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

Anonymous Google Employees Voted Arms Control Persons of the Year

armscontrol.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 159 posts

Re: Anonymous Google Employees Voted Arms Control Persons of the Year

#101

Post by avmich »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #77
darawk wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who gets to make that determination? We do. Because we can. That is how the world works. If you don't make the decision, it gets made for you in the other direction. > Also please don't pretend any of the US military engagements since WW2 had any other purpose than serving national interest. This is a pretty childish sentiment. Reasons for war are complex. The world is actually a complicated place, and admits multi…

We do. Because we can. That is how the world works That's all well and good, but I don't want to hear a lot of whining from your corner when the next 9/11 happens.

Indeed. While I understand shock in USA at 9/11, I also understand where opinions that "America deserved it" had their merit.

Re: Anonymous Google Employees Voted Arms Control Persons of the Year

#102

Post by [deleted] »

rifung wrote: post #53
drak0n1c wrote: post #6

Unfortunately, the divide between Silicon Valley and the Pentagon will be bad for national security in the long run. Recent news cycles keep revealing yet another piece military equipment suffering from software weaknesses. Technology does not stand still, if Russia and China have more of their most talented engineers willing to work on national projects than us that will inevitably lead to a competence gap. Here is…

> Unfortunately, the divide between Silicon Valley and the Pentagon will be bad for national security in the long run I work for Google, opinions are my own. I agree. However I think in the case of Google and most other companies, the issue is a little more.. awkward? Besides the fact we have offices in other countries, we also employ many people in the US from other countries. Obviously those people may have very di…

[deleted]

Re: Anonymous Google Employees Voted Arms Control Persons of the Year

#104

Post by darawk »

avmich wrote: post #99
darawk wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You just claimed that if we don't get them they'll get us No I didn't. Read what I said again.

I read this - "If you don't make the decision, it gets made for you in the other direction" - and I understand that just as GP wrote.

And how exactly does that mean "if we don't get them, they'll get us"? What it means is that not acting is as much an action as doing so.

Re: Anonymous Google Employees Voted Arms Control Persons of the Year

#105

Post by darawk »

JohnFen wrote: post #100
darawk wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. Being successful doesn't mean you were right to do what you did. However, having the ability to impose your will and choosing not to is a moral choice, just as much as choosing to impose it is. If we have the power to stop terrible things from happening in other parts of the world, at some point, it is our duty to. This is complicated and wrapped up in issues of sovereignty, of course.

I agree. I'm not a pacifist, and I certainly think there are situations where violently attacking people is, on the whole, the right thing to do. I'm merely objecting to the notion that being the toughest kid on the block implies it's always right to use force. Might does not equal right. Sufficient might only equals military victory, nothing more.

> I'm merely objecting to the notion that being the toughest kid on the block implies it's always right to use force. Might does not equal right. Sufficient might only equals military victory, nothing more

Absolutely. I did not mean to imply that in any way. What I meant was that might gives you the power, and therefore responsibility, to make moral decisions about when and where to impose your will on others when they are acting 'sufficiently immorally', however you choose to define that.

Re: Anonymous Google Employees Voted Arms Control Persons of the Year

#106

Post by ambicapter »

the_duke wrote: post #46
NotAnEconomist wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the media has a lot to do with that. They run stories about how the military bombs some civilians while fighting jihadists, but not about how those same jihadists routinely round up and torture children, kill scores of locals, etc. Outside of Iraq, which fuck Bush, can you name something about the "War on Terror" you think we'd be better off not doing? I think it's a really shallow view to say it's better to…

You seem to be implying that it's perfectly fine for the US to bomb a family home if a terrorist is in there, accepting civilian casualties, because they might harm the population? Who gets to make that determination? A random drone pilot? An officer? Also please don't pretend any of the US military engagements since WW2 had any other purpose than serving national interest.

> any other purpose than serving national interest

Spreading democratic and egalitarian values is in the national interest.

Re: Anonymous Google Employees Voted Arms Control Persons of the Year

#107

Post by Gibbon1 »

JohnFen wrote: post #100
darawk wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. Being successful doesn't mean you were right to do what you did. However, having the ability to impose your will and choosing not to is a moral choice, just as much as choosing to impose it is. If we have the power to stop terrible things from happening in other parts of the world, at some point, it is our duty to. This is complicated and wrapped up in issues of sovereignty, of course.

I agree. I'm not a pacifist, and I certainly think there are situations where violently attacking people is, on the whole, the right thing to do. I'm merely objecting to the notion that being the toughest kid on the block implies it's always right to use force. Might does not equal right. Sufficient might only equals military victory, nothing more.

> implies it's always right to use force.

Ever notice that people arguing for war are always anxious that the opportunity will slip away if we don't attack _them_ this instant?

Ever also notice that _them_ look pretty much like a lot of erstwhile allies that we aren't at loggerheads with?

Re: Anonymous Google Employees Voted Arms Control Persons of the Year

#108

Post by ambicapter »

whatshisface wrote: post #45
tengbretson wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That only holds true if you consider the military rivals of the United States to be greater forces for good in the world than the US. I would consider that an indefensible position.

The stance held by Google engineers seems to be more subtle than that, although it is fairly clear: a weapon produced by an American company may go either to kill a civilian in a pointless war in a country nobody has ever heard of (high-probability), or to kill a Chinese soldier in a future war for the survival of our country (low-probability). The US government could address this by improving the mix ratio between p…

> The US government could address this

Yes, the US government could. Interestingly, the US military couldn't. Remember to vote, kids!

Re: Anonymous Google Employees Voted Arms Control Persons of the Year

#109

Post by jopsen »

Apocryphon wrote: post #31
drak0n1c wrote: post #6

Unfortunately, the divide between Silicon Valley and the Pentagon will be bad for national security in the long run. Recent news cycles keep revealing yet another piece military equipment suffering from software weaknesses. Technology does not stand still, if Russia and China have more of their most talented engineers willing to work on national projects than us that will inevitably lead to a competence gap. Here is…

The U.S. arms industry is huge, and so is defense spending. If the DoD wants better talent, then budget accordingly and pay high salaries and fix up their recruitment messages and surely some smart CS grads will go to them. Why should our military be dependent upon SV civilian companies that have workers who don’t want to work on military applications? Then just hire the ones who do, fund new military-oriented startu…

IMO the big problem is that many of the big SV companies build end-user products. And to protect that they shouldn't want to get into arms contracts.

Re: Anonymous Google Employees Voted Arms Control Persons of the Year

#110

Post by [deleted] »

tossaccount123 wrote: post #80
drak0n1c wrote: post #6

Unfortunately, the divide between Silicon Valley and the Pentagon will be bad for national security in the long run. Recent news cycles keep revealing yet another piece military equipment suffering from software weaknesses. Technology does not stand still, if Russia and China have more of their most talented engineers willing to work on national projects than us that will inevitably lead to a competence gap. Here is…

Google is actively helping the Chinese military by opening their AI center in China. Every bit of the IP they develop in China will be in the hands of the government and thus weaponized by the Chinese military. Yet I haven't heard a peep of protest from the same people who criticized project Maven https://taskandpurpose.com/google-china-artificial-intellige... https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/13/alphabets-google-opens-ch…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN