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

Goodbye, and Thanks for All the Bikesheds

queue.acm.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 285 posts

Re: Goodbye, and Thanks for All the Bikesheds

#91

Post by dgellow »

chaps wrote: post #70
layer8 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author is predicting a decrease in privacy, but would prefer these predictions to be wrong.

Gotcha, thank you. (just to be clear, my post was just to point out that the article is very difficult to make heads or tails of. it's easy to misinterpret a lot of the points many different ways! kind of like they're being overly implicit with the expectation that everyone'll know what they mean. it's something I do too and my way of cutting through it is to cut my writing in half and focus on clarity over mystique)

That reads like any old school blog post where the author is sharing their thoughts on a few topics. I don’t see what is confusing about it

Re: Goodbye, and Thanks for All the Bikesheds

#92

Post by ball_of_lint »

ai_critic wrote: post #35

First read of this pissed me off, but subsequent reads gave a much different opinion. Do yourself a favor and read this, a few times, and take a moment to actually try and see what the author's getting at.

Oh it's so nuanced and hard to parse that he's arguing for compromise.

The trouble is, compromise isn't really a tenable option with encryption. Either you make a draconian law that forces all electronic devices to run approved software only, or people will have access to easy encrypted messaging. There's really no middle ground, because where the smallest weakening of encryption affects everyone's privacy, only outlawing encryption completely will get it out of the hands of criminals. The cat's out of the bag.

Author here and in earlier writing seems to make the argument that a little compromise would make the courts less unhappy, but I think that's misattributing motivation. These laws actually are originated by big tech, who think they will be shielded from liability and make more money off of selling your data. https://github.com/upper-up/meta-lobbying-and-other-findings

Re: Goodbye, and Thanks for All the Bikesheds

#93

Post by simianthoughts »

dgellow wrote: post #76
st3fan wrote: post #27

"LLM-assisted code review won't be a huge disruptor" is quite the prediction. Because it already is in a very big way. The take on LLMs seems incredibly out of date and out of touch with reality. (Which of course, has moved/advanced very fast the past months/year)

That’s not his prediction, he made it clear they are useful. His conclusion for that section is this: > The only real question for me is: Are the LLM-code-review tools economically viable outside the bubble?

So is he suggesting that in the future, models of Opus 4.8 tier will no longer be as affordable? Like it would become 3-5x more expensive?

Now that's quite a prediction.

Re: Goodbye, and Thanks for All the Bikesheds

#94

Post by tbrownaw »

andix wrote: post #23

I don't think age restriction will impact FOSS in the long term. If there are some regulations that threaten FOSS now, they are going to be adopted in the long term. Regulations for age restriction are understandable. A lot of modern technology is harming kids (and I don't mean dirty videos, social media seems to be much more harmful). A sensible regulator would leave some responsibility to the parents, but require r…

> social media seems to be much more harmful

The stuff I've seen on this doesn't look terribly convincing. It seems to mostly be along the same lines as saying that since some people get bullied or hang out with a bad crowd, socializing in general is harmful.

Re: Goodbye, and Thanks for All the Bikesheds

#95

Post by Barrin92 »

logifail wrote: post #36
andix wrote: post #23

I don't think age restriction will impact FOSS in the long term. If there are some regulations that threaten FOSS now, they are going to be adopted in the long term. Regulations for age restriction are understandable. A lot of modern technology is harming kids (and I don't mean dirty videos, social media seems to be much more harmful). A sensible regulator would leave some responsibility to the parents, but require r…

> A sensible regulator would leave some responsibility to the parents (Speaking as a parent of three) why can't we just leave all responsibility to the parents? In our experience in the offline world it seems this applies! I speak as someone who's taken each of my three children - for two of them, multiple times - to the emergency room to be treated for broken bones incurred in the course of Real Life[tm]. Yes, they…

>why can't we just leave all responsibility to the parents?

because we don't live in a 15th century peasant village. The average adult reads at a 7th grade level, 20% of adults are considered functionally illiterate, most adults can't navigate digital spaces, privacy and social media themselves or take on trillion dollar companies.

This also hasn't applied in the offline world since idk, Kant and Hegel, every modern state recognizes that children are persons and citizens in development, not private possessions. If your children have broken bones you can't explain or your parenting is considered to threaten the welfare of your child you can be pretty sure you'll have the authorities at your door quickly, and countries like France have given children the right to sue their parents in case they breach their digital privacy. So called 'sharenting' laws exist because it's not guaranteed that parents are even respecting the privacy of their own children.

Re: Goodbye, and Thanks for All the Bikesheds

#96

Post by chaps »

dgellow wrote: post #91
chaps wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gotcha, thank you. (just to be clear, my post was just to point out that the article is very difficult to make heads or tails of. it's easy to misinterpret a lot of the points many different ways! kind of like they're being overly implicit with the expectation that everyone'll know what they mean. it's something I do too and my way of cutting through it is to cut my writing in half and focus on clarity over mystique)

That reads like any old school blog post where the author is sharing their thoughts on a few topics. I don’t see what is confusing about it

Sigh. Just because you don't understand why something is confusing to someone doesn't mean it isn't confusing. That's literally the point I'm trying to make. I'm glad it wasn't confusing to you.

Re: Goodbye, and Thanks for All the Bikesheds

#97

Post by PeterStuer »

"We could have designed our protocols to be minimally compatible with “a nation of laws,” but the tech bros insisted that compromise was treason, and, as a result, we will lose more privacy than necessary"

Unfortunately, no, you can't have a prophilactic that just makes you a little bit pregnant. We used to know this.

Re: Goodbye, and Thanks for All the Bikesheds

#98

Post by sfn42 »

ball_of_lint wrote: post #92
ai_critic wrote: post #35

First read of this pissed me off, but subsequent reads gave a much different opinion. Do yourself a favor and read this, a few times, and take a moment to actually try and see what the author's getting at.

Oh it's so nuanced and hard to parse that he's arguing for compromise. The trouble is, compromise isn't really a tenable option with encryption. Either you make a draconian law that forces all electronic devices to run approved software only, or people will have access to easy encrypted messaging. There's really no middle ground, because where the smallest weakening of encryption affects everyone's privacy, only outl…

> make a draconian law that forces all electronic devices to run approved software only

That would outlaw programming. It's just not feasible at all, anyone with any kind of tech literacy understands that encryption is here to stay. It's also necessary for the web to function at all for the things we use it for, such as banking.

There is no way to prevent people from communicating in secret. Even if they did strictly control digital communication people would just communicate some other way.

Re: Goodbye, and Thanks for All the Bikesheds

#99

Post by logifail »

mejutoco wrote: post #42
logifail wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A sensible regulator would leave some responsibility to the parents (Speaking as a parent of three) why can't we just leave all responsibility to the parents? In our experience in the offline world it seems this applies! I speak as someone who's taken each of my three children - for two of them, multiple times - to the emergency room to be treated for broken bones incurred in the course of Real Life[tm]. Yes, they…

Even in the offline world that is not the case. Ex. Alkohol sales

> Even in the offline world that is not the case. Ex. Alkohol sales

I bought a beer yesterday and shared it with our 16 year-old, and I shared some wine with him this evening.

How does that not come under "parental responsibility"?

Re: Goodbye, and Thanks for All the Bikesheds

#100

Post by elric »

r_lee wrote: post #56

> my personal guess is that the opportunities for anonymity on the Internet will shrink until mothers no longer are forced to have “the talk” when their daughters get their first mobile phone. As the parent of a daughter, I am totally on board with that. depends on the age but.. they've probably discovered all kinds of shit already or heard about it from others

I don't think he was talking about "the birds and the bees"-talk, but about the "some random men will send you unsollicited dick pics just because you're a girl"-talk.
Post reply on HN