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

The SQLite Code of Ethics

sqlite.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 408 posts

Re: The SQLite Code of Ethics

#341

Post by philwelch »

Natsu wrote: post #294
FeepingCreature wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like a license to be intolerant, if only you can convince people that your opponents were intolerant first.

The paradox of tolerance was aimed at those who would with "fists or pistols" prevent others from sharing their views and was premised on the right of self-defense. In historical context, it's seems squarely aimed at the paramilitary organizations of various movements popular around the 1930s or so who physically injured people for saying things they disliked.

Which does not seem to justify preemptive intolerance of peacefully expressed dissenting views.

Re: The SQLite Code of Ethics

#342

Post by lifeisstillgood »

naniwaduni wrote: post #331
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #328

So I am intrigued by the idea of the Axial Age transition - roughly 500BC and worlds big population centres (India China Persia) hit some kind of population tipping point, developed massive abusive slavery and wars and then developed much more restrictive religions as a means to control the larger populations. The argument is tenuous but it reminds me a lot of the Shakespeare / Lope de Vega transition- sometimes popu…

It's, in brief, the sort of pseudo-anthropology that's very appealing to systematizing minds, but falls apart immediately when you have to engage with the fact that the cultures in questions did not have remotely similar experiences at that time—it's telling that you seized on "big population centres (India China Persia)" in particular. But you have to squint really hard to make them look similar.

I get the "yeah nah dodgy" concerns about it. But humans have gone through several stages of civilisation that can be defined as "the number of people physically near enough me to be a threat" - from tribes that could go years without meeting others to football stadiums full of thousands.

Each of the above civilisations went through a population / density transition - and did so within a few hundred years - and came out with some surprisingly similar religious / cultural rules that were a) different to what had gone before b) similar in some respects to each other

I am certainly not arguing there was some shared kernel of religion, just that there was a new economic/ social pressure and the "solution" to it was a new form of religion / social contract.

In short - as human economics and civilisation changes, so does the way we govern ourselves (religion is a governing force). It seems reasonable to argue that as different civilisations go through the same pinch points they will find similar solutions.

We also should assume we are going through such as pinch point today (either the long term industrial revolution or the near term internet revolution).

And yes - systemising minds need to be aware of their own proclivities- a hard won lesson

Re: The SQLite Code of Ethics

#344

Post by naniwaduni »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #342
naniwaduni wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's, in brief, the sort of pseudo-anthropology that's very appealing to systematizing minds, but falls apart immediately when you have to engage with the fact that the cultures in questions did not have remotely similar experiences at that time—it's telling that you seized on "big population centres (India China Persia)" in particular. But you have to squint really hard to make them look similar.

I get the "yeah nah dodgy" concerns about it. But humans have gone through several stages of civilisation that can be defined as "the number of people physically near enough me to be a threat" - from tribes that could go years without meeting others to football stadiums full of thousands. Each of the above civilisations went through a population / density transition - and did so within a few hundred years - and came…

Mostly, it just proves too much/doesn't predict enough, I think.

Re: The SQLite Code of Ethics

#345

Post by enneff »

knighthack wrote: post #320
adamgordonbell wrote: post #18

Before I got to talk with Richard, I found many things online about his Christian values and public domain license and how odd it was. And I thought this was THE fascinating thing about Richard that led to the database and other things. But then I talked to him. He's a great engineer but a regular guy running a business around a thing he built. He gets to be a bit whimsical because he can. He can use his own source c…

I specifically adore Richard _because_ he's a good Christian man (and I say this as a non-Christian) and a great engineer. I'm happy that he's found a way to integrate his values into his products. Richard is not enforcing his beliefs on anyone; moreover the values espoused in the Code seem fair to any reasonable mind. It asks us to do good, and calls for good human/humane values whatever your religion or ideology or…

There are several things on that list that I would not regard as “fair to any reasonable mind”.

Re: The SQLite Code of Ethics

#346

Post by Epa095 »

jhgb wrote: post #86
Epa095 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This part: >The founder of SQLite and all current developers have pledged to follow the spirit of The Rule to the best of their ability. [...] In other words, the developers are saying: "We will treat you this way regardless of how you treat us." I would definitely not be able to honestly commit to such a pledge. Do you think they will add a "(except epa095)" if I get hired? Or maybe I just won't get hired. IDK, but…

Why not? If you're, for example, irreligious, then the best of your ability obviously doesn't include religious observations (and in fact, one could even make a solid argument that "interactions with each other, with their clients, and with the larger SQLite user community" don't touch the religious portions of Benedictine rules even for religious SQLite contributors because the clauses talking about relationship wit…

Granted, it is a bit complicated to figure out what it means to pledge to follow the "spirit" of a rule which includes the rule that anyone can choose not to follow it.

But you asked why I would not be able to commit to such a pledge. For me pledging is a kind of social contract (I don't belive in God, so its not between me and it), and I care quite alot that other people know that when I promise something it means something. So it becomes important that we, me and the people who care about the pledge, agree on what it means. If we all agree that it essentially means nothing, then fine, I pledge. But if it means something, what does it really mean?

It says "They [the founder of SQLite and all current developers] view The Rule as their promise to all SQLite users of how the developers are expected to behave". So the developers view it as a promise of how the developers are expected to behave. If I take the pledge, and start working there, am I breaking the pledge if I:

- Don't "[...] love the Lord God with my whole heart, my whole soul, and my whole strength."? [1]

- Don't love fasting. [13]

- Prefers cremation to burying. [17]

- Make people laugh [54-55]

etc etc, you probably get the point. There are a lot of rules, and they can all be interpreted. It is kind of hard to be certain that we all agree on what it actually means to pledge to follow the spirit of these 72 rules.

So, that is why I find it hard to commit to the pledge.

Now, I agree with you that is says that "No one is required to follow The Rule". But it also says that "They view The Rule as their promise to all SQLite users of how the developers are expected to behave". So, it very much says that the founder of SQLite (part of "They") promise SQLite users that he expect SQLlite developers to follow "the code". Maybe, because of the "No one is required to follow The Rule", that means essentially nothing. Or maybe it means something. IDK.

Re: The SQLite Code of Ethics

#348

Post by scns »

As good as the intentions behind them are, they work much better by leaving negations out.

Do not murder -> Leave other people alive

Do not commit adultery -> Be truthful to your partner

Do not steal, Do not covet -> Be content with what you have

Do not bear false witness -> Speak the truth

Do not do to another what you would not have done to yourself -> Treat others like you want to be treated

Do not become attached to pleasures -> Practice moderation

Do not give way to anger -> Stay calm

Do not nurse a grudge, Do not return evil for evil, Do not curse those who curse you, but rather bless them, Do no wrong to anyone, and bear patiently wrongs done to yourself -> Practice forgiveness

Be not proud -> Be humble

Be not addicted to wine -> Drink in moderation

Be not a great eater -> Eat in moderation

Be not lazy -> Be diligent

(edit): formatting

Re: The SQLite Code of Ethics

#349

Post by makach »

scns wrote: post #348

As good as the intentions behind them are, they work much better by leaving negations out. Do not murder -> Leave other people alive Do not commit adultery -> Be truthful to your partner Do not steal, Do not covet -> Be content with what you have Do not bear false witness -> Speak the truth Do not do to another what you would not have done to yourself -> Treat others like you want to be treated Do not become attached…

I think commanding people instead of asking them is better if you want to achieve something. I think there has been some research on this (source anyone?) and it is particularly well know when talking to children, if you ask it as a question it is ambiguous what the answer might be so you opt in to not "be humble" nor "speak the truth"

Re: The SQLite Code of Ethics

#350

Post by teeiger »

enneff wrote: post #345
knighthack wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I specifically adore Richard _because_ he's a good Christian man (and I say this as a non-Christian) and a great engineer. I'm happy that he's found a way to integrate his values into his products. Richard is not enforcing his beliefs on anyone; moreover the values espoused in the Code seem fair to any reasonable mind. It asks us to do good, and calls for good human/humane values whatever your religion or ideology or…

There are several things on that list that I would not regard as “fair to any reasonable mind”.

Such as?
Post reply on HN