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

361–370 of 408 posts

Re: The SQLite Code of Ethics

#361

Post by michaelsbradley »

kennywinker wrote: post #77
michaelsbradley wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Human freedom is the freedom to do good, not license to do whatever you want to do or can do.

Freedom to do good? That's already been covered: 42. Attribute to God, and not to self, whatever good you see in yourself. That's not your freedom or your will, that's god's doing. Or so this document says. So by your definition, there is no free will in this document.

Not at all.

Whether one chooses good or evil, it is an exercise of one’s free will; but the purpose of human freedom (what it is) is that a human person can choose the good.

But what is “the good”?

For a modern treatment from a Christian perspective see Veritatis splendor:

https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/d...

Re: The SQLite Code of Ethics

#362

Post by logifail »

rebeccaskinner wrote: post #356
joannanewsom wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have read it many times. I really like it, which is why I quoted it. I also think moderating communities is a hard problem and I don't think private forums should be open to all forms of speech. In fact I only read forums which are heavily moderated. What I disagree with is your statement that "...when people complain about lack of a diversity of thought/opinion, it’s almost always a complaint that they can’t be a…

> Its easy to think you're right when you assume the other side is racist. The crux of my experience is that when the thing people disagree with you on _isn’t_ racist/homophobic/misogynistic/etc. then they tend to directly name and openly discuss the subject of their disagreement. The general and innocuous sounding term “diversity of thought” tends to get brought out when the opinions themselves are one of those opin…

> to defend speech that ends up driving people away because of either direct overt bigotry or, more often, a pervasive use of dog whistles

Q: Who gets to determine if something counts as a "dog whistle" or a "trope"?

I don't find the typical usage of either of those terms ever contributes much to honest debate.

Re: The SQLite Code of Ethics

#363

Post by kragen »

kennywinker wrote: post #337
kragen wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm glad you started to pick up on the subtle point about Heisenberg, but it sounds like you stopped halfway. What would be the consequences of allowing Heisenberg to dictate codes of conduct for quantum physicists today, or Wagner to dictate codes of conduct for performers of his operas? I addressed the point about when codes of conduct apply to users of software in the document linked.

> What would be the consequences of allowing Heisenberg to dictate codes of conduct for quantum physicists today He couldn’t. All he could do would be to dictate the code of conduct for physicists working at the MPI. And if you don’t like his code of conduct, you can go to a different institute, or take it up with the community or the board of directors for the institute. Your implied scenario of “what if a nazi wrot…

> He couldn’t. All he could do would be to dictate the code of conduct for physicists working at the MPI

And that's precisely why I think it's absurd for a code repository to have a code of conduct.

Re: The SQLite Code of Ethics

#364

Post by rebeccaskinner »

logifail wrote: post #362
rebeccaskinner wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Its easy to think you're right when you assume the other side is racist. The crux of my experience is that when the thing people disagree with you on _isn’t_ racist/homophobic/misogynistic/etc. then they tend to directly name and openly discuss the subject of their disagreement. The general and innocuous sounding term “diversity of thought” tends to get brought out when the opinions themselves are one of those opin…

> to defend speech that ends up driving people away because of either direct overt bigotry or, more often, a pervasive use of dog whistles Q: Who gets to determine if something counts as a "dog whistle" or a "trope"? I don't find the typical usage of either of those terms ever contributes much to honest debate.

You know it when you see it, and ultimately it’s going to be a call left up to whoever is moderating the community. Any attempt at a narrow or precise definition leads to disingenuous people exhausting the moderators with endless rules lawyering.

Re: The SQLite Code of Ethics

#365

Post by tootie »

naniwaduni wrote: post #332
tootie wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they could just strike all the ones that mention god and hell and not lost anything of value. I also think the morality only rings true if you were raised in a Christian dominated society. No one living in the real world can afford to love their enemies. That's what people in monasteries can say but not ones who are responsible for protecting people.

Well, it would lose the value of being nominally attributable to a 1500yo monastic document. This might not make a difference to you if you don't acknowledge the the provenance (nor, heck, if you think the provenance is shot in translation), but on net it probably matters a lot more that the small number of people agreeing to the document, presumably none of whom are you, do.

I have absolutely no reason to disbelieve the provenance, I just don't ascribe any value to a thing being old.

Re: The SQLite Code of Ethics

#366

Post by tootie »

moreira wrote: post #306
tootie wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they could just strike all the ones that mention god and hell and not lost anything of value. I also think the morality only rings true if you were raised in a Christian dominated society. No one living in the real world can afford to love their enemies. That's what people in monasteries can say but not ones who are responsible for protecting people.

> No one living in the real world can afford to love their enemies. I’m reminded of a passage in Great Expectations that helped me understand exactly just what this means: > "so you're the blacksmith, are you? Then I'm sorry to say, I've eat your pie." > "God knows you're welcome to it, so far as it was ever mine," […] "We don't know what you have done, but we wouldn't have you starved to death for it, poor miserable…

Charity and compassion are one thing, but sometimes you need to fight your enemies in the interests of justice. People in need or people who have made mistakes aren't necessarily your enemies. I thinking more like lying down in the face of unchecked aggression. I don't believe there will be justice in any sort of afterlife, so we have to deal with it now or never. I mean, what would St Benedict say about the Trolley Problem?

Re: The SQLite Code of Ethics

#367

Post by teakettle42 »

woodruffw wrote: post #316
logifail wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> none are quite as embarrassing as suggesting that Popper might seriously entertain "free debate" with a Nazi (This really is a genuine question) who is to be allowed to determine if our opponents are that, and hence worthy of what one might call preemptive intolerance?

That is the eternal question. However, I will submit for consideration that the person we're talking about when we use the phrase "punch a Nazi" is, in fact, a neo-Nazi[1]. Dealing more abstractly: I personally think we are justified in practicing "preemptive intolerance" when the party in question (1) has a bad faith (not merely faithless) relationship with the "language" of our political systems, and (2) demonstrat…

You are advocating behavior that is highly corrosive and fundamentally antithetical to the effective functioning of a healthy democracy.

Weimar Germany wasn’t fertile political soil for extremism because there weren’t enough people punching Nazis. In fact, the opposite — pervasive, normalized political violence gave cover to extremists who could then argue that they were justified in escalating their behaviors.

If I were to follow your own ethos (and to be perfectly clear, I do not), I should be advocating punching you in the street, as your ethos represents a bad faith attempt to undermine and subvert our political systems by using violence to control the words and ideas shared by others.

Re: The SQLite Code of Ethics

#368

Post by vintagedave »

bbbobbb wrote: post #353
teeiger wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such as?

These are the most ridiculous ones from my own very quick glance. Rest of the list is questionable at best as well. 1. First of all, love the Lord God with your whole heart, your whole soul, and your whole strength. 10. Deny oneself in order to follow Christ. 21. Prefer nothing more than the love of Christ. 27. Do not swear, for fear of perjuring yourself. 34. Be not proud. 41. Put your hope in God. 44. Fear the Day…

A secular perspective of some of those is still very positive:

> 27. Do not swear, for fear of perjuring yourself.

This means: be true to your word. It's an excellent principle.

> 50. When wrongful thoughts come into your heart, dash them against Christ immediately.

This means: have self-control over your own, possibly not-very-good, impulses and desires. This too is a good thing.

> 58. Daily in your prayers, with tears and sighs, confess your past sins to God, and amend them for the future.

You might not pray, but self-analysis each day, putting the past behind you and endeavouring to make each day better, is also an excellent principle. Confessing the past is a great technique for getting over the past too: it lets you forgive yourself and move forward.

> 60. Obey in all things the commands of those whom God has placed in authority over you even though they (which God forbid) should act otherwise, mindful of the Lord's precept, "Do what they say, but not what they do."

I don't agree with this one, because I believe we should struggle against those in power when it is necessary. But you can still put forward a good argument for it.

> 70. Pray for your enemies in the love of Christ.

This is one of those principles that translates well even without prayer or religion: act in empathy to your enemies; hope that they will improve; do not let yourself become evil in your own heart (you know that anger that can grow? The things that make you behave not so nicely, even if you think of yourself as a nice person?) towards them but keep a loving attitude even to those who don't deserve it.

I don't agree with all of the principles they listed. I could not become a SQLite developer. But none of these -- none! -- are 'ridiculous'. In fact, they are tied closely to being a good person, and to living a peaceful, kind life.

Re: The SQLite Code of Ethics

#369

Post by woodruffw »

teakettle42 wrote: post #367
woodruffw wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is the eternal question. However, I will submit for consideration that the person we're talking about when we use the phrase "punch a Nazi" is, in fact, a neo-Nazi[1]. Dealing more abstractly: I personally think we are justified in practicing "preemptive intolerance" when the party in question (1) has a bad faith (not merely faithless) relationship with the "language" of our political systems, and (2) demonstrat…

You are advocating behavior that is highly corrosive and fundamentally antithetical to the effective functioning of a healthy democracy. Weimar Germany wasn’t fertile political soil for extremism because there weren’t enough people punching Nazis. In fact, the opposite — pervasive, normalized political violence gave cover to extremists who could then argue that they were justified in escalating their behaviors. If I…

All I've done here is rephrased Popper's words, with some additional conditions. The fact that you don't like it mean that it's in bad faith; I've made no such presumption about you or anybody else in this thread.

And no, that's not what caused the decline of Weimar (and the rise of Nazism). Nazism was preordained by a confluence of political factors, including the need for an easy post-war scapegoat in the form of Jews and other outsiders. 20th century European Fascist movements follow a uniform pattern: the loss of face or sovereignty (Trianon, WWI), followed by irredentism and revanchism towards any group perceived as having either benefited (or merely not suffered enough). Those sentiments culminated in a concerted effort to use newfound civil freedoms to undermine the system itself, chiefly by directing a disposition for intolerance towards those easiest to vilify.

This is all in marked contrast to our current situation and historical context, one where liberal activism has consistently made America freer for increasingly large swathes of its population. We easily forget that you could have gone to jail in 1955 for buying a copy of Ulysses, or been fined for daring to eat a meal with a more privileged race. My sole interest has and will continue to be expanding those freedoms.

Re: The SQLite Code of Ethics

#370

Post by bbbobbb »

vintagedave wrote: post #368
bbbobbb wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are the most ridiculous ones from my own very quick glance. Rest of the list is questionable at best as well. 1. First of all, love the Lord God with your whole heart, your whole soul, and your whole strength. 10. Deny oneself in order to follow Christ. 21. Prefer nothing more than the love of Christ. 27. Do not swear, for fear of perjuring yourself. 34. Be not proud. 41. Put your hope in God. 44. Fear the Day…

A secular perspective of some of those is still very positive: > 27. Do not swear, for fear of perjuring yourself. This means: be true to your word. It's an excellent principle. > 50. When wrongful thoughts come into your heart, dash them against Christ immediately. This means: have self-control over your own, possibly not-very-good, impulses and desires. This too is a good thing. > 58. Daily in your prayers, with te…

The thing is you can be charitable with your interpretation or try to decipher some reasonable principles out of ramblings like these but the point is that it's 2022 and referring to 'holy scripture' in normal person's code of conduct is in my opinion actually insane and is not worth anybody's time.

So I do consider most of these insane, ridiculous and worthless. Anybody is free to think otherwise.

Post reply on HN