New ethics courses in computer science • Hacker News Board

Re: New ethics courses in computer science

#151

Post by logicallee » Thu, Feb 15, 2018, 1:10 AM UTC

kbenson wrote: post #149

logicallee wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other comment by lovich says: >I've worked in that industry as well and I have a very negative view of it still, even discounting the bad actors. Everything you do can be above board and still be douchey. As far as your points, I have this specific question: - Where you write, "For venues and promoters, guaranteed attendance and immediate cashflow." Why is there "guaranteed attendance"? I don't understand what yo…

> - Where you write, "For venues and promoters, guaranteed attendance and immediate cashflow." > Why is there "guaranteed attendance"? I don't understand what you could have meant by it. That's an inaccurate description on my part for what I meant. It's not guaranteed attendance, it's guaranteed sales regardless of attendance (although generally the seats are sold, even if at an extreme discount). It's guaranteed mon…

Thank, this was very interesting. You should write a blog post about your understanding of the secondary ticket market, working in that industry. What you've written is an interesting contrast to the underlying assumptions outsiders have about it.

I can't speak to whether you accurately see the underlying trading strategies or not but your writing was interesting. Thanks for taking the time.

Re: New ethics courses in computer science

#152

Post by kerkeslager » Thu, Feb 15, 2018, 3:50 PM UTC

KirinDave wrote: post #146

kerkeslager wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keep in mind the chain of comments you're responding to started with: > [I]f we forced some liability on companies for what the software they sell does, that would change a lot of things fairly quickly. In that context, it sounds like you're saying we don't need liability regulation, we need data science to help consumers make better decisions, so that the economic downsides to antisocial action are higher. This is t…

> In that context, it sounds like you're saying we don't need liability regulation, we need data science to help consumers make better decisions, so that the economic downsides to antisocial action are higher. I'm not sure why you make it sound like an decision. We're already seeing that improved computing power and statistical methods, coupled with the falling costs of these, are giving us transparency which can gui…

My apologies for a confrontational tone then. Your previous post came across to me as being yet another defense of the idea that regulation is bad and incentivized corporations will solve all society's ills. That's possibly more a reflection of my own sensitivities than your communication. :)

I will say that a ton of changes which should be made are low hanging fruit that don't need data science to prove. We don't need data science to prove that bailing out corporations when predatory lending goes wrong, or that fining corporations a fraction of the profits they made from money laundering, are ineffective enforcement.

The underlying problem is that international corporations are, to some extent, above the law, and that is a much harder problem to address.

Re: New ethics courses in computer science

#153

Post by zdragnar » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 3:34 AM UTC

Caveman_Coder wrote: post #138

zdragnar wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If "the system" you're referring to is the USA, then no, it's not designed for that. We elect people based on ideology and character. They may have a few central policy platforms, but there are so many laws and resolutions passed that they cannot pre-advertise their positions or poll their constituents for every one. Hence, why we are a republic (or representative democracy, if you will). We elect people on the basis…

> "We elect people on the basis of trusting they will do the right thing" That's not currently working too well for us...

We are a very diverse group. I detest living in big cities, and recently bought 2.5 acres out in the country. Couldn't be happier. Many of the laws and regulations in the big cities wouldn't make any sense to apply out here.

Likewise, purely popular votes on every issue would ultimately mean that the very tiny majority wins, every time, until the squishy "middle" voters get sick of it and switch sides again.

The net result is the same. One side feels left out at any given point, and the direction of the country zigs and zags.

The modern attitude of extreme hyperbolic reaction to every little detail could have many causes; my money is on social media (where speaking often is more rewarding than listening thoughtfully). It also doesn't help that our news sources are in such fiscal dire straits they seem to think the only newsworthy items are those that stoke rage or FUD.

Things are going reasonably well, all things considered. Lots of things could be going a lot better, of course, but I suspect that's always been true, and will continue to be true.

Re: New ethics courses in computer science

#154

Post by peoplewindow » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 3:57 PM UTC

Maybestring wrote: post #72

peoplewindow wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the opposite - people come up with all sorts of justifications for why what other people are doing is wrong . This lets them feel self satisfied, virtuous and perhaps a little smug effectively for free, and if their position is perhaps a little thinly thought out, well, no big deal, it's not like anyone is going to listen anyway. I've watched many attempts to tar entire industries as evil over the years. Inva…

>Good luck affording an internet connection if your daily browsing habit isn't being subsidised by advertisers anymore. What portion of ISP revenue is from advertising? I suspect it is vanishingly small.

ISP revenue - none.

Revenue for all the free services and sites the ISP connects you to - almost all of it.

Re: New ethics courses in computer science

#155

Post by hueving » Sun, Feb 18, 2018, 1:43 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #134

hueving wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just Google it, I don't need to propose anything. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/technologist

Neither of the two definitions at your link seems to serve your "include IT, exclude medical doctors" purpose.

Doctors are neither experts in a field of technology nor are they paid to operate technology.

Re: New ethics courses in computer science

#156

Post by artificial » Sun, Feb 25, 2018, 8:20 PM UTC

kerkeslager wrote: post #85

artificial wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>if we forced some liability on companies for what the software they sell does, that would change a lot of things fairly quickly. Absolutely that would change things, especially the cost of software.

I'm so tired of people saying stuff like this as if I should care. Go ahead, raise prices. If your product is solving a real problem, people will pay for it. If not, well, we didn't need you anyway. This is, incidentally, how capitalism is supposed to work. If your business model doesn't work without you doing bad things, then it shouldn't work. You don't have a god-given right to make money and if you can't make mon…

It isn’t necessarily that. What incentive do you have to risk your livlyhood for no compensation? For example there was a flaw with OpenSSL, the contributors would be on the hook for all the damages that businesses who used the affected software.

An operating system would be hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy. Look at how actual Engineers are licensed and bonded.