glloydell

I realize that this is completely speculative correlation buuuut...

Part of me wonders if Trump was briefed on the Russian law going into effect last month :

Nov 2019 - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50507849

Russia has passed a law banning the sale of certain devices that are not pre-installed with Russian software.

The law will come into force in July 2020 and cover smartphones, computers and smart televisions.

And is literally just aping Russian policy :

August 2020 - https://www.state.gov/announcing-the-expansion-of-the-clean-...

Clean Store: To remove untrusted applications from U.S. mobile app stores. PRC apps threaten our privacy, proliferate

viruses, and spread propaganda and disinformation. American’s most sensitive personal and business information must be

protected on their mobile phones from exploitation and theft for the CCP’s benefit.

That seems like the kind of oversight one expects from a junior dev just joining a team, that's where ones job as a senior dev to push them through the process comes in.

From the pdf intro you can download off the authors site :

" Those who claim to care about a livable climate for the future should strive to understand the mechanisms by which industrial capitalism has already made our climate the most livable in history.

If they did so, they would learn from such thinkers as Ayn Rand and Ludwig Von Mises how capitalism, by permitting only voluntary associations among men, unleashes the individual human mind—and that billions of such minds, free to associate and trade however they choose, will engage in stupendously intricate, collaborative planning for everything from how to make sure they can always get groceries to how to account for nearly any weather contingency.

Armed with an understanding of individual freedom and individual planning, the climate-concerned would suspect that any preventable problem in dealing with weather—such as widespread vulnerability to flooding—is caused by government interference in voluntary trade, such as taxpayer-financed flood insurance that encourages people to live in high-flooding areas. "

I'm still reading through it, but it seems like a steady devolution into a patchwork of increasingly impressive logical fallacies with some half formed libertarian dogma slapped on top of it for style points.

Dude's also a hardcore climate change denier.

Just saying.

Why?

"Bye bye mainstream, hello ghetto."

Yes, because your use of deprecated software is no longer supported is TOTALLY the same thing as being relocated into the Ghetto in Warsaw.

They're not a startup.

I don't know how you got warm fuzzy from that ending, but I'm not clear on why giving alcohol to someone living on the streets makes you angry. Does being homeless imply that someone is obviously an alcoholic that shouldn't be allowed near alcohol?

"Main exclusion criteria consisted in <18 years of age, having no previous experience with a psychedelic/hallucinogenic drug..."

I'd be really interested to hear the participants (who weren't given the placebo) describe their experience and what, if any, lasting impacts it's had.

If you've gotten to your mid 30s (participant mean age was 34.4) and you don't have any prior hallucinogenic experience, DMT is one helluva introduction.

Yeah, but it's really funny clickbait

Clickbait misrepresentation of a study on worms, which reinforces dubious and harmful stereotypes.

I wish it was just an issue of terrible journalism on epic levels, but it looks like the the studies Co-Author may be onboard the "I'm terrible at/to science" train :

"Although we have not looked in humans, it is plausible that the male human brain has types of neurons that the female brain doesn't, and vice versa. This may change how the two sexes perceive the world and their behavioural priorities."

This truly is a prime example of a dumpster fire of shame, career limiting laziness, and self destructive behavior.

The immediate and generational trauma and pain that's being caused by this violence is fucking horrendous and something that enrages and saddens me.

I choose to focus my ire on those responsible for creating the policies and making the decisions to create the situation, not the people at the bottom of the ladder who are responsible for enacting them.

I find your lack of empathy disturbing.

You don't have to, but doing so is a strategy to prevent yourself from going down that same path.

When you cast people into the realm of inhuman monster, you're also telling yourself a story that there is no possible way that you could potentially commit the same acts.

Which is, 99% of the time, a total lie. Humans are exceptionally good at creating moral justification for whatever the hell we want to do.

If you're convinced you are constitutionally incapable of committing monstrous acts, then you're not likely to engage in the self reflection that would allow you to catch yourself if you start heading down that path.

TL;DR; DoD Manual says subordinates have an obligation to question morality of orders. Lack of empathy is a severe handicap and liability for a soldier.

The DOD is pretty clear on this point ( https://tinyurl.com/yxqfwyrx [link to PDF of the DoD Law of War Manual] )

""" 5.10.2.4 Duty Not to Comply With Clearly Illegal Orders and the Principle of Proportionality. In the context of the principle of distinction, it would often be clear whether a given situation implicates the duty not to comply with clearly illegal orders to commit law of war violations – such as the duty of a subordinate to refrain from complying with an order to attack the civilian population. However, the nuances involved in applying the principle of proportionality could make it more difficult to know whether an order given is clearly illegal. The duty not to comply with orders that are clearly illegal also applies to violations of the principle of proportionality, in particular, the case of a commander who orders subordinates to conduct an attack that is expected to result in civilian casualties that the commander himself or herself acknowledges would be excessive """

You're absolutely right that the ability to make those assessments in the field isn't always going to be there, but that doesn't mean that there is no requirement or need for subordinates to be able to assess orders and actions.

I'm assuming the type of person who has no issue at all with taking life lacks (or has seriously damaged) capacity for empathy. Beyond the basic issues of morality and human decency, someone without the capacity for empathy is severely disadvantaged when it comes to assessment and awareness.

Being able to conceptualize and examine the intellectual and emotional state of another human provides a huge predictive advantage. Assessing someones potential to be a threat is far easier when you can understand what could potentially cause them to justify violence towards you.

To sum up, If you have no qualms with taking life, and you lack the capacity for empathy, you are not properly equipped to serve in the military.

I'm inferring from your statement that you believe that the only justified use of deadly force is a situation where someone is themselves at risk of physical harm, is that accurate?

As far as caring for them, I don't think anyone is obliged to care for anyone or anything (free will and all that). I do think that the more people that you choose to place into your own personal out-group of "gofuckthemselves", the more of your own humanity you lose touch with.

you can stuff Node and that ridiculous dependency system where the sun don't shine.

You're really taking embedded computing to the next level

Does this only apply to the Swiss government, or is Facebook sharing any pictures that hit their filters with law enforcement agencies of whatever country you happen to be living in?

Precisely!

Soldiers in an active military zone would almost certainly not be subject to any scrutiny or investigation for fatally shooting someone who they believed to be armed in the same situation.

Thanks for the supporting evidence!!!!

That's an excellent question, I'd say that's the kind of assessment that most likely needs to be made in the moment.

I'd prefer the people whose job it is to make those assessments on a daily basis to have a strong moral and ethical framework, and to have the psychological and institutional support to maintain a connection with their humanity.

I think the process of dehumanization occurs on all sides of the equation, and it's something to be questioned and examined whenever it happens.

Engaging in the same process and behavior damages the intellectual credibility of an argument because it allows you to ignore potentially relevant information. It also significant diminishes any moral authority you may be laying claim to.

It doesn't matter how much care was taken in making the initial judgement if the information using it to reach it is flawed, or if the situation changes in the time between the decision being made and it's execution.

I'd imagine that someone with no qualms about taking human life would be far less likely to confirm the validity and accuracy of those justifications.

I don't think anyone wants drone operators who dismiss a group of children playing near a target because they don't place a value on human life.

Do you believe that there is ever a justification for taking human life?

I'd argue that the main objective of the job is to achieve the strategic objectives of the country engaged in armed conflict. Indiscriminate killing completely devoid of a moral or ethical framework definitely does not accomplish that objective.

I don't think that's the argument the author was making:

"Further, there needs to be proper counselling and supports for pilots following use of lethal force.

While such pilots might be removed from physical risks, we have a moral responsibility to ensure not just that drones are used in ways that adhere to the ethics of warfare, but that the pilots are adequately supported in their roles."

I'd say it's absolutely vital to have the responsibility in the hands of do have problems with "pushing the kill button", and then provide them with psychological support services to handle that duty.

Giving people with no qualms or moral struggles with taking human life the tools to do so on a massive scale is an absolutely terrifying idea.

A cop who followed the same regulations and rules of engagement as a soldier would be committing a crime.

Because they have entirely different jobs, in entirely different contexts, with entirely different rules, serving entirely different purposes.

Your comment strikes me as textbook dehumanization of the drone pilots.

"Dehumanizing the enemy involves denying the enemy’s humanity by negating in the enemy the characteristics normally associated with human beings, such as morality and compassion, and instead associating the enemy with acts of evil and depravity that merit forceful action and retaliation."

https://sk.sagepub.com/reference/the-sage-encyclopedia-of-wa...

The irony here is pretty intense.

Sharing the dataset with the full email list instead of individually sharing his results with each person on the list definitely toes the boundary, but given that the parents are going to be the drivers of change in this situation I'd say it's reasonable.

If you were in the same position as the author, how would you handle disclosure?

It's not always the case to be sure, but I'd argue that there's a large difference between making the intentional choice to share information and accidentally disclosing it to unintended parties.

The author spent a non-trivial amount of time researching the social media profiles and interactions in this group, and noted a pattern of interaction that was atypical between an adult and a minor.

If it was typical socialization within that community, then I find it unlikely he would have only found a single instance.

*edit to fix autocorrect typos

https://www.dol.gov/general/ppii

"PII is defined as information: (i) that directly identifies an individual (e.g., name, address, social security number or other identifying number or code, telephone number, email address"