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

Alan Turing died 70 years ago

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 142 posts

Re: Alan Turing died 70 years ago

#91

Post by croes »

newswasboring wrote: post #87
croes wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is real morality? How do you distinguish it from perceived morality? There is no ultimate right or wrong, it's all perception.

I have written and deleted a few responses to this. Mostly because all of them turned out rageful, these kind of statements are in themselves harmful. If you only assign value to things which have inherent value then what's the point of society or civilization. Some things don't have to be laws of nature for us to treat them as such. If the only thing you recognize as valuable are things which are inherently valuable…

>If the only thing you recognize as valuable are things which are inherently valuable then none of any society works.

Moral and value are both subjective. I doubt there is a single value that all people share across the world and time. So it's always about perceived morality at a certain place and time.

Re: Alan Turing died 70 years ago

#92

Post by rayiner »

CalChris wrote: post #85
rayiner wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ideally, governments just enforce the collective will of the public. What can override that? For example, you cite this “principle of full bodily autonomy.” Is that a thing that exists? What’s your proof for it. It sounds like some religious concept, except for libertarians.

> Ideally, governments just enforce the collective will of the public. That rank populism is what Franklin warned us against and sounds suspiciously like a Leni Riefenstahl movie, except to libertarians.

Franklin was religious and believed man was created by God and had an “immortal soul,” and that God created morality as well. https://www.americanheritage.com/benjamin-franklin-his-relig... (“I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That he governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we render to him is doing good to his other Children. That the soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its Conduct in this.”). It follows from that thinking that there are limits on what the government can do to a God-created individual. God’s law trumps man’s law.

But what’s the argument that doesn’t resort to the supernatural? There’s a logical, utilitarian basis for saying that governments are created by societies to effectuate the popular will. There’s no God-favored king or clergy, and biology doesn’t anoint some humans to rule over others, as with say bees, so the popular will should be carried out. Insofar as the people have committed to things like constitutions and laws, of course, that can provide a principled basis for limiting what the government can do to individuals.

But OP was talking about some “principle of full bodily autonomy” that apparently transcends any specific constitution or law. Where does that come from? If the people don’t believe in any notion of “bodily autonomy”—or impose particular limits on that concept—what higher law can possibly override that?

Re: Alan Turing died 70 years ago

#93

Post by telesilla »

joseda-hg wrote: post #80
trealira wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll only say this due to anonymity, but: mistakenly thinking I was trans, I once took testosterone blockers and estrogen for about a month (having bought them online probably illegally). After a week, I was on the verge of tears pretty much 24/7, and I did cry whenever I was alone in my room. It's crazy how much I cried; I had never cried so much before in my life. My mood was much worse, obviously, since I was cryi…

To some extent, their body might be more "used" to it? I wouldn't whink a month would be enough for the body to actually get used to having a major hormone blocked and replaced with a diferent one

Natural female hormones are only high a few days a month, yes. And we're so used to it, we get prepared and tell our partners we'll cry and be angry for no reason, and get ice-cream and chocolate in the house and maybe even take time of work if lucky enough. But it's not for very long, and there is a theory that you only get sad and angry if you have something sad or angry to be about, which I partially agree with. But the physical low is real, regardless of what emotions are going on.

Re: Alan Turing died 70 years ago

#94

Post by CalChris »

rayiner wrote: post #92
CalChris wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ideally, governments just enforce the collective will of the public. That rank populism is what Franklin warned us against and sounds suspiciously like a Leni Riefenstahl movie, except to libertarians.

Franklin was religious and believed man was created by God and had an “immortal soul,” and that God created morality as well. https://www.americanheritage.com/benjamin-franklin-his-relig... (“I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That he governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we render to him is doing good to his other Children. That the soul of Man is…

From Franklin's letter, more towards the end: "I have ever let others enjoy their religious Sentiments".

Re: Alan Turing died 70 years ago

#95

Post by tim333 »

chx wrote: post #79
tim333 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>insane that there are zero governments in the entire world that can uphold the basic principle of full bodily autonomy If there is zero government you get gang rape etc so it's more a question of where you draw the line.

whao talk about gaslighting that's not what gp said > it's insane that there are zero governments in the entire world He said the subset of governments for which it is true they uphold full bodily autonomy is the empty set. He did not state anything about a country not having a government

Maybe I phrased it badly but I don't think it's insane that there are no governments that do that because there are obvious problems if they did. I guess you could go for full autonomy as long as the other people involved are not pissed off.

Re: Alan Turing died 70 years ago

#96

Post by ozzcer »

tim333 wrote: post #95
chx wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

whao talk about gaslighting that's not what gp said > it's insane that there are zero governments in the entire world He said the subset of governments for which it is true they uphold full bodily autonomy is the empty set. He did not state anything about a country not having a government

Maybe I phrased it badly but I don't think it's insane that there are no governments that do that because there are obvious problems if they did. I guess you could go for full autonomy as long as the other people involved are not pissed off.

> I will never recognize a government's right to tell adults what they can do with their own bodies and other consenting adults

Its almost like that's what they said

Re: Alan Turing died 70 years ago

#97

Post by rayiner »

CalChris wrote: post #94
rayiner wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Franklin was religious and believed man was created by God and had an “immortal soul,” and that God created morality as well. https://www.americanheritage.com/benjamin-franklin-his-relig... (“I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That he governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we render to him is doing good to his other Children. That the soul of Man is…

From Franklin's letter, more towards the end: "I have ever let others enjoy their religious Sentiments".

The more relevant portion is this: “As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his Divinity; tho’ it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble.”

You invoked Franklin’s statements about “populism.” But Franklin thought that humans were made by God and that God-created law was a real thing that existed. Under that world view, it makes sense that a democratic society couldn’t decide to say legalize the murder of rich people, because God’s law was higher than man’s law. But presumably we are not having a theological discussion here. If we don’t accept the notion of divine law, how can there be limits on what democratic governments can do with the consent of the people? The people’s law should be the highest law, right?

Re: Alan Turing died 70 years ago

#98

Post by CalChris »

rayiner wrote: post #97
CalChris wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From Franklin's letter, more towards the end: "I have ever let others enjoy their religious Sentiments".

The more relevant portion is this: “As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his Divinity; tho’ it is a question I do not dogmatize upo…

No, the relevant portion of the letter was when Franklin eloquently added that he didn't want to apply his private religiosity to others. Nor as a Framer, did he.

I do not accept your divine law drivel nor do I accept your people's law either/or. Instead, I would counsel you to re-read and meditate on the Preamble to the Constitution, especially that part where it says in Order to form a more perfect Union. That part, the Enlightenment part.

Re: Alan Turing died 70 years ago

#99

Post by matthewdgreen »

Detrytus wrote: post #82
matthewdgreen wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no single “Enigma”. There were several variations of the Enigma with increasing amounts of complexity, and changing key management practices. Trying to hand credit for “the break” to one group is like trying to credit one chef for devising all gourmet cuisine.

Well, trying to credit Turing alone is what frustrates me the most. To add some context: 1. In Rejewski's own words, all variations of the Enigma were "quantitive, not qualitive" - adding more rotors, changing them more frequently made the decryption more labor-intensive, but they did not change the main principle on which it worked, and Rejewski's team was able to figure those out pretty quickly, even before the war…

1) “Quantity is its own quality” when it comes to ciphers. We can break many reduced-round ciphers easily but have no practical attack on the full version. This is not always true but it is close enough (even today) that nobody should mistake the impact of additional rotors as being “merely quantitative.”

2) Consider the fact that you felt the names Rejewski, Zygalski and Rozycki could be placed in an HN post without further explanation. Do people know who they are and what they did? Yes, they do. They’re not unknown or uncredited (though many others certainly are, as is the case with every other massive technical effort.)

3) I don’t think anyone has ever seriously suggested that Turing broke Enigma alone. And I don’t take Hollywood seriously: this is a medium that requires “the Enterprise bridge crew” of seven people to effectively solve every problem that comes up. But Turing’s contributions were very significant. And he never had a chance to brag about them: he maintained secrecy while many of his colleagues lived to see the work declassified.

Re: Alan Turing died 70 years ago

#100

Post by advael »

tim333 wrote: post #71
advael wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea apparently it was so important to the government of Britain to dictate which consenting adults can fuck each other that they would force hormones and essentially permanent probation on a literal world-changing scientist and undeniable war hero over it I will never recognize a government's right to tell adults what they can do with their own bodies and other consenting adults, and it's insane that there are zero g…

>insane that there are zero governments in the entire world that can uphold the basic principle of full bodily autonomy If there is zero government you get gang rape etc so it's more a question of where you draw the line.

Seems reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. By definition, rape of any kind fails the "consenting adults" criterion pretty trivially. I draw the line exactly where I said I do, and the whole "the worst crimes I can think of justify the whole project of authoritarianism because it's simply a matter of degrees" line of reasoning is as puerile as it is unoriginal
Post reply on HN