Anonymous Google Employees Voted Arms Control Persons of the Year • Hacker News Board

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

#131

Post by sodosopa » Fri, Jan 11, 2019, 12:46 AM UTC

tehsauce wrote: post #8

citilife wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They track us in real-time down to a meter, predict when and where we will travel, know who we interact with, know our DNA[1], know what food we like, when we are sick, what our political leanings are, can predict what our children will like / dislike and probably can predict when we'll die... If any of that isn't completely true yet, it will be. [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/23andme-is-terrif...

That's true and it's terrible. But they are not building actual weapons that kill people. That's worth something.

Being in China and calling Xi Jinping Winnie the Pooh over gmail would be a good test of this, no?

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

#132

Post by mbo » Fri, Jan 11, 2019, 2:00 AM UTC

throwaway010919 wrote: post #27

> The runners-up in the vote for the 2018 Arms Control Persons of the Year were the founders and co-chairs of the International Gender Champions Disarmament Impact Group... The impact group developed specific aims for expanding knowledge about the importance of gender issues and practical actions for bringing gendered perspectives into disarmament discussions. I find it just a little bit hard to take them seriously i…

I don't understand why you don't think gendered perspectives regarding disarmament discussions are useful. Feminism has a long and entrenched history within peace and conflict studies and international relations, and its insights are often useful, particularly with respect to things like disarmament and post-conflict peacekeeping.

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

#133

Post by loeg » Fri, Jan 11, 2019, 2:16 AM UTC

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.

The US's military engagement in WW2 and prior was also primarily to serve national interest.

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

#134

Post by loeg » Fri, Jan 11, 2019, 2:19 AM UTC

JohnFen wrote: post #59

mattnewton wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article makes it feel like these changes happened because less people are enlisting or know people enlisting. I think that’s just another symptom of how some military programs lost a lot of legitimacy in the minds of some of my generation who were coming of age around the war on terror. It’s hard to feel like the good guys in a lot of these issues like drone warfare against non-combatants, and so the military was…

> I think that’s just another symptom of how some military programs lost a lot of legitimacy in the minds of some of my generation who were coming of age around the war on terror. It's not just your generation. I'm in my 50s and this opinion isn't rare in my age group either.

You might be just too young to remember it in real time depending on where in your 50s, but people slightly older than you got really jaded with the US military due to the Vietnam war around the time you were born.

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

#135

Post by NotAnEconomist » Fri, Jan 11, 2019, 3:11 AM UTC

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.

> 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?

Yes, just like you should throw the switch on the trolley car to kill one person instead of let it kill five.

Other people don't agree.

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

#136

Post by soraminazuki » Fri, Jan 11, 2019, 3:13 AM UTC

tengbretson wrote: post #29

daviross wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Recent news cycles keep revealing yet another piece military equipment suffering from software weaknesses It's difficult to say this isn't a net moral good, as things currently stand. Competent tools put to immoral ends aren't somehow more moral than incompetent tools. The only fix is to change the ends.

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.

Militaries may be a necessary evil, but in no way a force for good.

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

#137

Post by heyjudy » Fri, Jan 11, 2019, 3:27 AM UTC

Beware of the hubris of those surrounding Peter Thiel, whom are war hawks and pro military startups of all sorts... including Palantir which is used to target and eliminate dissidents. And even more troubling are a few of the Ukrainian and Russian "entrepreneurs" whom come to the Valley as being flag-waving capitalists, but it's difficult to ascertain their actual allegiances because the Valley lets people pop up out of nowhere without references, and hands them money and influence.

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

#138

Post by heyjudy » Fri, Jan 11, 2019, 3:36 AM UTC

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #58

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…

SV devs don't contribute significant volumes of code to military equipment. They're mostly being used to build the panopticon. The incumbent contractors have plenty of staff who will do the work others refuse.

You're making the classic fallacy based on your anecdotal experience. Lockheed, Boeing, Raytheon, Palantir, Thales, SSL, Redhat (IBM) and more definitely make a good living off the MIC in the Bay Area. USARL, DARPA and the national labs also do a bit of work in the Valley. Heck, Stanford and SRI grew out of the MIC.

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

#139

Post by _ptgt » Fri, Jan 11, 2019, 3:53 AM UTC

jka wrote: post #89

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…

Transparent de-escalation is the solution, not the age-old rhetoric of 'staying ahead in the arms-race'. _Most_ people regardless of country of residence or origin want a peaceful and fulfilled, free life. You can never please everyone but arguing from basis of 'fear of the other' is a bit disingenuous and leads to these literal arms races. That's not to say defense spending isn't important, but it has to be stressed…

> _Most_ people regardless of country of residence or origin want a peaceful and fulfilled, free life. You can never please everyone but arguing from basis of 'fear of the other' is a bit disingenuous and leads to these literal arms races.

This is all fine and dandy, but some of the most powerful militaries in the world are run by authoritarians who optimize for their own interests rather than what's good for their population. Russia's people generally gain nothing from Putin's belligerence, yet the belligerence happens. The CCP rolled the tanks on its own people; do you really think they'll hesitate to roll them on foreigners if it suits their interests?

I don't worry about the aggregate opinion of Russians or Chinese; I worry about Putin and the CCP.

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

#140

Post by brokenmachine » Fri, Jan 11, 2019, 4:15 AM UTC

rifung wrote: post #42

daviross wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Recent news cycles keep revealing yet another piece military equipment suffering from software weaknesses It's difficult to say this isn't a net moral good, as things currently stand. Competent tools put to immoral ends aren't somehow more moral than incompetent tools. The only fix is to change the ends.

> It's difficult to say this isn't a net moral good, as things currently stand. I disagree but am open to being persuaded otherwise. I don't consider national defense to be an immoral goal. I believe it's unrealistic for there to exist a world without weapons. That being the case, I believe it's important for us to constantly improve our military capability otherwise we will be left behind.

> I believe it's important for us to constantly improve our military capability otherwise we will be left behind.

Looking at the amount you spend on the military, it would be ridiculous if you weren't 100x further ahead of any other nation already.

As an Australian, I'm personally happy with the US being ahead over the alternatives - but if I was a US citizen I would be seriously questioning how far ahead you need to be if it's really about "defense".