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

The Darker Side of Aaron Swartz (2013)

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 175 posts

Re: The Darker Side of Aaron Swartz (2013)

#121

Post by [deleted] »

nzmsv wrote: post #61
pipeline_peak wrote: post #56

"His girlfriend Taren always dealt with taxi-drivers, with waitresses." "The guy in front of me’s leaning all the way back, but I’m in the last row so my seat doesn’t go back, and I have to lift my legs up to stretch out a muscle that was sitting funny while I was asleep" I feel like Aaron Swartz was never truly an adult, just a boyish intellectual. I can't imagine his submissive behavior was a net positive to his me…

And it sounds like he was perfectly aware of this. This feeling of being "not really a man" can be overwhelming, and I feel like this is an incredibly toxic thing perpetuated by our culture. It's possible to spend an entire lifetime trying to prove the opposite of this statement to the world, and most importantly oneself, and fail at this impossible task. But the saddest part is that because the majority of people th…

[deleted]

Re: The Darker Side of Aaron Swartz (2013)

#123

Post by hutzlibu »

pm90 wrote: post #67
hutzlibu wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"As an example, the topic of immigration will bring out the nastiest takes and opinions (and straight up racism)." Well, I would argue, that hackers can also be nasty racists. I mean sure, by my definition the hacker spirit is open minded by definition. But people with a open mind, are also open for some very weird to disgusting ideas.

Interesting, is the point here that hackers are susceptible to any idea that’s not mainstream? However racism doesn’t fit that category does it? Racism is a mainstream idea and not a novel one.

Open minded to anything.

And then use critical analysis to hack the concept apart and see, if it is solid or not.

I for example, see the common racism concept as not solid for lots of reasons. But I am open to listen to arguments from the other side in general.

(but not here and now)

Re: The Darker Side of Aaron Swartz (2013)

#124

Post by justinpowers »

HumanReadable wrote: post #107
borski wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I relate to this so much. The very odd “aggrandizing” that is so often necessary for starting and running a company, coupled with my massive impostor syndrome that is just never going to go away at this point, is a very very hard cognitive dissonance to manage. I’ve done it, and will do it again, but it makes me squirm on the inside.

Do you have any advice or wise words on how you manage this? I find myself in a leadership position, but I feel immensely uncomfortable when directing others. In my head there's always a nagging voice that replies 'who are you to tell us what to do?'

Seems to me the best leader might be someone who forever feels uncomfortable and uses that positively (eg asking for advice, promoting/delegating to betters, expressing gratitude, admitting mistakes, giving due credit) rather than negatively. A leader without discomfort suggests an unchecked ego…a recipe for eventual disaster no matter how long the good times (if any) may last.

Re: The Darker Side of Aaron Swartz (2013)

#125

Post by schoen »

andreilys wrote: post #102

I would love to understand some of the rationale behind MIT not reversing it's stance. Is there any public/anon writing from someone inside MIT at the time? Was there some pressure being employed by scientific publishers to make an example out of Swartz? It just seems so strange, but then again as we've seen institutions can be easily hijacked and corrupted when populated with the wrong actors.

MIT commissioned an entire report about its role

https://swartz-report.mit.edu/

-- maybe that includes some of what you're looking for.

Re: The Darker Side of Aaron Swartz (2013)

#126

Post by fsckboy »

stathibus wrote: post #36
pm90 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or, possibly, Hacker News doesn't represent hacker culture, but finance-adjacent right-wing techbro culture, which knows perfectly well which side of the copyright issue its bread is buttered on. Spot on. I like HN for certain topics, but it’s by no means representative of the Hacker culture. Even the name seems like duplicitous marketing at best. As an example, the topic of immigration will bring out the nastiest…

A long time ago now, the word "hacker" was captured by regular programmers screwing around who wanted to sound cool. I doubt anyone is confused about which definition HN is concerned with.

are you saying HN is NOT populated by regular programmers screwing around who want to sound cool?

Re: The Darker Side of Aaron Swartz (2013)

#127

Post by mr90210 »

HumanReadable wrote: post #107
borski wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I relate to this so much. The very odd “aggrandizing” that is so often necessary for starting and running a company, coupled with my massive impostor syndrome that is just never going to go away at this point, is a very very hard cognitive dissonance to manage. I’ve done it, and will do it again, but it makes me squirm on the inside.

Do you have any advice or wise words on how you manage this? I find myself in a leadership position, but I feel immensely uncomfortable when directing others. In my head there's always a nagging voice that replies 'who are you to tell us what to do?'

Prior to reading your comment, I had not been aware of such feeling.

I aspire to be in a leadership position in the future. However, right now let me tell you why and how I would like to be led or directed by somebody:

- You give me space to voice my opinions as if I am a specialist in the subject; - You give me space to make mistake and learn from them; - You are willing to admit that you don't know a certain topic; - You carry about your own self-development; - You are willing to support me on areas where I lack knowledge or experience without judging; - You often show that you care about the people in the team, and whether we are doing what matters; - You deal with me as the adult that I am, and you are open to have difficult conversations with empathy about topics such as: under-performance, misfit, interpersonal conflicts, or even about letting me go (firing);

"who are you to tell us what to do"

Well, you are the human capable of trusting each member of your team of doing the best they can, and capable of sitting with them when things are not working.

Re: The Darker Side of Aaron Swartz (2013)

#128

Post by zajio1am »

tptacek wrote: post #74
senko wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> he was facing 13 felony charges and up to 50 years in prison[0] Pretty hard slap, that. [0] https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/why-did-...

He faced nothing resembling 50 years, even on paper, even in the least charitable plausible analysis. You get to these nosebleed sentences by assuming that there are no sentencing guidelines, and no grouping of charges, and that instead you're likely to serve the sum of the maximum sentences spelled out in the statutes you violated. That makes no sense even as a story: the CFAA statutes capture behavior ranging from…

> What actually happens in sentencing is that you look up the relevant sentencing guidelines in the (public, easily downloaded) federal sentencing guidelines

Well, it is called 'guidelines' and your post uses words like 'suggesting'. So if relevant people went crazy and just decide to ignore these guidelines and choose, say, 20 years, would such decision be legal?

Re: The Darker Side of Aaron Swartz (2013)

#129

Post by SavantIdiot »

santoshalper wrote: post #32
SavantIdiot wrote: post #24

> The irrationalities of power fascinated him, but he found the irrationalities of activism exasperating. Most activists, in his experience, would launch big campaigns about big issues and do things that they guessed would be beneficial, like running television ads or sending out direct mail, but they never did the work to figure out whether what they were doing was actually changing policy. This is the frustrating t…

Or maybe he was right and most activism is emotionally driven rather than rational or data driven, and is ultimately ineffective.

What has been your experience working with activists in NGOs/nonprofits? I've worked with several over the past few decades and emotions certainly are part of it, but trying to change a government doesn't happen overnight. For example, when Working with HIFIVE (Haiti Integrated Financing for Value Chains and Enterprises) I found that having government support was much more effective: things happened on a schedule, same when I worked with Habitat for Humanity. However, when I worked with a local homeless shelter in my city, they were struggling due both outreach and a logistics system that was sadly inefficient b/c none of them had experience with this: the heart was there but not the experience.

I'd be eager to hear what you ran into while working in a nonprofit that turned you off due to being "too emotionally driven." Please share!

Re: The Darker Side of Aaron Swartz (2013)

#130

Post by tptacek »

zajio1am wrote: post #128
tptacek wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He faced nothing resembling 50 years, even on paper, even in the least charitable plausible analysis. You get to these nosebleed sentences by assuming that there are no sentencing guidelines, and no grouping of charges, and that instead you're likely to serve the sum of the maximum sentences spelled out in the statutes you violated. That makes no sense even as a story: the CFAA statutes capture behavior ranging from…

> What actually happens in sentencing is that you look up the relevant sentencing guidelines in the (public, easily downloaded) federal sentencing guidelines Well, it is called 'guidelines' and your post uses words like 'suggesting'. So if relevant people went crazy and just decide to ignore these guidelines and choose, say, 20 years, would such decision be legal?

It would be unprecedented and appealable, but mostly it just wouldn't happen. Judges aren't required to adhere to the guidelines (anymore), but they overwhelmingly do --- presumably, not least because the primary input to the sentencing process is a PSR that is derived directly from the guidelines.

Note here that to reach 20 years, you have to do more than disagree with the guideline offense levels; you have to somehow disagree with the grouping rules. 20 years wasn't on the table to begin with (again: the prosecutors threatened a much lower sentence), but it couldn't seriously have been put on the table either.

Post reply on HN