Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I thought I was being ‘blacklisted’, so I demanded to see colleagues’ emails

independent.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 202 posts

Re: I thought I was being ‘blacklisted’, so I demanded to see colleagues’ emails

#181

Post by bena »

SkyBelow wrote: post #178
bena wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's impossible to actually know whether or not we have anything approaching free will. We could be a simulation, there could be an omnipotent deity, we could be the product of a bunch of processes unique to ourselves. None of it matters. We can only act on the world as we perceive it. If the world is controlled by some outside force that can manipulate it at will, including our perception and memory of events, there…

>So. If free will doesn't exist, it doesn't change anything. Because we cannot change the path we're on. We have no choice. Which is why if I say there is free will and I'm right, then I'm right, and if I'm wrong, then I never had a choice and so right and wrong doesn't apply.

But Pascal's wager is about risk vs. reward. Here, there is neither risk nor reward. The entire question of whether free will exists or not is pointless.

If it exists, nothing changes. If it doesn't exist, nothing changes. And regardless whether you believe it exists or not: If you're right about whether it exists, nothing changes. If you're wrong about whether it exists, nothing changes.

So no matter the truth, no matter the outcome, everything is exactly the same. That means the question itself is pointless.

And right and wrong would still apply, it's just that if free will does not exist, we couldn't morally fault you for choosing wrong, you had no choice. But then again, I wouldn't have the choice in whether or not to morally fault you.

Re: I thought I was being ‘blacklisted’, so I demanded to see colleagues’ emails

#182

Post by bena »

sysbin wrote: post #127
SkyBelow wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Free will is an illusion and simply it doesn't exist. I'll ante with Pascal's wager and say it does exist. If I'm right, then I'm right. If I'm wrong, then the whole notion of right and wrong aren't applicable to reality, no different than CH4 + 2O2 => CO2 + 2H2O just being and not having a right or wrong to it. Unless there is an alternative to the options free will exists and free will does not exist, then this wa…

Pascal's wager (the original) has a flaw in it. One doesn't know and or can prove if God is evil. So I don't really know how else to respond to what you wrote.

One of the flaws in Pascal's wager is that it is equally applicable to any religion where the punishment for disbelief is eternal torture.

Another is that an omnipotent being can be fooled by worship without belief.

Pascal's wager is essentially a long-winded "Yeah, but what if you're wrong?"

Re: I thought I was being ‘blacklisted’, so I demanded to see colleagues’ emails

#183

Post by tptacek »

dragonwriter wrote: post #141
harryh wrote: post #21

You can generally do the same thing in the US for emails to/from public university addresses with a FOIA request. This seems kind of wild to me, but apparently it works.

> You can generally do the same thing in the US for emails to/from public university addresses with a FOIA request No, you can't, because FOIA applies to federal agencies only. Some official communications of a public university might be subject to similar state sunshine laws, but not all email to and from public university email addresses (even some official communication would be protected by FERPA or other privacy…

I don't know if you're technically-and-therefore-the-best-kind-of correct about this, but something like FOIA broadly applies to local governments as well, which I know because my friend 'bpchaps has been applying it at scale to municipalities all across the US.

Re: I thought I was being ‘blacklisted’, so I demanded to see colleagues’ emails

#184

Post by dragonwriter »

tptacek wrote: post #183
dragonwriter wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can generally do the same thing in the US for emails to/from public university addresses with a FOIA request No, you can't, because FOIA applies to federal agencies only. Some official communications of a public university might be subject to similar state sunshine laws, but not all email to and from public university email addresses (even some official communication would be protected by FERPA or other privacy…

I don't know if you're technically-and-therefore-the-best-kind-of correct about this, but something like FOIA broadly applies to local governments as well, which I know because my friend 'bpchaps has been applying it at scale to municipalities all across the US.

> but something like FOIA broadly applies to local governments as well

The second of the two sentences in the grandparent comment addresses the similar state laws.

Re: I thought I was being ‘blacklisted’, so I demanded to see colleagues’ emails

#185

Post by bryanrasmussen »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #170
dahdum wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could be right, but "more qualified" doesn't have to mean "technical expertise in this exact standard". They could easily be weighing factors such as previous leadership experience, team/group experience, stated career goals, stated interests, demeanor, or experience in other tangential technologies.

there was nothing stated about anything like any of that in the announcement, I mean it was such a close match to me that I was awfully tempted to send back an email "what do you mean more experienced, who is the more experienced person in the country for these things you say you want than I"

The only thing that makes me think I'm wrong is the consideration that maybe my CV at the time was too crowded, I later had someone improve my CV and after that it started getting more uptake, but even so it was too weird, to make an example here (and note to make the example mean anything I have to use someone famous enough that people will understand it, I am not making any equivalence between us), it would be equivalent to a job announcement saying:

You have a very strong background in Ruby on Rails, understanding of Instiki Wiki, and the Basecamp project management software. You have developed at least one open source project that is used by many people, and you should also have developed at least one project management software. Over that it would be nice if you know something about racing cars, and have won the "Hacker of the Year" award at least once.

And then when David Heinemeier Hansson applies waiting months to send a reply "we decided to go with someone more qualified" without even interviewing him.

Note: I hope I don't get any of those I you are really conceited to compare yourself to Hansson comments, since that is not what I'm doing.

Re: I thought I was being ‘blacklisted’, so I demanded to see colleagues’ emails

#186

Post by brokenmachine »

Shivetya wrote: post #120
ape4 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to us, but its info stored in a structured way so... maybe legally.

I would hope not. How can one's demand for information supersede another persons right to privacy in their communications? So will this come down to any email which passes through an officially recognized organization, be it government or corporation or educational, as open to inspection and possible litigation? Talk about an Orwellian nightmare

You have it backwards. If the government/public corporations keep everything secret, that's the Orwellian nightmare.

The person you are suggesting has the right to privacy is acting in an official capacity, paid for by public money. These are not personal emails.

Just that fact that one person is bringing a litigation, is not a valid reason to mark everything top secret.

If you make everything in the machinations of government secret, then these things (and much worse) will still happen, but there will be no transparency or recourse. That is the worst possible outcome.

Re: I thought I was being ‘blacklisted’, so I demanded to see colleagues’ emails

#187

Post by brokenmachine »

GordonS wrote: post #150
zaarn wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>though in the EU they have to provide notice of that monitoring There is an interesting exception; if private usage of your work mail account is banned, it should not contain private data and therefore, it's free to be monitored. Same for internet usage. This is usually coded into your contract when you sign.

Work emails can easily contain private data too. I might send an email to my manager asking for time off for deeply personal reasons, or informing them about very personal circumstances (e.g. health). There are of course numerous less impactful examples. An employer monitoring Internet usage is a very different case - in almost all cases it will be fully automated, and the logs only available to HR on request; not ju…

But those would only be discussing yourself. Nobody else would be able to request those emails.

Re: I thought I was being ‘blacklisted’, so I demanded to see colleagues’ emails

#188

Post by brokenmachine »

GordonS wrote: post #144
pjc50 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does this infringe on freedom of speech? You can still make the speech, but it may get back to the person you're speaking about. Which, in an employment context, is kind of necessary for procedural fairness.

I disagree; it should be possible to have private conversations regarding work, while at work.

If you don't use your work email address for such private emails then that's fine.

Re: I thought I was being ‘blacklisted’, so I demanded to see colleagues’ emails

#189

Post by brokenmachine »

zaarn wrote: post #46
icebraining wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GDPR does say "the right to obtain a copy (...) shall not adversely affect the rights and freedoms of others", but it doesn't spell out what that means. Still, your work email account can be monitored by your employer (though in the EU they have to provide notice of that monitoring), so you don't have the same protection as in a private account. OTOH, it could be a violation of privacy / data-protection for the a…

>though in the EU they have to provide notice of that monitoring There is an interesting exception; if private usage of your work mail account is banned, it should not contain private data and therefore, it's free to be monitored. Same for internet usage. This is usually coded into your contract when you sign.

Interestingly, all emails sent from my work email have an auto-added disclaimer at the bottom saying effectively that anything contained is my own views, and not necessarily those of my employer.

Companies can have their cake and eat it too.

Re: I thought I was being ‘blacklisted’, so I demanded to see colleagues’ emails

#190

Post by zaarn »

brokenmachine wrote: post #189
zaarn wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>though in the EU they have to provide notice of that monitoring There is an interesting exception; if private usage of your work mail account is banned, it should not contain private data and therefore, it's free to be monitored. Same for internet usage. This is usually coded into your contract when you sign.

Interestingly, all emails sent from my work email have an auto-added disclaimer at the bottom saying effectively that anything contained is my own views, and not necessarily those of my employer. Companies can have their cake and eat it too.

It depends on your company.
Post reply on HN