Gov Parson pushes to prosecute reporter who found security flaw in state site • Hacker News Board

Re: Gov Parson pushes to prosecute reporter who found security flaw in state site

#501

Post by tessierashpool » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 9:37 PM UTC

whatthesmack wrote: post #489

tessierashpool wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

losing in court will just feed the GOP victim narrative. from a political standpoint, the Governor's ignorant aggression is a win-win. he can say he stood up to the liberal courts and the tech elite. but then again, Trump often lies about his losses in courts, claims they were wins, and gets applause from his audience. the GOP is a counter-majoritarian party, which makes counterfactual statements inevitable.

There's bad, ignorant people on all sides of the political spectrum. There are plenty of people just like this governor that are in the other camp. It's not useful to use a ridiculous situation like this as confirmation of your political beliefs.

there's only one Fox News. there's only one Trump. your comment would have been reasonable in 1980. it's 2021.

Re: Gov Parson pushes to prosecute reporter who found security flaw in state site

#502

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 9:43 PM UTC

nrmitchi wrote: post #27

Acutulus wrote: post #7

I find the article title kind of curious, given that it states Parson has "doubled down" which suggests that the video the article references is an active effort on Parson's part. It then goes on to state that the video was produced by a PAC Parson created but doesn't give direct input to. Comes off as unnecessarily inflammatory to me I suppose. Having said that, this situation in particular really tests my willingne…

This situation is keeping his name in the spotlight, and people will, in general, be more likely to vote for names that they recognize. I don't believe that there is any other reason here.

[deleted]

Re: Gov Parson pushes to prosecute reporter who found security flaw in state site

#503

Post by zepto » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 9:44 PM UTC

DFHippie wrote: post #500

zepto wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, you could just not base your thinking on choosing a side which is ‘the lesser of two evils’ to be your savior, and recognize that the behaviors are a problem rather than the team.

It seems you are expressing two ideas which are in conflict. The "lesser of two evils" argument is precisely about choosing "behavior" (really results or goals) over choosing a team. But I'll give it a go anyway. I am assuming you have to vote or abstain from voting. Then your choice is whether you are trying to achieve changes in the world or achieve a certain self image. If you are trying to achieve changes in the…

Voting behavior is quite distinct from commenting online, or identifying with a particular side. Why are you talking about voting now?

As for ‘the lesser of two evils’:

> You have to decide which party is actually telling more damaging lies, taking more damaging actions, or doing more good, and act accordingly.

This is you telling us we have to make that choice.

Re: Gov Parson pushes to prosecute reporter who found security flaw in state site

#504

Post by IG_Semmelweiss » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 9:45 PM UTC

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #119

nrmitchi wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This situation is keeping his name in the spotlight, and people will, in general, be more likely to vote for names that they recognize. I don't believe that there is any other reason here.

I would assume this is pure politics. He knows perfectly well who is to blame, but he's using the situation opportunistically to further his own career. The issue isn't just that he's objectively and morally wrong, it's that most voters don't see through the grandstanding. All they see - and all they want to see - is a rich old white dude punching down at some college-educated kid who thinks he's clever enough to hav…

Is it better to not assume malice, to an action that can perfectly be attributed to incompetence?

Should we assume that elected officials have software engineers on staff or on call? Or assume staffers with software engineering background exist.. in traditionally low-pay positions ("elected official liaison" or "advisor")

?

Re: Gov Parson pushes to prosecute reporter who found security flaw in state site

#505

Post by hardwaregeek » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 9:47 PM UTC

fallingknife wrote: post #457

hardwaregeek wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd firmly disagree. Workers has an implication of voluntary, paid work. There's a reason we have a specific word for unpaid, non-voluntary work. Not to mention slavery extended beyond work. Being a slave was not only backbreaking unpaid labor, but also a whole host of horrors outside work such as rape, family separation, forced breeding, torture, etc. Calling slaves "workers" is a deeply inaccurate categorization. S…

I would associate that more with "employee," with "worker" being an umbrella term. Note that "worker" is also used in a bunch of other contexts. Worker bee, worker thread, miracle worker, etc.

Okay but using umbrella terms obscures the crucial aspect of being a slave: non voluntary, unpaid labor. Yes, it is technically correct in an extremely literal sense. But that's not the same as it being the right term in the context of teaching students about the slave trade. If I said "his great grandfather was a worker", it would not imply slavery, indeed most people would assume the opposite connotation, that his great grandfather was a paid worker.

I can't help but feel like you're confusing literal correctness with appropriateness. And while literal correctness is an easier judgement to make, there are many literally correct statements that absolutely miss the point. Saying that slaves were "workers" is one of them.

Re: Gov Parson pushes to prosecute reporter who found security flaw in state site

#506

Post by tialaramex » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 9:49 PM UTC

vixen99 wrote: post #443

tialaramex wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a lesson from Gödel, Escher, Bach's Tortoise and Achilles stories too. Because the Tortoise refuses to accept Modus ponens (if A implies B, and A, then B), Achilles is unable to convince it of anything. The facts Achilles tells the Tortoise aren't any less true for its stubborn refusal to accept them, but Achilles won't convince the Turtle of them. If people won't be reasoned with, don't waste your time tryin…

For the benefit of a non-US reader can you be specific about this? What exactly are they stupid about as in, presumably, refusing to act appropriately when a fact stares them in the face. How relevant to the argument is it that the group are Republican? Are there no examples where groups of Democrats behave in a similarly stupid fashion - assuming the validity of your claim? You are clearly desperate to make a partis…

In most countries, anti-vaccination positions are found in crazy sub-groups with both left and right tendencies and so can reasonably be said to have nothing to do with any mainstream political party. The serious opposition parties in New Zealand, the United Kingdom, or Canada, would have different policies on the minutia of the pandemic, but they aren't opposed to the vaccinations the government bought.

But in the US that's a tacit Republican party position. Most senior Republicans have of course actually been vaccinated, but watch so many of them carefully choose their words to avoid endorsing vaccination. And the more junior Republicans, hungry for voter enthusiasm and maybe less scared of dying themselves, will outright say it, e.g. Lauren Boebert.

Result: Dead Republicans.

And I really don't have a partisan point here, it's usually Kang versus Kodos, it's just that the Republicans decided to go, as they say "full retard". You don't need to have a partisan dog in the game to know that the point of Democracy isn't who wins an election but the fact of peaceful transitions of power, and who did we see trying to prevent that peaceful transition of power in the US? Exactly.

Re: Gov Parson pushes to prosecute reporter who found security flaw in state site

#507

Post by DFHippie » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 9:55 PM UTC

zepto wrote: post #503

DFHippie wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems you are expressing two ideas which are in conflict. The "lesser of two evils" argument is precisely about choosing "behavior" (really results or goals) over choosing a team. But I'll give it a go anyway. I am assuming you have to vote or abstain from voting. Then your choice is whether you are trying to achieve changes in the world or achieve a certain self image. If you are trying to achieve changes in the…

Voting behavior is quite distinct from commenting online, or identifying with a particular side. Why are you talking about voting now? As for ‘the lesser of two evils’: > You have to decide which party is actually telling more damaging lies, taking more damaging actions, or doing more good, and act accordingly. This is you telling us we have to make that choice.

Yes, you have to make that choice. That was my point: choose better over worse.

The "more damaging lies" part is just trying not to be too rosy-eyed about any particular party. Your choices are imperfect, but that's the world we live in.

ETA In case it was unclear, I think political behavior aimed at your self image is vanity and thus self-defeating. Even if your chief goal is thinking better of yourself or getting others to think better of you, forsaking a choice to do good for the world at large in the interest of your own vanity will not achieve your goal. If you want a better image, you should still choose better over worse, not pretty and pointless over ugly and effective.

Re: Gov Parson pushes to prosecute reporter who found security flaw in state site

#508

Post by glenstein » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 9:56 PM UTC

zepto wrote: post #497

voltaireodactyl wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which side is worse is a matter of opinion. What perspectives do you see coming from the Democrat side that have the same mortality rate as vaccine refusal? (Or are there indicators you give equal/greater significance than mortality?)

Why is this question relevant? Anti-science views are anti-science regardless of the short term mortality rate you can attach to them or who is propagating them.

It's relevant because it would put some substance behind the "both sides do it" claim.

People commonly make this false equivalence, but as of 2021 it's fair to observe that it's just unequivocally false with respect to the question of respect for scientific consensus. If a lot of republicans disregard science (e.g. believe incorrect things about covid) and a few democrats do it (e.g. believing incorrect things about nuclear safety), people take these unequal examples and proceed claim it means both sides are the same, and believe that they are expressing a sophisticated position.

It's precisely this kind of illiteracy in the ability to assess the relative merits of differently weighted examples that makes the false equivalence possible. This which is why demands for substantiation are relevant and necessary.

Re: Gov Parson pushes to prosecute reporter who found security flaw in state site

#509

Post by munificent » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 10:04 PM UTC

mdp2021 wrote: post #347

munificent wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The trick is the realize that US politics today is essentially two groups of people who live in almost entirely separate realities that happen to spatially overlap. Public officials are in the odd state of being observed by members of both realities, but only acting and affected by one of them. The result is that their behavior looks super fucking weird to the other. It's like watching someone navigate a glass maze t…

> For politicians, winning elections is central. It is the source of all of their power. They know that the way to win elections is to get people on their side to show up and vote. Losing votes from the other side is essentially irrelevant — they weren't going to vote for them anyway. Politicians are fighting apathy, not the opposing party. This is called "perversion". > Once you understand this, ...'s behavior makes…

> journalism was there to determine facts, reality.

There are definitely plenty of journalists doing just that, which is why you and I are reading about this.

The problem is that roughly half the US electorate is not tuning in to those journalists, but they still have the vote.

> The disconnection to facts you indicate would be a horrible disease.

It is a horrible disease and the US is suffering mightily for it.

Re: Gov Parson pushes to prosecute reporter who found security flaw in state site

#510

Post by glenstein » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 10:04 PM UTC

morelisp wrote: post #344

hairofadog wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it? I'm pretty sure he coined it.

Colbert's joke was based on a comment from a Bush staffer concerning the "reality-based community" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community ): The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' [...] 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he con…

The other commenter is correct that Colbert coined the term. It's true that there was a lot of talk in that era about who did or didn't adhere to "reality" and how that related to partisanship, and a segment of the blogosphere that described themselves as the "reality based community," in reponse to that Rove quote, but none of that background context has anything to do with anything when it comes to the fact that the phrase itself, "reality has a liberal bias" is something that came from Colbert.

Of course it was in an intellectual climate where those words were charged with political meaning that made them salient enough to set up the joke. But to say it didn't original with Colbert would be to say that phrase itself was coined by a different person, and if it was, you could say who it was, and when and where. Otherwise it's just a confused detour into the weeds that lost track of the original question of attribution.

This is a huge detour, so to tie it back to the original thread, I think talks of "bias" are poisoned by a false assumption sides are equally estranged from scientific truth. It feels fair to make a both-sides argument, but it really just doesn't hold water under any serious examination especially when it comes to which party affiliation more systematically aligns with, responds to, and believes in scientific consensus.