get their due acclaim if we're lucky to have a more moral and free society in the future.
- for reference, the battle of mogadishu is the Black hawk down incident, and Mogadishu is the capital of Somalia.
There are plenty of people who are punished by the state that the majority does not believe are "speaking an essential truth". For example: domestic terrorists.
You mean 00000000 ?
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/launch-code-for-...
From what I can gather, the way the system was originally meant to work is that each Minuteman squadron had five Launch Command Centers (LLCs), each with two men in them who would have to simultaneously turn their keys. In order for the missiles to fly normally, at least two of the five LLCs would have to command a launch. The computers in the LLCs contained launch codes which would be sent to the missiles, and these codes were never set to 00000000.
Disconcertingly, there was a 'backup' system that was meant to enable if the LLC lost electrical power, a single-vote timer. The single-vote timer would allow a single LLC (two men) to launch the missiles after a delay of at least one hour (during which time the order could be countermanded by one of the four other LLCs.) Sounds okay, except according to John H. Rubel these timers could be set to zero. So if the main power went out and the LLCs were running on backup power, a single LLC could have commanded the launch, and if the single-vote timer were set to zero, there would be no countermanding it.
To supplement the above systems, McNamara commanded the installation of another system (perhaps erroneously) called PAL, which would be required to arm the missiles but was itself insufficient to launch the missiles. According to Dr. Bruce Blair, it was this 'PAL' system for which the codes were set to 00000000, rendering it effectively moot.
A similarly blunt application of your position is that everyone punished by the state deserves it. Neither of us should rush to such extremes.
No, it doesn't. My position is that you have to address each on a case-by-case basis and there is no blanket way to say "ah X people are mad, therefore it was Good/Bad".
He's gross. He's also a journalist and a hacker, not a whistleblower.
So it's basically Assange working as a political agent of Russia and knowing it.
For example, I remember Marissa Mayer saying something about it at a critical time after the story broke. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/davos-2014-...
I think that's why a lot of Americans perceive Snowden much more favorably than Assange even though Assange technically never broke any laws.
I sympathize with him for cracking the admin password to help Manning get documents anonymously, but it doesn't overshadow that he'll never have a day in court for the women who brought credible criminal allegations against him.
So when a whistleblower breaks out, and they get chastised there almost is never support from within the organization for them.
The sane, honest people either get filtered out or end up converted by the toxic corrupt system. It's similar in other government or private organizations where power is at stake.
Most "troublemakers", as you call them, that I have known are people deeply moral and worried about their peers and society. I have seen two types, thou. Some have such a strong moral compass that will fight for what is right even knowing that it will have consequences. And the naive ones that think that, as they are morally right, the structures of power will recognize their sins and correct the situation. None of them were anti-social.
But that is just my personal experience.
You're making way too simplistic a generalization here. Some sociable people can be sociable and friendly with a group until that group changes and they decide that it no longer fits their morality. They can still be contrarians, and then make waves anyhow. You absolutely don't have to be an introverted, hard nosed loner to end up being a whistleblower or contrarian troublemaker. This sounds a bit more like wishful fantasy for people who are socially inept trying to paint it as more noble.
If anything, a sociable, open person is more likely to have the kind of self assured personality that makes them decide it's not a problem to disagree among their peer group whenever it becomes necessary. Read more history, it's full of troublemakers who were also sociable.
And actual real world lite "whistle-blower" I have Deen was not like that.
You broke the rules pretty badly here, and also in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35766457. We're trying to avoid flamewars to the extent possible. You can make your substantive points without doing that.
I am confused - people who are good and social have no principles and value? They have no backbone to stand up for them?
This is like the worst definition of social - like amoral sociopaths desperate to fit in.
That’s an interesting observation, and in my experience working in small businesses and large enterprise organizations, it’s entirely and totally wrong. Some of the worst people I’ve ever known in the workplace kiss up to the boss and to people in power while running the company into the ground. These are not good people. It’s actually a kind of evil in a way, as they present a likable "go along to get along" persona and facade while doing a terrible job. I would much rather be surrounded by humble yet candid truth tellers, who tell it like it is with empathy and compassion and care.
The spin of the story has it, it was all about "spying against illegal activity". While really all that spying is just part of the objective to actively influence states. Not only passively observing your neighbors under the shower. Particularly civil societies. Of "allies" at first, but conveniently, you have five eyes, looking at each other.
You don't in all seriousness spy on foreign leaders to "uncover child trafficking" or manipulate YT to "counter terrorism". Foiled plots are few and far between. Mass media manipulation and economic exploitation persist and are commonplace.
A democratic society not subject to tight control seemingly is a very scary thing. Even more so when it is your own.
Doing anything against the current government is illegal in every country and always has been.
>A democratic society not subject to tight control seemingly is a very scary thing. Even more so when it is your own.
"Who watches the watchmen". Most of our western democracies are lacking checks and bounds. We can only vote who represents us, but we can't vote for what they do when in power. If we disagree with them we have to wait ~4 more years before we can vote them out.
Presidential elections are one among many elections. And elections are one component of democracy. The NRA is a potent example of grassroots power enforcing its policy views effectively and continuously.
If there is an issue you care about, find like-minded people and see how they organise. If they don’t, organise them.
We tried once on a subreddit, but even after 2 rounds of donation, this poor guy's life was burned to the ground 90%. (joblesness, lawyer fees, potential lawsuits, social anger from people supporting big corps, wife leaving him, no roof at time.. brutal)
If they are to be helped, it has to be done with fine strategies and not a full frontal fight.
Unfortunately, it can take a very long time for the organisation in question to be exposed and then reformed. Just look at the child-abuse within pretty much every organisation that had access to children. However, that doesn’t make the fight fruitless; organisations can be reformed and it’s worth it for society as a whole.
We just need much much stronger whistleblower protections.
For me, the dead world of the labor force takes on a symbolic meaning. Words are like super powers, the have resonance and meaning. Look at the etymology of words and the source meaning will always give you the correct answer to what you are energetically putting your life force into.
corporation (n.)
> mid-15c., corporacioun, "persons united in a body for some purpose," from such use in Anglo-Latin, from Late Latin corporationem (nominative corporatio) "assumption of a body" (used of the incarnation of Christ),
> noun of action from past-participle stem of Latin corporare "embody, make or fashion into a body," from corpus (genitive corporis) "body, dead body, animal body," also "a whole composed of united parts, a structure, system,community, corporation, political body, a guild" (from PIE root *kwrep- "body, form, appearance").
Corporations are dead things. Start small and make choices that slowly shifts your energy to people and things that actual have living essence like small business and endeavors that benefit the common good. We can't do in every part of our life, but just a slight shift can be like a cascade effect over time.
A large body of text is also known as a corpus.
Both the large groups and the large texts are dead in the sense that they do not change of their own power. They are static and closed to new information.
Both text and groups must be re-animated by the individual.
And even regarding corporate power structures you are only avoiding a certain kind of their possible influences. For example, if a corporation buys up all water supply in your living area you can feel that influence, even if you are not working for them.
Your ideas could be potentially highly beneficial to society, they might benefit everyone including those in power but if it's against their beliefs, you will be punished from all sides.
I also disagree with your perspective on corporations. To me they seem very much alive - in a less recognisable form, more complex than we can grasp with human minds.
I argue mainly because I'd like to keep the term as something free of judgment. A group of people that comes together as a larger body or organism can be quite beautiful too.
Sure, but that doesn't have to be a corporation. There are all kinds of terms that describe that, and they don't come with the clear emotional and interpretational baggage that "corporation" does.
The term honestly isn't free of judgement, it carries with it a _lot_ of associations, and you can't just ignore them and pretend they're not there. Well, I mean you can, but you can't expect others to do the same. They're likely to interpret what you're saying as something else entirely.
For example, try talking about "a corporation of churchgoers" and see what kinds of reactions you get. =)
>For example, try talking about "a corporation of churchgoers" and see what kinds of reactions you get.
I would point out that most churches are 501(c)(3) corporations ;)
No other place frames the question of more or less socialism as big vs small govt. And for that matter I am not even sure the democrats ever frame the question like that.
What you are actually asking is "Are you from my tribe?".
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35923149
At this point, if I can export my contributions and not have my data locked up here, I will be happy to quit this site.
The problem is bad power structures, not power structures per se. Just because corporations as they exist today have problems doesn't mean that we should give up on organizations of people entirely. It means we need to do the necessary work in philosophy, psychology, economics, business administration, etc. that will enable the creation of more effective and ethical power structures.
You assume that the current condition is not due to everyone already doing what you’re describing as best as they can.
The issue is that they are, but the inherent corrupting influences of wealth, power, and human nature counteracting them to produce the current outcome.
At the end of the day, this is the wheel. And the wheel will keep turning, regardless.
Not understanding that just makes proposed reforms naive or ineffective, and usually the end result is worse.
The end problem is not one that can be actually solved. But the borders can be moved one way or another, a bit at a time.
To take another angle, we could remove humans from the picture entirely. The problem of how to get autonomous agents to work together to accomplish a task is a computer science problem. I don't see a fundamental barrier to solving that problem. Getting humans to cooperate is a special case of that problem, with the extra requirement that you need some domain knowledge in the social sciences to be able to convince people to cooperate. Again, there's no fundamental barrier preventing us from doing that research.
That doesn't mean it's easy. But that's why I'm skeptical when someone claims that the problem is simply unsolvable. Whether intentional or not, people who deny that progress is possible are reinforcing and justifying the status quo.
I'm saying people are a mix of good and bad, and there are various levels of power and wealth inherent to the world, and that causes an inherent tension and level of corruption which you see manifest itself in all power structures around us.
Including corporations.
If you have a CONCRETE proposal for some kind of corporation which somehow counteracts the negative influences of humanity, while promoting the positive ones, while also actually working in real life, then please do propose it.
I'm also noting that those are already influences on the current formation and existence of the structures around us, so assuming that this is a new idea isn't helping anyone.
I'm not hearing anything concrete here though. I am hearing that you don't seem to be aware of the active and ongoing work to stop corruption and produce better outcomes in the governments and corporations that currently exist.
Attempts which sometimes succeed, sometimes get frustrated, etc. It's an active war, always has been, and IMO always will be.
I never said these are new ideas or that there aren't already people working on these problems. You're putting words in my mouth.
I'm a bit confused about what our disagreement is. In my first post, all I said was that corporations and power structures aren't inherently bad and that rather than abandoning those concepts, as OP suggests, we can work to improve them. You disagreed with me and made fun of me for being naive. However, what you're saying now sounds like a different version of what I was saying.
I don't get why you think I need to make a concrete proposal for this. I'm making a general possibility claim, not a prescription. There are many paths to get there, which probably involve a combination of cultural evolution and the accumulation of knowledge in a wide range of disciplines.
That is what I am pointing out is fundamentally naive and impossible.
There is no possible state here where there is a system that is fundamentally incorruptible and fair, because that isn’t what people want, need, or how people work.
Even some options you mentioned (autonomous agents) wouldn’t produce such an outcome, but would just be a tool of despotic behavior (and probably worse than most) as they would be inevitably manipulated or compromised because you don’t seem to understand the nature of the actual problem.
There's something inherently bad about "limited liability" corporations, by their very nature. Because to some degree they free the people in them from "natural justice"; people are able to get away unpunished with bad things that they as individuals couldn't due to shifting liability to the corporation.
They live forever, devour our work product and consider themselves persons.
We have to be really careful with this sort of relativisation. Killing people in a foreign country is not the same thing as selling bad products or dealing with information in an inappropriate way, at home.
This is really bad career advice. There are certain situations where it makes sense to rock the boat, situations where it doesn't matter, and situations where it'll fuck you over
This rule that you've come up with seems really overgeneralized. If I disagree with someone or someone disagrees with me, we reach consensus. If someone disagrees with me instead of just nodding at everything, it makes it easier to form a mental picture of what that person actually knows. Someone who just agrees with everything has something to hide
This type of attitude is self perpetuating and creates an unproductive and political work culture
His advice is legit.
Depends entirely on where you work. In any place with 4+ layers of management it sounds like a reasonably good idea.
You want to be seen as doing your best for the project, but not sticking your head out more than is reasonable.
The project will fail, but you’ll be remembered as the one that almost made it succeed, and you’ll have more political capital to make the changes you desire going forward.
Conversely, if you keep hammering at something when it is clear everyone doesn’t believe you or doesn’t share the same values, you are just making everyone hate you. Even if the project does somehow succeed.
Simply wistleblowing to report legal breaches by your employer can sometimes ruin your career.
Transgressions in favor of the state are one thing, you'll get a slap on the wrist at most, but transgressions against the state are what will provoke a real response. See, for example, the incredible vigor pursued against the people who released the collateral murder videos, and not the people in the video who violated the geneva conventions by murdering surrendering combatants. One transgressed in favor of the state, and one against. That's all that matters.
And of course the power structure has investigated itself and found no wrong-doing, something something "you can't surrender to a helicopter therefore we were fine to shoot them", or whatever.
It is the same thing in corporations too: you can be incompetent or your project can fail, and that's fine as long as you don't rock the boat. It's actually probably worse to rock the boat and try to save a failing project, not only do you take it on yourself if it fails (which it likely will anyway, because they won't listen/the project is too far gone) but even if it succeeds you've stuck your head up and shown yourself to not be a yes-man. We want team players here, not someone who's going to kick up a fuss and argue with the boss or jump them on the ladder. Doesn’t matter if what you said was true or not, you don’t transgress the power structures.