Sundar Pichai: ‘Technology Doesn’t Solve Humanity’s Problems’ • Hacker News Board

Re: Sundar Pichai: ‘Technology Doesn’t Solve Humanity’s Problems’

#271

Post by tomp » Fri, Nov 09, 2018, 10:34 AM UTC

virmundi wrote: post #115

discoball wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google was enabling the DoD to be more efficient at killing people and China to be more oppressive until its workers protested. So he's right about humanity having to solve its problems but he's forgetting that Google, the corporation, is opting to make it harder for humanity to solve its problems by enabling those who do not have humanity's best interest in their heart.

You're making an assumption about best. What is best? Is it personal liberty within the confines of enough law to provide some semblance of stability? The US is straining with that and it is arguably the most free of the Western Nations. Before the EU apologists jump on, keep in mind the EU Human Rights Court ruled that no one is allowed to speak against Mohamed ( https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/european-co…

Technically, EHRC isn't part of the EU (it's part of the Council of Europe). I agree with your point though, I was terribly disappointed by that decision, and I think that all EU countries should quit EHRC immediately.

Re: Sundar Pichai: ‘Technology Doesn’t Solve Humanity’s Problems’

#272

Post by tomp » Fri, Nov 09, 2018, 10:37 AM UTC

virmundi wrote: post #147

mLuby wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ensuring your citizens are safe, fed, housed, and healthy is the bare minimum for any government (Looking at you, SF). "Peace, land, bread", you know? But any time an entity is afraid to be challenged, it is selfishly choosing its own survival over the possibility that there exists a better provider for its citizens. That part is the "not best" part, and it's also the part Google is accused of helping with. If Google…

How do you know that the entity isn't better than its people? The long term stability of governments correlates with general wellness. Technology helps make the government more stable. If 90% of the population's standard of living improves at the expense of the 10%, is that wrong? Where is the line? Even when a rising tide raises all boats, there are many who will still get swamped. Should we stop forward progression…

Does it? The government of North Korea is far more stable than the government of e.g. Slovenia. Still, I'd never switch countries from the latter to the former.

(Well, maybe it correlates, but then I'd argue you're just optimising the wrong variable...)

Re: Sundar Pichai: ‘Technology Doesn’t Solve Humanity’s Problems’

#273

Post by detaro » Fri, Nov 09, 2018, 10:39 AM UTC

tomp wrote: post #271

virmundi wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're making an assumption about best. What is best? Is it personal liberty within the confines of enough law to provide some semblance of stability? The US is straining with that and it is arguably the most free of the Western Nations. Before the EU apologists jump on, keep in mind the EU Human Rights Court ruled that no one is allowed to speak against Mohamed ( https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/european-co…

Technically, EHRC isn't part of the EU (it's part of the Council of Europe ). I agree with your point though, I was terribly disappointed by that decision, and I think that all EU countries should quit EHRC immediately.

Because the ECtHR decided that member states have (relatively) lots of freedom in how they regulate speech pertaining religion, instead of pushing through a rule centrally? Typically, people dislike european institutions for the opposite.

GPs framing of this as "EU Human Rights Court ruled that no one is allowed to speak against Mohamed" is very misleading, the court ruled no such thing. (I still don't like how that case went, on all levels, but it's no-where near extreme as some people claim)

Re: Sundar Pichai: ‘Technology Doesn’t Solve Humanity’s Problems’

#274

Post by DanBC » Fri, Nov 09, 2018, 10:49 AM UTC

virmundi wrote: post #115

discoball wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google was enabling the DoD to be more efficient at killing people and China to be more oppressive until its workers protested. So he's right about humanity having to solve its problems but he's forgetting that Google, the corporation, is opting to make it harder for humanity to solve its problems by enabling those who do not have humanity's best interest in their heart.

You're making an assumption about best. What is best? Is it personal liberty within the confines of enough law to provide some semblance of stability? The US is straining with that and it is arguably the most free of the Western Nations. Before the EU apologists jump on, keep in mind the EU Human Rights Court ruled that no one is allowed to speak against Mohamed ( https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/european-co…

> Court ruled that no one is allowed to speak against Mohamed

No they didn't. They said you're not allowed to incite religious hatred by focussing attention on one particular religious figure from one particular time when the practice was common.

If that commentator is interested in paedophilia she will have made comments about the practice of child marriage among Christians -- something still happening in the US today. She did not mention any other region because she's not interested in attacking paedophilia, she's interested in attacking Muslims.

Re: Sundar Pichai: ‘Technology Doesn’t Solve Humanity’s Problems’

#275

Post by tomp » Fri, Nov 09, 2018, 10:54 AM UTC

detaro wrote: post #273

tomp wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically, EHRC isn't part of the EU (it's part of the Council of Europe ). I agree with your point though, I was terribly disappointed by that decision, and I think that all EU countries should quit EHRC immediately.

Because the ECtHR decided that member states have (relatively) lots of freedom in how they regulate speech pertaining religion, instead of pushing through a rule centrally? Typically, people dislike european institutions for the opposite. GPs framing of this as "EU Human Rights Court ruled that no one is allowed to speak against Mohamed" is very misleading, the court ruled no such thing. (I still don't like how that…

Then what's the point of a centralized human rights court? "Well member states can decide whom to murder." Or maybe I just think that freedom of speech is a human right while EHRC does not.

Re: Sundar Pichai: ‘Technology Doesn’t Solve Humanity’s Problems’

#276

Post by detaro » Fri, Nov 09, 2018, 11:07 AM UTC

tomp wrote: post #275

detaro wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the ECtHR decided that member states have (relatively) lots of freedom in how they regulate speech pertaining religion, instead of pushing through a rule centrally? Typically, people dislike european institutions for the opposite. GPs framing of this as "EU Human Rights Court ruled that no one is allowed to speak against Mohamed" is very misleading, the court ruled no such thing. (I still don't like how that…

Then what's the point of a centralized human rights court? "Well member states can decide whom to murder." Or maybe I just think that freedom of speech is a human right while EHRC does not.

Freedom of Expression is a human right, but the Convention on Human Rights explicitly argues for restrictions of free speech in this section, and the court allowed countries to follow that. The countries are the ones that decided on that Convention, despite criticism of that specific part of it. The court works in the framework provided to it by the Convention, which is fairly clear on murder, less so on free speech. IMHO it would have been good to strengthen that somewhere in the 65 years since, but the countries haven't done so - and given the geographic reach of the convention, it seems unlikely to happen. Could maybe be done on an EU-level, or in a new sub-treaty.

IMHO no need to go from "this treaty isn't as absolute on free speech as I'd like" to "what's the point of any of it then?".

Re: Sundar Pichai: ‘Technology Doesn’t Solve Humanity’s Problems’

#277

Post by virmundi » Fri, Nov 09, 2018, 1:47 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #274

virmundi wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're making an assumption about best. What is best? Is it personal liberty within the confines of enough law to provide some semblance of stability? The US is straining with that and it is arguably the most free of the Western Nations. Before the EU apologists jump on, keep in mind the EU Human Rights Court ruled that no one is allowed to speak against Mohamed ( https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/european-co…

> Court ruled that no one is allowed to speak against Mohamed No they didn't. They said you're not allowed to incite religious hatred by focussing attention on one particular religious figure from one particular time when the practice was common. If that commentator is interested in paedophilia she will have made comments about the practice of child marriage among Christians -- something still happening in the US tod…

Her argument was cogent and to the point. In Islam Mohamed is the ideal man. You should emulate him as a result. You see in Pakistan younger brides as a result. We in the West call that pedophilia. She said that. Oops, stating theological facts are now tantamount to hate speech. Welcome to your free speech world, EU. War is Peace. Silence is speaking.

The greater part of the ruling is that you can't say something that might incite to violence a 3rd party. If I say that Manchester is a terrible team, am I not at risk of loosing my free speech? Many of those footballer fans are violent, as shown by numerous riots. Clearly making them fussy is a risky thing. Am I liable if some adults fair to act rationally when the honor of their team, of which they are not personally members, is attacked? According to the EU court, maybe.

Child marriage is not now, nor has it even been common in Christianity. There are fringe groups that endorse it, and they are rare. They are operating well outside of the bounds of the historic teachings of the church. This is not a no-true-scottsman argument. There are teachings of the churches throughout the ages. If someone behalves in a manner that countermands those teachings, they are an apostate (assuming they still claim fidelity to the great religion). You've created a false-dichotomy in order to remove the true issue here: as the West embraces Muslims with open arms, you're going to run afoul of cultural differences. The West can either say, "No, you many not mutilate a 9 year olds vagina and marry her!" Or it can say, "Sure, why not?" At present, the vanguard of the process such as Sweden, is already ruling on such unions [1]. It is a thorny issue, but the EU will do what it always does: capitulate to invading forces.

https://www.quora.com/Did-Sweden-legalize-child-marriage-and...

Re: Sundar Pichai: ‘Technology Doesn’t Solve Humanity’s Problems’

#278

Post by ameister14 » Fri, Nov 09, 2018, 2:16 PM UTC

darawk wrote: post #242

ameister14 wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first one, because he was a young boy. The second, because the president using his sole authority to order the assassination of someone shouldn't happen. Regardless, not taking action at that time would likely have been better. They were US citizens, their rights were abrogated and they were killed illegally.

> The first one, because he was a young boy He was a 16 year old Al Qaeda member who was the son of a leader of the group. > The second, because the president using his sole authority to order the assassination of someone shouldn't happen. Ever? > Regardless, not taking action at that time would likely have been better. They were US citizens, their rights were abrogated and they were killed illegally. Agree that beca…

>Ever?

Yes.

You could make the argument that targeted strikes authorized by a single person are acceptable in a state of war (which we are not in), but even with that an assassination should have checks on it, always.

Re: Sundar Pichai: ‘Technology Doesn’t Solve Humanity’s Problems’

#279

Post by darawk » Fri, Nov 09, 2018, 4:42 PM UTC

zaptheimpaler wrote: post #267

darawk wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It doesn't matter. It absolutely matters. Intending to kill civilians and killing them accidentally are very, very different things. > Adults are expected to understand the potential consequences of their actions. If you knowingly fire missiles into a populated area, you don't get to say "oops, I didn't mean to" when you accidentally kill a few dozen innocent civilians. Are you alleging that they didn't understand…

Fucking bullshit. Even the phrasing grates at me. Killing a bunch of innocent people in another country is just a "risk" to some moron with a drone. If all of a sudden that moron was piloting a drone IN THE US and blew up a church/school on accident, I guarantee you wouldn't be so comfortable abstracting away lives as "risk". By the way, if we count all the innocent people killed by the US as "mistakes", it is certai…

I would absolutely say the same thing about people in the US, provided it was in service of an important, higher purpose, as it is here.

Re: Sundar Pichai: ‘Technology Doesn’t Solve Humanity’s Problems’

#280

Post by darawk » Fri, Nov 09, 2018, 4:43 PM UTC

zaptheimpaler wrote: post #268

darawk wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm...not sure how you think attack drones work? There is always a human in the loop, at least for now. Humans pick the targets and authorize weapon release. Many of these wedding bombings didn't involve drones, they involved jets. The drones are also using fairly low res cameras, so if we are talking about one of the instances where a drone bombed a wedding, it may or may not have been clear to the operator that t…

Wow I'm sure the remaining family members feel a lot better knowing the drone operator didn't CONSCIOUSLY choose to massacre their entire family, its just that their camera was low res... How about if your camera is so low res or your drones are too shitty to avoid killing innocent people, you stop fucking using drones? I have 0 doubt you would find it ridiculous to use the same drones on US soil because of the risk…

> I have 0 doubt you would find it ridiculous to use the same drones on US soil because of the risk but hey as long as its not your family/friends, its just a "risk" right?

I would not find it ridiculous at all. So, I guess your argument kind of falls apart then.