See, the basic presumption needs to be that random statements are false, otherwise you would have to disprove an infinite amount of random statements t arrive at the truth. Hence the asymetric requirements, and why David simply concedes the argument by not sourcing his statements, and why his opponent can simply (until some form of supporting evidence is provided) can reply with a simple 'no'.
Hard disagree. Do these arguments not apply to the conjecture by Avalys? Why is a shallow rebuttal backed by "it wouldn't be surprising" and anecdotes more credible than the sourced response?
If I dont go to work I starve. If I organise with my colleagues for a more favourable contract I will be removed by security guards. If we protest this we will be arrested by police. Are you able to only recognise force the moment blood is being spilled?
The initial premise is that the universe/nature imposes a requirement upon you to sustain life. Nature can not be a forceful actor by virtue of not being an actor.
Same problem with several of the replies sibling to yours.
This is perhaps the best counterargument I've heard, and I will say, it still doesn't make it not a tyranny. Let's call it then the tyranny of nature/the universe. The promise of technological progress will eventually help us out of it I believe.
Is it not forceful if I dangle you over a cliff and tell you to run your pockets, by virture of the natural origin of the gravitational potential that will accelerate your body into a jagged rock face at terminal velocity should I release my grip?
The example was literal. Force is not just violence. The threat of being fired is a use of force. I'm not clear if you missed the reference or think that this isn't force. I think it is. If you think otherwise, perhaps you could clarify where you think the line is. How about working in extremely hot conditions with no water breaks?
Now do I think it is tyranny? No. I agree that there should be another word used.
I don't understand why this was downvoted. In case it's not clear: (S)he's saying to split the key into multiple shares that can be used to reconstruct the key if you have a large enough quorum. Then store each share in a different place. As long as you don't lose too many of the shares, you'll be fine. And one baddie is NOT enough to get the key.
Either shuffling those keys stored in N different deposit boxes is overly complicated for a normal person, or it is not overly complicated for a moderately dedicated baddie either
Unless the "baddie" in this case is the government, why would it be easy for anyone to obtain access to multiple secrets stored in multiple boxes/banks?
Multisig is a pretty common setup for crypto and there is software that makes it easier.
Encapsulation is a whole other issue, to which the ‘solution’ is almost always more encapsulation. The nice thing about immutability is that it is not really compatible with how we do encapsulation, so if you are strict about immutability then you are suddenly free from the whole quagmire as a side-effect.
There's a difference between something being possible vs supported. In C/C++ you can have a type, and a const version of that type. In Java you can't define a class and automatically be able make a reference to a const object of that class. You can make a final reference, but that only means you're always referencing the same (mutable) object. You could you use final fields for the entire object, but then you have to make another type for the mutable kind, or builders to go from one to an other. Another example is Unmodifiable collections, which are only views on modifiable ones, so you can't be sure it's not modified. A language that supported immutability would come with some of these batteries included.
There are places to use encapsulation with mutability, such as simulations, but having hidden mutable states is not desirable property when constructing rapidly changing applications.
I do my best to keep things sane when working with a Java or Ruby or what have you codebase, but I don't pretend it's something it's not. Just do the best that the codebase and organization can tolerate.
Right, you can’t turn a mutable object into an immutable object when other references to the mutable interface already exists. Const as in C/C++ is certainly a useful feature that Java lacks, but it’s quite a leap from that to claiming that Java doesn’t support true immutability. I develop Java applications with immutability as the default, and it works quite well. The lack of the abive-mentioned feature is not a critical obstacle.
Regarding your point about collection views, const references are often also just views on mutable objects, and this poses no particular difficulty. And you can implement truly immutable collections in Java if you really insist on it.
It’s difficult in the sense that somebody consuming your class will sooner or later start relying on reflection to do something with it they shouldn’t (because they can), and then when you make a change in the future it will cause breakage downstream. Records solved this for some cases at least.
More important imo is that the standard collection classes can’t even be set to immutable with the final keyword. Sure you can use something else, but professionally you are going to have to deal with them most of the time still.
Yeah they seem to be trying to force the conversation into encapsulation == mutability when that flatly is just not true. There are tons of immutable objects that benefit from encapsulation and there is plenty of internal immutable state that you would want to encapsulate and not just give out.
Regarding #1, owners operate a factory that sells goods to the masses so they can get the labor or products of the labor of the masses (indirectly by getting currency they then use to buy that labor)
If with enough automation that's not necessary then it doesn't matter. Why operate a sneaker factory to get the money to buy caviar from the caviar factory when you can just operate the caviar factory directly?
Put another way, china thanks to it's new middle class is a great market for a business to sell to. That's because they have something of value to trade back.
But the Congo, full of people or not, isn't. They don't have anything any capitalist could want that would equal the value of finished middle class goods. All they have to offer is cheap raw materials or perhaps labor to extract. If people are made useless, we will all be from the Congo except the legacy capital owners, who can trade with each other for everything they might want.
Regarding #2, they would form their own garbage shit economy whose size and per capital size are like specks of dust compared to the main one, with obvious consequences for power dynamics when the two economies interact. Think of the underground economy in a prison, a homeless encampment, or a warzone, or subsistence farming peasanta deep, deep in thr Congo. Or the "economy" formed by insects trading pollen services for nectar with plants. That's how small and weak the economy of the leftover people with no access to the global industrial machine would be by comparison.
What about the credentials used to access AWS credentials? I think there's a good case for centralised credentials where they are shared across applications, though I would seriously question the need to share them across applications. But what you're achieving here as far as I can tell is just making secret retrieval more convoluted (for both devs and hypothetical attackers). Not to beat the dead horse, but obscurity != security.
When you deploy your code to AWS lambda or EC2 the code can simply access the appropriate secret stores as dictated by the IAM policy. If you haven't bought into AWS as a whole you're right that there's no good reason to use secret manager.
If you're in AWS, you get credentials from the metadata service.
If you're outside AWS, workloads assume roles using OIDC. If you still have access keys, generally speaking, you're doing it wrong.
Technically true, but in practice the role means you don't have to care about them. They're an implementation detail that's managed by AWS. Could be flying mice for all the app dev cares.
Sure, under the hood it is still access keys. Very temporarily defined access keys that going the normal happy path means you're not directly handling. What I'm really meaning by my above comment is you're not configuring your workload with ACCESS_KEY=abc123 SECRET_ACCESS_KEY=xyz789.
They aren't configured, but they're not as temporary as one might hope (i.e. they don't rotate on every read, for example), and it's pretty trivial set of exploits to leak them, especially in Kubernetes clusters with incorrectly configured worker nodes.
A much better solution would be for AWS to offer a domain socket or device inside VMs that will sign requests, such that the private material isn't even available to leak.
There are no credential, you are supposed to use identity-based auth: your lambda / ec2 / eks pods etc have a IAM role, so there are no secret in any form
If you think for more than a few seconds on the matter, you quickly realise that intellectual property is a moral necessity, because intellectual expropriation (which is what you are really talking about) would destroy a major incentive for positive contributions to society.
Everything political is rooted in morality, and while it is easy to point out political challenges on the topic, intellectual property is ethically an unambiguously good concept.
Most of the great art was created in a world without intellectual property, or with no effective IP enforcement on that art.
While I don’t think all IP should be abolished, I think in general there is too much of it, protected for too long, and society would be better off getting rid of patents and dramatically downsizing copyright to at most a few decades of protection.
(And yes I have thought a lot on this matter. The evidence behind patents being overall beneficial is weak, and there is no effective societal argument for the current copyright terms.)
I tend to agree with your takeaway, but I want to pick a nit on your point about great art being made without copyright.
"The Most Powerful Idea in the World" basically makes the case that intellectual property is what enabled the Industrial Revolution. I won't try to summarize or defend the entire thing here, but I think it makes a very compelling case that the notion of "owning ideas as property" was the thing that made Britain unique (among other factors of course) and led to runaway technological explosion. It points out how in earlier times, inventors were literally killed for coming up with better methods that threatened some established system. So there is a big difference between art and technology there, and while I think debating the merits of copyright as it pertains to art is valid (and 100% agree it's overdone in our current system), I'm not convinced the current issues are serious enough to undermine the entire concept of intellectual property.
Most creators work for hire and the company owns the IP. Anecdote: I can't remember the song written on a bus and sold to the record company for $250 to keep food on the table that has earnt billions for Warner, Sony, or Universal Music. Nothing more for the creator.
Big company stealing from another big company to benefit the rest of us? Seems like fair use. Nothing to do with creators.
That incentive was meant to be something like 20 years (same as patents) not almost "forever" like the Mouse wants who expropriated from all of those European folktales and sanitised them.
No incentive if you live off the earnings of a "one-hit wonder".
And without any form of copyright it would have gone "hey $RECORD_COMPANY here's this cool jingle I made" and they'd say "yeah we think so too, we'll use that and compensate you $0."
I have thought on the matter for millions of seconds.
Politics and economics don't have anything to do with morality. It's about power. The moral fairytailes are there to justify whatever the state of affairs are. When these change, new fairytales justifying them will be adopted.
If right to property is a God given right, why the hell I as a atheist should give a damn?
And if your argument ("... god given ... atheist ... etc.) can be copy-pasted into a valid defence of arbitrary evil (I like to use Hitler for a concrete example, but avoid it in public because some subset of people erroneously thinks that is an automatic fallacy), then it is trivial in the sense that it doesn't add anything to the discussion, regardless of your opinion or pov.
"Natural" rights are clearly a social construction, and indeed largely the same thing that was theologically justified with God.
They were literally just invented few hundred years ago. And have even changed since then (owning another human being was somehow a natural/god given right). Humans have organized (and keep on organizing) without any such conception for at least tens of thousands of years, but suddenly its natural?
Who is the absolute arbiter of "evil"? USA of course holds itself as a force for good, and e.g. islamism as evil. Islamists do the opposite. Very rarely anybody thinks themselves as evil, but readily point out evil in others.
This is in no way to support islamism, or USA. Just that morality is just mostly an arbtrary justification for whatever somebody wants to or doesn't want to get done.
We can discuss the merits and shortcomings of e.g. ownership based on its societal consequences just fine without conjuring metaphysics.
> If right to property is a God given right, why the hell I as a atheist should give a damn?
You can argue it from political necessity.
Some kind of property rights are necessary for the operation of any social group. Even in a communist society you can't have the air force stealing land from the navy, or the transport department taking electricity from hospitals, or neighbours taking each others food allocations.
There needs to be some kind of organised transfer of property or you get chaos.
You can argue divine right of kings or white supremacy from political necessity.
Some kind of systems to allocate scarce resources is needed. This doesn't have to be property. Access to e.g. the moon and earth's orbits and international waters and polar regions have systems of allocation, but they are not property.
> You can argue divine right of kings or white supremacy from political necessity.
Those arguments can be incorrect without entailing all arguments from political necessity are false.
I can incorrectly argue a justification of the flat earth theory from physics - but that would discredit my own intellect rather than the subject of physics.
> Some kind of systems to allocate scarce resources is needed. This doesn't have to be property.
I agree not everything has to be property, but some things must.
Essentially anything that's both important and "stealable" needs to be protected by property rights of some kind.
Regardless of how your food and water come into your possession (trade, charity, gov allocation), it's necessary that some of it remains in your possession for you to consume.
> Those arguments can be incorrect without entailing all arguments from political necessity are false.
> I can incorrectly argue a justification of the flat earth theory from physics - but that would discredit my own intellect rather than the subject of physics.
Do you mean the right to (certain very specific form of) property is somehow an empirically shown fact like the geometry of the earth?
Am I right in guessing that you have inclination towards praxeology?
> I agree not everything has to be property, but some things must.
Why do some things must? Because it leads to more desirable consequences than other options, or because it is some metaphysical truth you're somehow privy to?
The first kind of argument is fine, the latter is just blunt rhetorics. I don't see why the former should be spoiled with the latter.
> Do you mean the right to (certain very specific form of) property is somehow an empirically shown fact like the geometry of the earth?
> Am I right in guessing that you have inclination towards praxeology?
Yes for both. I’ve not formalised it but I suspect we can a draw a line from philosophy -> game theory -> evolutionary dynamics -> socially stable systems of “rights”
I'm all for socially stable systems of "rights". And deriving theories from assumptions is all good. Where I depart from praxeology is that I think the assumptions must be changed when they lead to empirically invalid conclusions.
Also, I don't believe ownership rights like we have currently lead to stable societies. This is kind of core of Marx's critique of capitalism.
I actually think we do live in very socially stable societies. Not to say it’s always a good thing.
But we do have clear systems of who gets power, through what means, and what they can do with it. The various classes of society have a relatively peaceful system of competing with one another.
I’m writing from a British perspective but it largely applies to most developed countries.
Europe had two world wars in the last century, and there's a major war right now. The (private) economy has collapsed at least twice. The post-war stability was largely due to reigning in private propery rights.
From a Finnish perspective, where ownership rights are somewhat lesser, the British system's trajectory didn't seem particularly stable when I lived there 2019-2020, and looks even less so now.
I think too much stability is self defeating. It creates fragility like a monocultured ecosystem. Self correction mechanisms are important, even if they're painful. Bad governments and bad enterprises need to be wiped out now and again by war and recession, as a last resort when other forms of reform fail.
Britain never seems stable at first glance. Read a newspaper from 5, 50, 150 or 250 years ago and they'll all be lamenting economic uncertainty, geopolitical dilemmas and social injustice. Yet in that time no revolutions have killed more than 1% of the population, long term economic growth has averaged couple percentage points annually and nobody has successfully invaded the Islands.
> Some kind of systems to allocate scarce resources is needed. This doesn't have to be property.
I should not be coerced to give output of my labor (whether physical or mental) to others based on some burocrat’s allocation system or my neighbor’s wishes. That would be immoral.
Per your morality perhaps. But morality is just an opinion, and one that can't be justified otherwise.
I should not be coerced not to enter a piece of land just because somebody made a contract with somebody who killed or evicted by force the people (and other animals) who previously inhabited the land. That would be immoral, right?
"""
While scholars are in consensus that the cause of the famine was man-made,[10][11] whether the Holodomor constitutes a genocide remains in dispute. Some historians conclude that the famine was deliberately engineered by Joseph Stalin to eliminate a Ukrainian independence movement.[c] Others suggest that the famine was primarily the consequence of rapid Soviet industrialisation and collectivization of agriculture. A middle position, held for example by historian Andrea Graziosi, is that the initial causes of the famine were an unintentional byproduct of the process of collectivization but once it set in, starvation was selectively weaponized and the famine was "instrumentalized" and amplified against Ukrainians to punish them for their rejection of the "new serfdom" and to break their nationalism.
"""
As far as I am concerned you are conceding the argument by doubling down here. And in spite of potentially being right.
reply