diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'content/entry')
177 files changed, 518 insertions, 518 deletions
diff --git a/content/entry/ai-poses-a-threat-to-privacy.md b/content/entry/ai-poses-a-threat-to-privacy.md index 266ff9c..705870a 100644 --- a/content/entry/ai-poses-a-threat-to-privacy.md +++ b/content/entry/ai-poses-a-threat-to-privacy.md @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ If you live in a technologically advanced society, it's somewhere between inconv I fear that the same sort of thing will happen with AI. I'll explain. -There's [Github Copilot](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/GitHub_Copilot), an AI productivity tool which helps programmers be more efficient. Just a few weeks ago, [Microsoft announced an AI assistant for Microsoft office](https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2023/03/16/introducing-microsoft-365-copilot-your-copilot-for-work/). School children use [OpenAI's ChatGPT](https://chat.openai.com/chat) to do their homework. These AI productivity tools may not be essential just yet, but they'll get better. And as they get better, it may eventually become infeasible to even compete in the workforce without being AI assisted since those willing to use it AI will have a huge advantage over you. +There's [Github Copilot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GitHub_Copilot), an AI productivity tool which helps programmers be more efficient. Just a few weeks ago, [Microsoft announced an AI assistant for Microsoft office](https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2023/03/16/introducing-microsoft-365-copilot-your-copilot-for-work/). School children use [OpenAI's ChatGPT](https://chat.openai.com/chat) to do their homework. These AI productivity tools may not be essential just yet, but they'll get better. And as they get better, it may eventually become infeasible to even compete in the workforce without being AI assisted since those willing to use it AI will have a huge advantage over you. The same thing could happen in people's personal lives. We may eventually reach a point where nearly everything people do is AI-assisted. Want to learn how to cook? Your smart assistant will teach you with a teaching style that's personalized to you. Need to improve your diet and exercise habits? Your AI smart home will create a personalized healthy diet and exercise regime that works for you. Your AI therapist will listen to all your problems free of charge and offer scientifically supported advice for your unique problem. AI may even augment your sex life. It will reach a point where people who refuse to use AI assistants are at a distinct disadvantage compared to those who use AI. @@ -20,4 +20,4 @@ The only way to benefit from today's most powerful AI and possibly the AI of the So currently, the only way to protect your privacy from the most powerful AIs is to sacrifice all the benefits of using them. As is happening with smartphones, making this sacrifice for your privacy may become prohibitively inconvenient. On the other hand, regulating AI so that, by law, it must be democratized, giving users full personal control over powerful AI systems probably isn't a good idea. Safeguards will be removed. It'll be misused for malicious ends. And as AI gets more powerful, giving everyone access just becomes reckless. -So how do we proceed? I don't think I have the required expertise to offer any concrete advice except to say that [homomorphic encryption](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homomorphic_encryption) may be part of the solution. It wouldn't solve all the problems with AI, but at least it would allow powerful AI to benefit users without compromising their privacy or giving them full unrestricted access. +So how do we proceed? I don't think I have the required expertise to offer any concrete advice except to say that [homomorphic encryption](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homomorphic_encryption) may be part of the solution. It wouldn't solve all the problems with AI, but at least it would allow powerful AI to benefit users without compromising their privacy or giving them full unrestricted access. diff --git a/content/entry/always-use-tor.md b/content/entry/always-use-tor.md index 97ac087..c117b82 100644 --- a/content/entry/always-use-tor.md +++ b/content/entry/always-use-tor.md @@ -42,6 +42,6 @@ So, predictably, the physical layer, Ethernet, IP/BGP, TCP/UDP, DNS/X.509, and a And [I'm not even scratching the surface](https://youbroketheinternet.org/). # GNUnet -[GNUnet](https://www.gnunet.org/) is a modern alternative network stack that seems to address the problems of the piss poor stack we're all forced to use today, although honestly I haven't done enough research on it. It's in heavy development without a stable release, but I'm optimistic. +[GNUnet](https://www.gnunet.org/en/) is a modern alternative network stack that seems to address the problems of the piss poor stack we're all forced to use today, although honestly I haven't done enough research on it. It's in heavy development without a stable release, but I'm optimistic. Ideally, something like GNUnet will fully replace the existing network stack so we can have real privacy, by default. But until then, a VPN + Tor is your best chance. So use it! And help out by [hosting a relay](https://community.torproject.org/relay/) if you can. diff --git a/content/entry/an-objection-to-my-metaethics.md b/content/entry/an-objection-to-my-metaethics.md index 2aedc6f..9f2df5f 100644 --- a/content/entry/an-objection-to-my-metaethics.md +++ b/content/entry/an-objection-to-my-metaethics.md @@ -24,6 +24,6 @@ The values that you say I am "smuggling in" are that moral language should be us I'm open to the idea that my formulation of metaethics (referring to values) may not be the best moral semantics for satisfying my own criteria, but if you don't even care about moral language being useful to begin with, then I don't know what else to say to you. We need some way in language to talk about shared values and goals. -Just as we all accept the fundamental axiomatic [Laws of Thought](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_thought) so we can reason logically and go about our day, the idea that language needs to be useful is also properly basic in some sense. Just as there's no non-contradictory way of expressing one's rejection of the Laws of Thought, there's also no non-contradictory way of expressing that language needn't be useful. How could one even express such a thought without first having useful language to express it with? +Just as we all accept the fundamental axiomatic [Laws of Thought](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_thought) so we can reason logically and go about our day, the idea that language needs to be useful is also properly basic in some sense. Just as there's no non-contradictory way of expressing one's rejection of the Laws of Thought, there's also no non-contradictory way of expressing that language needn't be useful. How could one even express such a thought without first having useful language to express it with? You're free not to accept properly basic claims, but frankly I think that's just silly kindergarten philosophy that leads us nowhere. So I stand by the criteria I outlined which a good moral semantics should possess and I continue thinking that what I've said regarding my interpretation of moral semantics is at least a decent approximation to what people really mean when they use moral language and to what's useful. diff --git a/content/entry/antinatalism.md b/content/entry/antinatalism.md index ed45131..1935b21 100644 --- a/content/entry/antinatalism.md +++ b/content/entry/antinatalism.md @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ Besides not contributing to climate change, there's also the legitimate concern He has a few other reasons on his article in favor of not having children or having only a small family. I agree with him that natalist pressure is a very Bad Thing. Having children shouldn't be something to be proud of or celebrated. It should be discouraged at least until the climate and ecological crises are averted. # David Benatar's Antinatalism -Stallman says in his article that he doesn't wish for humanity to go extinct. He just wants the population to reach a sustainable level. But there are some who take it much further. They do want humanity to go extinct. According to them, it would be the best thing that could possibly happen. What distinguishes the antinatalism coming from Stallman from the antinatalism coming from people like David Benatar who want [voluntary human extinction](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Movement) is Benatar argues that procreating is always morally wrong or at best morally neutral. +Stallman says in his article that he doesn't wish for humanity to go extinct. He just wants the population to reach a sustainable level. But there are some who take it much further. They do want humanity to go extinct. According to them, it would be the best thing that could possibly happen. What distinguishes the antinatalism coming from Stallman from the antinatalism coming from people like David Benatar who want [voluntary human extinction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Movement) is Benatar argues that procreating is always morally wrong or at best morally neutral. ## Nihilism There is often confusion that antinatalists like Benatar are just nihilists. That's not the case at all. They're often very compassionate people who have a deep concern for the suffering of all life. Many of them are even vegans. And that compassion for the suffering of others is why they believe humanity, and in some cases all animals, should go extinct. @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ Some people who I think are unable to cope with the conclusion of Benatar's argu I've had similar experiences as Benatar where people psychologized my atheism. They assumed that I was an atheist because I was depressed. I wrote about this in my post [Dealing With Close-Minded People](/2021/08/28/dealing-with-close-minded-people/). It turns out this happens to atheists a lot. I know firsthand how frustrating it can be to be psychologized, so I'm going stick strictly to the arguments. I'm not going to speculate on the psychology of Benatar. ## Asymmetry of Harms/Benefits -According to Benatar, one way to arrive at antinatalism is through his asymmetry argument ([copied from Wikipedia](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism#Asymmetry_between_harms_and_benefits), license: CC-BY-SA 3.0): +According to Benatar, one way to arrive at antinatalism is through his asymmetry argument ([copied from Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism#Asymmetry_between_harms_and_benefits), license: CC-BY-SA 3.0): 1. The presence of pain is bad 2. The presence of pleasure is good @@ -156,7 +156,7 @@ But Benatar has more than just the asymmetry argument. And the rest of his argum If your quality of life is extremely low and you cannot support a child and you voluntarily bring a child into the world, I agree. If responsibility means anything, you're partially responsible for their suffering. By the same token, if you have strong reasons to believe your child will be extremely happy and you give birth to an extremely happy child, all else being equal, you can take partial credit for their happiness. -Certainly the potential suffering of descendants is cause for some people not to have children. But if you want to make the case that nobody should have children because of the suffering of descendants, we have to talk about [depressive realism](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depressive_realism). +Certainly the potential suffering of descendants is cause for some people not to have children. But if you want to make the case that nobody should have children because of the suffering of descendants, we have to talk about [depressive realism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depressive_realism). ### Depressive Realism Depressive realism is the idea that depressed people are the ones who see the world most clearly. It's the optimists who are kidding themselves. This is in contrast to conventional wisdom which says depressed people have a negative cognitive bias. @@ -171,7 +171,7 @@ However there is the possibility that future technology might deliver us eternal Anyway, there are a lot of unknowns about the future. We don't know how good eternal bliss would be. We don't know how bad eternal hell would be. We don't know the probabilities of either becoming a reality. We can't reason based on possible future deliverance. It's too uncertain. All we can reason on is what's happening right now and what has happened in the past. -Benatar has cited [historical evidence](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism#Consequences_of_procreation) trying to show that the rare moments of bliss we experience do not offset all our suffering and [the additional suffering we cause other animals](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism#Misanthropy). This seems to be a plausible hypothesis. But we also shouldn't forget that humans have made a lot of progress in quality of life over the years as well. +Benatar has cited [historical evidence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism#Consequences_of_procreation) trying to show that the rare moments of bliss we experience do not offset all our suffering and [the additional suffering we cause other animals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism#Misanthropy). This seems to be a plausible hypothesis. But we also shouldn't forget that humans have made a lot of progress in quality of life over the years as well. ## Famine Relief David Benatar also argues that: @@ -184,10 +184,10 @@ To create a new being and increase overconsumption and overpopulation without co I still didn't address the popular arguments other antinatalists make. I'll quickly say something about those. ## Kantian Imperative -There is the Kantian Imperative. I'm not going to address [Kantian antinatalism](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism#Kantian_imperative) because I don't respect it enough to spend time arguing against it. See my criticism of Kant in [metaethics](/2020/10/11/metaethics/). +There is the Kantian Imperative. I'm not going to address [Kantian antinatalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism#Kantian_imperative) because I don't respect it enough to spend time arguing against it. See my criticism of Kant in [metaethics](/2020/10/11/metaethics/). ## Impossibility of Consent -There's also the Impossibility of Consent argument. The argument for not procreating based on [impossibility of consent](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism#Impossibility_of_consent) merely smuggles in the usual reasons we care about consent and takes them completely out of context, the same as Benatar's 4 other asymmetries do. +There's also the Impossibility of Consent argument. The argument for not procreating based on [impossibility of consent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism#Impossibility_of_consent) merely smuggles in the usual reasons we care about consent and takes them completely out of context, the same as Benatar's 4 other asymmetries do. For instance, we care about sexual consent because without it, there's no bodily autonomy. We care about medical consent for treatment for the same reasons. The common denominator for consent is it gives individuals control over their lives. Control over your own life generally leads to less suffering. diff --git a/content/entry/anybody-can-solve-a-rubiks-cube-blindfolded.md b/content/entry/anybody-can-solve-a-rubiks-cube-blindfolded.md index 764af80..5cb9b89 100644 --- a/content/entry/anybody-can-solve-a-rubiks-cube-blindfolded.md +++ b/content/entry/anybody-can-solve-a-rubiks-cube-blindfolded.md @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ title: "Anybody Can Solve a Rubik's Cube Blindfolded" date: 2022-05-22T00:00:00 draft: false --- -Anybody can solve a Rubik's cube blindfolded. I recorded a [video of myself](https://web.archive.org/web/20230323073658id_/files.nicholasjohnson.ch/rubiks-cube-blindsolve.webm) doing it at seventeen years old using the [Classic Pochmann method](https://www.stefan-pochmann.info/spocc/blindsolving/3x3/old.php). It took me ten minutes, but speedcubers like Flavian do it on [Britain's Got Talent](https://yewtu.be/embed/1EqgeMfJ_rE?local=true) in under thirty seconds. +Anybody can solve a Rubik's cube blindfolded. I recorded a [video of myself](https://web.archive.org/web/20230323073658if_/files.nicholasjohnson.ch/rubiks-cube-blindsolve.webm) doing it at seventeen years old using the [Classic Pochmann method](https://www.stefan-pochmann.info/spocc/blindsolving/3x3/old.php). It took me ten minutes, but speedcubers like Flavian do it on [Britain's Got Talent](https://yewtu.be/embed/1EqgeMfJ_rE?local=true) in under thirty seconds. In my experience, most people are impressed if you can solve a Rubik's cube at all. The truth is, if you dedicate yourself, you can probably learn how to solve a Rubik's cube sighted in a day. There's not much to it. It's just memorizing sequences of moves called algorithms and knowing when to use them. diff --git a/content/entry/article-please-dont-pay-to-use-a-pay-toilet.md b/content/entry/article-please-dont-pay-to-use-a-pay-toilet.md index faaf40d..1c03f9b 100644 --- a/content/entry/article-please-dont-pay-to-use-a-pay-toilet.md +++ b/content/entry/article-please-dont-pay-to-use-a-pay-toilet.md @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ Many countries both rich and poor still have pay toilets, toilets where the user I've heard pay toilets being touted as a solution to the shortage of free public toilets in some places. Why not remedy the situation by setting up new public toilets and paying for their sanitation, repairs, and restocking with taxes? That takes care of the problem of who pays for public toilets without excluding anybody. -Some people worry that having tax-funded public toilets is a [slippery slope](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope) that leads to either socializing all basic needs or the end of private business. It would be a good thing if the former were true, but clearly neither are. The U.S. has free public toilets, yet even healthcare is a for-profit business. Europe has a much better social safety net than the U.S., but it has more paid toilets. There doesn't seem to be any correlation. +Some people worry that having tax-funded public toilets is a [slippery slope](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope) that leads to either socializing all basic needs or the end of private business. It would be a good thing if the former were true, but clearly neither are. The U.S. has free public toilets, yet even healthcare is a for-profit business. Europe has a much better social safety net than the U.S., but it has more paid toilets. There doesn't seem to be any correlation. Tax-funded public toilets will not be the end of capitalism. Neither will having socialized healthcare, food and housing programs, etc. We're not talking about giving everyone free weed. But in a civilized society, nobody should have to worry about meeting their basic biological needs. In a civilized society, "hitting rock bottom" shouldn't mean shitting on the street, dying of Covid because you can't afford treatment, or getting harassed by [thugs](/glossary/) because a park bench is the only place you have to sleep. diff --git a/content/entry/article-the-internet-is-broken.md b/content/entry/article-the-internet-is-broken.md index 5adc153..452ad55 100644 --- a/content/entry/article-the-internet-is-broken.md +++ b/content/entry/article-the-internet-is-broken.md @@ -4,16 +4,16 @@ date: 2023-02-14T00:00:00 tags: ['computing'] draft: false --- -The internet stack is [broken beyond repair](https://secushare.org/broken-internet). It needs to be thrown out and replaced with a [GNU network](https://www.gnunet.org/)! +The internet stack is [broken beyond repair](https://secushare.org/broken-internet). It needs to be thrown out and replaced with a [GNU network](https://www.gnunet.org/en/)! There's lots of software projects out there that address *some* of the pitfalls of the network stack and I want to pay tribute to them before evangelizing GNUnet. I don't have the time to give all these projects their due, so I apologize ahead of time for skipping some. To give one example though, [Tor](https://www.torproject.org) helps millions of people every day (including me) access the internet anonymously. It has been an invaluable tool for protecting journalists and human rights defenders for years. I even use it to host this journal's [hidden service gemini capsule](gemini://nick6gsepvtmkcpibpid6dqtqroxt62u6ab4ep65vxrenffruumj6jad.onion) and [hidden service website](http://nick6gsepvtmkcpibpid6dqtqroxt62u6ab4ep65vxrenffruumj6jad.onion/). To contribute back to the project, I've hosted a number of relays over the past few years. -For anonymity, there's also [The Invisible Internet Project](https://geti2p.net) and [Freenet](https://freenetproject.org/). There's [IPFS](https://ipfs.tech/) and [ZeroNet](https://zeronet.io/), which aim to decentralize the web. [Yggdrasil](https://yggdrasil-network.github.io/) enables end-to-end encrypted IPv6 routing between all network participants. There have been several attempts to secure DNS such as [NameCoin](https://www.namecoin.org/), [DNSSEC](https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Name_System_Security_Extensions), and others. And although [cryptocurrency is a disaster](/2022/03/15/documentary-line-goes-up-the-problem-with-nfts/), it *has* enabled various decentralized applications, [Session Private Messenger](https://getsession.org/) being an example. +For anonymity, there's also [The Invisible Internet Project](https://geti2p.net/en/) and [Hyphanet](https://www.hyphanet.org/index.html). There's [IPFS](https://ipfs.tech/) and [ZeroNet](https://zeronet.io/), which aim to decentralize the web. [Yggdrasil](https://yggdrasil-network.github.io/) enables end-to-end encrypted IPv6 routing between all network participants. There have been several attempts to secure DNS such as [NameCoin](https://www.namecoin.org/), [DNSSEC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Name_System_Security_Extensions), and others. And although [cryptocurrency is a disaster](/2022/03/15/documentary-line-goes-up-the-problem-with-nfts/), it *has* enabled various decentralized applications, [Session Private Messenger](https://getsession.org/) being an example. I don't want to downplay the importance of these efforts nor the progress they've achieved. However, their successes are isolated. The specific problems they do solve are somewhat undermined by the insecure layers below them. A full, proper solution to these pitfalls can only come from taking a wholistic approach, replacing every layer of the broken stack. -[GNUnet](https://www.gnunet.org/) aims to do just that. It has been in development for over two decades and is based heavily on academic research. Besides replacing every layer of the network stack with a secure, decentralized, free alternative, it also features [a replacement for DNS](https://www.gnunet.org/en/gns.html), [a decentralized identity service](https://www.gnunet.org/en/reclaim/index.html), [distributed anonymous file sharing](https://www.gnunet.org/en/use.html#fs), [a private electronic payment system that's not a cryptocurrency](https://taler.net/), [a decentralized social networking application](https://secushare.org/), [a convergent private messaging application](https://git.gnunet.org/messenger-gtk.git/), and more. The scope of GNUnet is *enormous* by necessity. It needs as many contributors as it can get. +[GNUnet](https://www.gnunet.org/en/) aims to do just that. It has been in development for over two decades and is based heavily on academic research. Besides replacing every layer of the network stack with a secure, decentralized, free alternative, it also features [a replacement for DNS](https://www.gnunet.org/en/gns.html), [a decentralized identity service](https://www.gnunet.org/en/reclaim/index.html), [distributed anonymous file sharing](https://www.gnunet.org/en/use.html#fs), [a private electronic payment system that's not a cryptocurrency](https://taler.net/en/), [a decentralized social networking application](https://secushare.org/), [a convergent private messaging application](https://git.gnunet.org/messenger-gtk.git/), and more. The scope of GNUnet is *enormous* by necessity. It needs as many contributors as it can get. So here's my plea: To everyone involved in isolated projects to improve one aspect of the internet, don't you think it's time for a wholistic solution to network privacy, decentralization, censorship-resistance, and software freedom? If you agree, why not use your knowledge, skills, and time on GNUnet instead? diff --git a/content/entry/article-you-should-be-using-an-old-computer.md b/content/entry/article-you-should-be-using-an-old-computer.md index 89e906b..5368d5e 100644 --- a/content/entry/article-you-should-be-using-an-old-computer.md +++ b/content/entry/article-you-should-be-using-an-old-computer.md @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ draft: false --- I was going to write my own post about this subject until I discovered Luke Smith, a GNU/Linux technology Youtuber, already wrote an article about it: -[Luke Smith's Article](https://lukesmith.xyz/articles/only-use-old-computers) +[Luke Smith's Article](https://lukesmith.xyz/articles/only-use-old-computers/) His reasons for recommending an old computer (specifically Thinkpads) are: @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ The potential backdoor is really the crux of the ethical problem. Even if you do Maybe you're above nothing to hide though. You understand privacy is a human right. But, you reason, the Intel ME isn't a big deal because an interested government could find out what they wanted to know some other way. Besides even without ME there's other embedded software that, however unlikely it is, could possibly also have backdoors. All that's beyond your "threat model" anyway. This goes back to a previous post I made. By using the least potentially backdoored computer possible, you [raise the bar on privacy](/2020/11/14/raising-the-bar-on-privacy/) (and freedom!). That's a cause we all need to be fighting for irrespective of threat models. # RetroFreedom -The next most obvious question is "Where do I buy a computer without a backdoor?". I recommend [RetroFreedom](https://retrofreedom.com/) (formerly Minifree). [Leah Rowe](https://vimuser.org/) operates the site. She maintains the [Libreboot](https://libreboot.org/) project, a free as in freedom alternative BIOS that ships with the old Thinkpads she sells. You can purchase products with cryptocurrency and several addons and upgrades are offered. I don't mind the markup in price since I know it goes toward an important free software project. I can personally attest to the quality of the laptops from RetroFreedom. I've bought several laptops from there running exclusively free software and I'm very satisfied. +The next most obvious question is "Where do I buy a computer without a backdoor?". I recommend [RetroFreedom](https://web.archive.org/web/20210125210309if_/https://retrofreedom.com/) (formerly Minifree). [Leah Rowe](https://vimuser.org/) operates the site. She maintains the [Libreboot](https://libreboot.org/) project, a free as in freedom alternative BIOS that ships with the old Thinkpads she sells. You can purchase products with cryptocurrency and several addons and upgrades are offered. I don't mind the markup in price since I know it goes toward an important free software project. I can personally attest to the quality of the laptops from RetroFreedom. I've bought several laptops from there running exclusively free software and I'm very satisfied. # Free Software I would never again use a nonfree laptop to do my everyday personal computing. I've given up video games since all the popular titles are nonfree requiring me to run the Winblows operating system. [I quit my job to avoid promoting proprietary software](/2020/07/02/why-i-left-its/). [I dropped out of college so I didn't have to use invasive proprietary malware](/2020/03/30/the-tipping-point-rejecting-windows-zoom-lockdown-browser-and-the-lockdown-monitor/). Too many people have told me I'm too extreme. I care too much about free software. Life is just too short to be so picky. But to them I would say this: diff --git a/content/entry/atom-and-rss.md b/content/entry/atom-and-rss.md index caaa829..f7cfb04 100644 --- a/content/entry/atom-and-rss.md +++ b/content/entry/atom-and-rss.md @@ -6,17 +6,17 @@ draft: false --- Most netizens are vaguely familiar with this symbol: [RSS icon [IMG]](/feed-icon-28x28.png) -It represents [Atom](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom_%28standard%29) and [RSS](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSS). From Wikipedia ([CC BY-SA 3.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/)): +It represents [Atom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom_%28standard%29) and [RSS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSS). From Wikipedia ([CC BY-SA 3.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/)): ## RSS > "RSS (RDF Site Summary or Really Simply Syndication) is a web feed that allows users and applications to access updates to websites in a standardized, computer-readable format. These feeds can, for example, allow a user to keep track of many different websites in a single news aggregator. The news aggregator will automatically check the RSS feed for new content, allowing the list to be automatically passed from website to website or from website to user...Websites usually use RSS feeds to publish frequently updated information, such as blog entries, news headlines, or episodes of audio and video series." ## Atom -> "The Atom format was developed as an alternative to RSS. [Ben Trott](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Trott), an advocate of the new format that became Atom, believed that RSS had limitations and flaws—such as lack of on-going innovation and its necessity to remain backward compatible—and that there were advantages to a fresh design." +> "The Atom format was developed as an alternative to RSS. [Ben Trott](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Trott), an advocate of the new format that became Atom, believed that RSS had limitations and flaws—such as lack of on-going innovation and its necessity to remain backward compatible—and that there were advantages to a fresh design." So that's Atom and RSS in short. In the real world Atom/RSS feeds really don't get the usage they deserve. For me an Atom/RSS feed reader is indispensable. Instead of checking 20 different web pages manually scanning each page for new content, I can just open my feed reader. It shows me all my web content in a streamlined fashion. Unlike social media, I have full control over my Atom/RSS feeds. In fact, Atom/RSS feeds are a big reason I don't have social media accounts and haven't for some time. Why go on social media when you can make it come to you? It's easy to get feeds for most popular social media sites including but not limited to Youtube, Reddit, Tumblr, Medium, Wordpress, Blogger and Twitter. -I'm not inherently against social media. I'm just against proprietary walled gardens which is most social media that people actually use. Atom/RSS feeds make it easy to keep your distance from social media without missing out. I'm aware I could use [free](http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html), federated social networks like [Mastadon](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastodon_%28software%29). I just don't have a need. For future reference, if I sign up for social media, I'll link my profile on my about page in the [identity](/about/) section. Any social media accounts not linked under the identity section claiming to belong to me or even appearing to be mine are [sock puppets](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_%28Internet%29). For now I just have this blog. +I'm not inherently against social media. I'm just against proprietary walled gardens which is most social media that people actually use. Atom/RSS feeds make it easy to keep your distance from social media without missing out. I'm aware I could use [free](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html), federated social networks like [Mastadon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastodon_%28software%29). I just don't have a need. For future reference, if I sign up for social media, I'll link my profile on my about page in the [identity](/about/) section. Any social media accounts not linked under the identity section claiming to belong to me or even appearing to be mine are [sock puppets](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_%28Internet%29). For now I just have this blog. # How to Use Atom/RSS Now that you know what Atom/RSS is and you have an idea what it's used for, I'll move on to the meat of this post: how to use Atom/RSS. To begin using Atom/RSS yourself, you'll need to install a feed reader. There is mature feed reader software available for all major platforms including mobile. Decent feed readers support both Atom and RSS and you probably won't need to know which is which. Most sites including this one still use RSS. I do plan to eventually switch [my site feed](/atom.xml) over to Atom since it's more modern. @@ -30,6 +30,6 @@ Decent Atom/RSS aggregators allow you to create groups of feeds, so you can comb The experience you have with Atom/RSS ultimately boils down to the features your feed reader software has and how you set up your feeds. The greatest benefit of Atom/RSS in my opinion is Atom/RSS gives you have full control over the information you see and how it's organized. Popular social media outlets rarely give you that level of control, so definitely give Atom/RSS a try if you're not already using them. # Motivation -I was motivated to write this post for the same reason I was motivated to write about [using email](/2020/10/29/using-email). Seeing the way most people consume feed-based digital content leaves something to be desired. Most netizens don't know there's an easier way to get web content than going to each individual website meanwhile capturing all the [Goo-lag](https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Goolag) [analytics](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html) and tracking cookies in their browser. +I was motivated to write this post for the same reason I was motivated to write about [using email](/2020/10/29/using-email/). Seeing the way most people consume feed-based digital content leaves something to be desired. Most netizens don't know there's an easier way to get web content than going to each individual website meanwhile capturing all the [Goo-lag](https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Goolag) [analytics](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html) and tracking cookies in their browser. I made this post just to spread awareness that Atom and RSS are useful, easy to use, and ubiquitous on websites. I'd really like to see them gain more popularity. It was one of those things I couldn't not write about because so many people are missing out on it. People who are already aware of Atom/RSS probably didn't learn much but this post is only an introduction for those that have never used them before. Regardless, I hope you learned something and happy aggregating! diff --git a/content/entry/autism-and-memory.md b/content/entry/autism-and-memory.md index 41994f8..546f337 100644 --- a/content/entry/autism-and-memory.md +++ b/content/entry/autism-and-memory.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ date: 2022-07-20T00:00:00 tags: ['autism'] draft: false --- -[Memory function in autism has been studied for decades.](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism_and_memory) The research is fascinating to me because I have high-functioning autism and it helps me describe things I already implicitly know about myself. People with high-functioning autism such as myself have both difficulties and strengths in memory compared with neurotypicals. +[Memory function in autism has been studied for decades.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism_and_memory) The research is fascinating to me because I have high-functioning autism and it helps me describe things I already implicitly know about myself. People with high-functioning autism such as myself have both difficulties and strengths in memory compared with neurotypicals. In my entry, [Coming Out as Autistic](/2022/05/16/coming-out-as-autistic/), I recall a few anecdotes which illustrate the weakness of my short-term memory, starting with middle school English class: diff --git a/content/entry/automation-and-the-meaning-of-work.md b/content/entry/automation-and-the-meaning-of-work.md index 96d5235..892b848 100644 --- a/content/entry/automation-and-the-meaning-of-work.md +++ b/content/entry/automation-and-the-meaning-of-work.md @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ title: "Automation and the Meaning of Work" date: 2022-09-07T00:00:00 draft: false --- -Recently, artificially intelligent (AI) art generators such as [DALL-E2](https://openai.com/dall-e-2/), [Midjourney](https://www.midjourney.com/) and [Stable Diffusion](https://stability.ai/blog/stable-diffusion-announcement) have been making headlines in the news and artists are fuming. Given the recent news attention, I figured it would be a good idea to talk about the direction AI is headed and how that affects the meaning of work going forward. +Recently, artificially intelligent (AI) art generators such as [DALL-E2](https://openai.com/dall-e-2/), [Midjourney](https://www.midjourney.com/) and [Stable Diffusion](https://stability.ai/news/stable-diffusion-announcement) have been making headlines in the news and artists are fuming. Given the recent news attention, I figured it would be a good idea to talk about the direction AI is headed and how that affects the meaning of work going forward. ## Automation is Coming It should be clear to everyone not living under a rock that we're in the process of making human labor obsolete. Most people claiming that AI won't be able to take their job are simply in denial. @@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ Post-automation, there will be more time for social interaction between people w On the other hand, maybe more free time will just lead to people spending more time on social media since better AI means more addictive online platforms. It's hard to say for certain. ## Conclusion -The categories I've laid out make up one useful model for thinking about automation and work, but it's not the only model. For instance, the [AI arms race](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence_arms_race) between world powers may force many public and private sector jobs to be automated. Also, there will probably be new jobs that don't fit into any of the categories because only AI will be capable of performing them. There will be work where a collective decision has to be made whether humans or AI should perform it because a mix of human and AI workers won't work. In other cases, the nature of the work is such that people will value it more merely because a human did it. +The categories I've laid out make up one useful model for thinking about automation and work, but it's not the only model. For instance, the [AI arms race](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence_arms_race) between world powers may force many public and private sector jobs to be automated. Also, there will probably be new jobs that don't fit into any of the categories because only AI will be capable of performing them. There will be work where a collective decision has to be made whether humans or AI should perform it because a mix of human and AI workers won't work. In other cases, the nature of the work is such that people will value it more merely because a human did it. Some other model for predicting the implications of automation may arise that does better than what I've laid out. My model may end up being totally irrelevant if the assumptions I made aren't met. It's certainly oversimplified and not the full story. diff --git a/content/entry/automation-bullshit-jobs-and-work.md b/content/entry/automation-bullshit-jobs-and-work.md index 67d13fe..8f38324 100644 --- a/content/entry/automation-bullshit-jobs-and-work.md +++ b/content/entry/automation-bullshit-jobs-and-work.md @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ title: "Automation, Bullshit Jobs, And Work" date: 2022-01-22T00:00:00 draft: false --- -This entry was inspired by [Bullshit Jobs](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs), a theory put forth by famed anarchist anthropology professor [David Graeber](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Graeber). Ever since reading it, I have been itching to write about my own observations related to automation, bullshit jobs, and work. I'll start with a few personal anecdotes related to workplace bullshit. +This entry was inspired by [Bullshit Jobs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs), a theory put forth by famed anarchist anthropology professor [David Graeber](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Graeber). Ever since reading it, I have been itching to write about my own observations related to automation, bullshit jobs, and work. I'll start with a few personal anecdotes related to workplace bullshit. # Prolonged Work My own work history isn't very extensive, but I've witnessed a lot of workplace bullshit. Unfortunately I'm going to have to be vague about those experiences since I'm not sure if I can legally share too many details, but I think you'll still find reading worthwhile. @@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ What surprised me more was when I brought this phenomenon up to others, they wer My only thought was "Surely there are better ways to organize society than this. Having a system that incentivizes time-wasting is just stupid." And I still believe that. Just imagine all the different ways human societies can plausibly be organized and we're supposed to believe that the optimal economy is one where people are incentivized to spend thousands of collective hours bullshitting at work? I don't buy it. -Why do people act like a better system is impossible? Do I just have a more active imagination than everybody else? I mean it doesn't take that much imagination to think of improvements. For example, what about [UBI](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income) where the government redistributes wealth from the hyper-rich to everybody else? +Why do people act like a better system is impossible? Do I just have a more active imagination than everybody else? I mean it doesn't take that much imagination to think of improvements. For example, what about [UBI](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income) where the government redistributes wealth from the hyper-rich to everybody else? If everyone could live comfortably without being forced to work, I think that might help eliminate some of the bullshit. How many people would stay for an extra four hours per day at work doing nothing if they could have a high standard of living without doing that? I'm guessing not many. @@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ It doesn't seem to add up that after rapid technological progress which automate According to Graeber, the reason we're not working less is basically because the ruling class has figured out that a happy, productive population with free time goes against their interests. They want people financially enslaved so they don't have time to pose a threat. -He also notes in [his 2013 essay](https://web.archive.org/web/20220902061001/https://www.strike.coop/bullshit-jobs/) that people's attitudes about work are extremely convenient to the ruling class. Those who shame the unemployed for not working hard doing pointless jobs they hate are unknowingly spreading a meme that keeps the ruling class in power. It ensures that the working class is too busy doing pointless box-ticking to incite the political inertia needed to change their circumstances. +He also notes in [his 2013 essay](https://web.archive.org/web/20220902061001if_/https://www.strike.coop/bullshit-jobs/) that people's attitudes about work are extremely convenient to the ruling class. Those who shame the unemployed for not working hard doing pointless jobs they hate are unknowingly spreading a meme that keeps the ruling class in power. It ensures that the working class is too busy doing pointless box-ticking to incite the political inertia needed to change their circumstances. Another example of this is people who criticize protesters for not being at work. "Get a job!" they shout. If you go to enough protests, and I've been involved in a few, then you'll probably eventually hear that phrase. I'm reminded of a relevant paragraph about [Fractal Wrongness](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractal_wrongness) from RationalWiki (CC-BY-SA 3.0): @@ -69,13 +69,13 @@ Self-righteous automasochists are envious and critical of those who have jobs th The elites and the rich still retain moral superiority because workers imagine that the wealthy worked their way up and deserve to be there. This is in direct contradiction with their experience of lazy incompetent bosses who keep getting promotion after promotion. -I think the appropriate response to this is we have to rethink what work is all about. Society mostly follows the old Puritan [work ethic](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_work_ethic). It says that your worth is determined by your work. It's the idea that hard work is noble in and of itself, regardless whether it actually provides value to society. +I think the appropriate response to this is we have to rethink what work is all about. Society mostly follows the old Puritan [work ethic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_work_ethic). It says that your worth is determined by your work. It's the idea that hard work is noble in and of itself, regardless whether it actually provides value to society. My biggest complaint against the Puritan work ethic is it misses the point of work. In one way or another, all valuable work boils down to caring for oneself and others. And by caring, I mean it in the broadest possible sense. Teachers educate which is a form of caring for future generations. Dentists care for other people's teeth. Laborers build roads for people to drive on. Even engaging in personal hobbies that require significant effort is a form of work, because it's a form of caring for oneself. For example, writing this journal is work. It's not a job and I don't get paid, but it does require significant time and effort. It's a form of self-care because it allows me to clarify my thoughts and it cares for others because I put out good ideas that don't get talked about enough. Motherhood is another example of legitimate work that isn't a job and doesn't pay. -What the Puritan work ethic says is you're worthless if you don't work (in the sense of a job) and it doesn't matter if you don't like the work. But working a bullshit, low wage, [alienating](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx's_theory_of_alienation) job you hate isn't caring for yourself and others. Contrary to what the Puritan work ethic says, your suffering is relevant because suffering too much or causing others to suffer (telemarketing) defeats the very purpose of work. +What the Puritan work ethic says is you're worthless if you don't work (in the sense of a job) and it doesn't matter if you don't like the work. But working a bullshit, low wage, [alienating](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx's_theory_of_alienation) job you hate isn't caring for yourself and others. Contrary to what the Puritan work ethic says, your suffering is relevant because suffering too much or causing others to suffer (telemarketing) defeats the very purpose of work. Ultimately the Puritan work ethic is an attempt to divorce the purpose of labor from labor. The idea that you shouldn't enjoy work or else it isn't really work is completely backwards. If work causes you to suffer excessively, then that subtracts from the purpose of the work. If you enjoy your work, that adds to its purpose. The idea that doing work you hate is more noble or honorable is therefore totally incoherent. Work gets its value from caring and reducing suffering, not causing it. @@ -92,11 +92,11 @@ And the mere fact that one can (in theory) change jobs does nothing to alleviate When people think their government is behaving undemocratically, they risk their lives on an insurrection. When the workplace they go to for eight hours a day five days a week is utterly undemocratic, that's just the way things are. -But what if we can have [democratic workplaces](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_democracy)? If democracy should govern the state, then why shouldn't it also govern economic enterprises? +But what if we can have [democratic workplaces](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_democracy)? If democracy should govern the state, then why shouldn't it also govern economic enterprises? As it turns out, highly democratic workplaces do exist and they work. Democratically governed workplaces are shown to be more successful than simple command hierarchies. Workers have higher motivation and trust in each other. They have increased job satisfaction, better health, improved perceptions of society, and lower turnover. -I'm not just talking about unions where workers have more collective bargaining power. I'm talking about [worker cooperatives](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative), where workers own and self-manage the company. Workplace democracy is an idea which I think doesn't get talked about nearly enough, at least not here in Burgerland, but it would be a great way of promoting and possibly even exporting democracy. +I'm not just talking about unions where workers have more collective bargaining power. I'm talking about [worker cooperatives](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative), where workers own and self-manage the company. Workplace democracy is an idea which I think doesn't get talked about nearly enough, at least not here in Burgerland, but it would be a great way of promoting and possibly even exporting democracy. It really diminishes the benefits of living in a democracy when you're being dictated to for so much of your waking hours anyways. So I think we ought to explore all possibilities and really get creative to make it so workers enjoy the work they're doing and the work they're doing is necessary and beneficial to others. diff --git a/content/entry/avoiding-automobile-surveillance.md b/content/entry/avoiding-automobile-surveillance.md index 41a9913..56883fd 100644 --- a/content/entry/avoiding-automobile-surveillance.md +++ b/content/entry/avoiding-automobile-surveillance.md @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ Over the past few decades, there has been increasing "internetification" of ever Automobiles are no exception. They've also seen increased internetification. My own personal opinion is cars don't need wireless enabled computer chips, period. And I'm not [the only](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/is-apples-carplay-a-kille_b_4905981) [person](https://blog.1871.com/blogs/howard-a-tullman/tullman-why-smart-cars-are-stupid-2) to think connected cars seem like a bad idea. -For this post, I want to focus on avoiding mass surveillance of automobiles. None of the recommendations in this post apply to [work vehicles](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/On-board_diagnostics#Vehicle_telematics) or car rentals since you don't own those. This guide is only for your own personal vehicle. +For this post, I want to focus on avoiding mass surveillance of automobiles. None of the recommendations in this post apply to [work vehicles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On-board_diagnostics#Vehicle_telematics) or car rentals since you don't own those. This guide is only for your own personal vehicle. # Don't Buy a Connected Car My first piece of advice is don't buy a connected car. By connected car I mean a car with wireless capability other than radio. Buy an old car instead. Old cars predate the connected features of new cars. Ideally buy a car that doesn't support Wi-Fi, Bluetooth or cellular connections. If it has a touchscreen it's probably too new. If you need navigation, you can buy a cheap car phone mount and use your phone. @@ -25,10 +25,10 @@ Automotive dealerships have [GPS tracking devices](https://www.spireon.com/gps-a The exception of course is if you bought the car on a loan. Then either the dealership or the lender may require the GPS tracker on the car until it's fully paid for. In that case you can remove the GPS tracker yourself or have it removed after the car is fully paid for. ## Insurer Tracking -Car insurers promote [remote telematics devices](https://www.carzing.com/blog/car-insurance/car-insurance-tracking-devices/) to policyholders in exchange for lower rates. They use the [OBD interface](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/On-board_diagnostics) in your vehicle to send real-time data to the insurer. Empowering Big Brother in exchange for cheaper rates isn't worth it. Don't let your insurer install tracking devices in your car. If your insurer requires them, find a new insurer. +Car insurers promote [remote telematics devices](https://www.carzing.com/blog/car-insurance/car-insurance-tracking-devices/) to policyholders in exchange for lower rates. They use the [OBD interface](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On-board_diagnostics) in your vehicle to send real-time data to the insurer. Empowering Big Brother in exchange for cheaper rates isn't worth it. Don't let your insurer install tracking devices in your car. If your insurer requires them, find a new insurer. ## Manufacturer Tracking -General Motors includes [OnStar](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/OnStar#Use_as_surveillance_device) in its vehicles. OnStar is a telematics device capable of not only remotely surveilling GM vehicles, but also listening to live audio inside the car and remotely shutting the car down. Even if you don't have a subscription, OnStar can still track your GM vehicle. In fact they tracked vehicles that weren't even subscribed to OnStar services until they [reversed the decision](https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2011/09/gm-reverses-decision-on-onstar-privacy-policy/index.htm) due to public outcry from privacy advocates. Luckily there are plenty of guides online for [how to remove OnStar](https://www.wikihow.com/Deactivate-OnStar) so they can't possibly track you. +General Motors includes [OnStar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OnStar#Use_as_surveillance_device) in its vehicles. OnStar is a telematics device capable of not only remotely surveilling GM vehicles, but also listening to live audio inside the car and remotely shutting the car down. Even if you don't have a subscription, OnStar can still track your GM vehicle. In fact they tracked vehicles that weren't even subscribed to OnStar services until they [reversed the decision](https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2011/09/gm-reverses-decision-on-onstar-privacy-policy/index.htm) due to public outcry from privacy advocates. Luckily there are plenty of guides online for [how to remove OnStar](https://www.wikihow.com/Deactivate-OnStar) so they can't possibly track you. SiriusXM also collects telematics. Unlike OnStar, there's no way to remove it I'm aware of. You can cancel your subscription, but SiriusXM can still collect telematics. The only solution is don't buy a vehicle that has telematics providers you can't remove. @@ -38,34 +38,34 @@ Big Brother can also demand telematics information about your car from any of th Thugs are still allowed to put trackers on cars with a warrant. I'm not going to tell you how to spot covert thug GPS trackers. That's avoiding targeted surveillance which is out of the scope of this post. This post is only about avoiding mass automobile surveillance. # Safeguarding Onboard Diagnostics -Onboard diagnostics systems (OBD) in vehicles were introduced in the 1980s. The USA, EU and other countries have mandated [OBD-II](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/On-board_diagnostics#OBD-II) and [EOBD](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/On-board_diagnostics#EOBD) protocols for all vehicles sold. +Onboard diagnostics systems (OBD) in vehicles were introduced in the 1980s. The USA, EU and other countries have mandated [OBD-II](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On-board_diagnostics#OBD-II) and [EOBD](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On-board_diagnostics#EOBD) protocols for all vehicles sold. ## Emissions Testing If you have a gasoline engine and you're in the United States, OBD data is pulled from your vehicle when you get mandatory emissions testing unless you get standard tailpipe emissions testing done. To find out if you can get only standard tailpipe emissions testing, you'll have to call and ask local emissions testing sites and check state regulations. -If the emissions testing site uses proprietary OBD scanning software, then it's possible that your data gets collected and sold to insurance companies by the OBD software vendor. If the testing site uses a handheld OBD scanner, it's still possible that the data is eventually pulled off and sold if the handheld scanner connects to vendor software on an internet connected computer. The OBD-II interface has Mode $09 which retrieves uniquely identifiable information like the [VIN number](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_identification_number). So if the OBD data does get sold, the data brokers know exactly whose vehicle it belongs to. +If the emissions testing site uses proprietary OBD scanning software, then it's possible that your data gets collected and sold to insurance companies by the OBD software vendor. If the testing site uses a handheld OBD scanner, it's still possible that the data is eventually pulled off and sold if the handheld scanner connects to vendor software on an internet connected computer. The OBD-II interface has Mode $09 which retrieves uniquely identifiable information like the [VIN number](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_identification_number). So if the OBD data does get sold, the data brokers know exactly whose vehicle it belongs to. I've never heard of OBD data being involved in a data breach before. I don't have any information about what software is used by emissions testing sites. I'm just speculating. The only reason I have for thinking OBD data collection does happen at emissions testing sites through software vendors is because it can and it's profitable. Even if my speculation is true, you still have to get emissions testing done. I only mention emissions testing data collection for completeness and awareness, not because you can do anything besides political activism to prevent it. ## Auto Repair Shops When you take your car to a repair shop, one of the first things they're going to do is check the OBD-II interface for error codes. It's the same issue as before with emissions testing. The uniquely identifiable OBD data is exposed to potentially proprietary programs used by the car repair shop. -The difference is you don't have much choice in emissions testing. When it comes to auto repair, you have some choice. There are free software diagnostic tools for [OBD-II](https://github.com/fenugrec/freediag) that don't collect and sell your data. You'll need an [adapter](http://freediag.sourceforge.net/Supported-Interfaces.html#supported) supported by your vehicle to use them. It's up to you to make sure the adapter will work before you buy it. If you want to repair your vehicle yourself, then that's the end of it. +The difference is you don't have much choice in emissions testing. When it comes to auto repair, you have some choice. There are free software diagnostic tools for [OBD-II](https://github.com/fenugrec/freediag) that don't collect and sell your data. You'll need an [adapter](https://freediag.sourceforge.io/Supported-Interfaces.html#supported) supported by your vehicle to use them. It's up to you to make sure the adapter will work before you buy it. If you want to repair your vehicle yourself, then that's the end of it. If you need the auto repair shop to repair your vehicle, you can relay the results retrieved from your free software tools to them while requesting they don't use their own proprietary OBD scanning tools. # Networked Electric Vehicle Charging Stations -This section only applies to fully electric and hybrid cars. I've already made a post about [networked EV charging stations](/2020/09/09/networked-ev-charging-stations). Just so this post is self-contained, I'll reiterate: +This section only applies to fully electric and hybrid cars. I've already made a post about [networked EV charging stations](/2020/09/09/networked-ev-charging-stations/). Just so this post is self-contained, I'll reiterate: > There are two types of EV charging stations: networked and non-networked. The networked ones require you to sign up on the web with your real name, credit card information, address, and car make and model. You have to agree to the terms of service and privacy policy. After signing up, you receive a swipe card in the mail. Because you have to swipe an ID card to use networked charging stations, the network (Chargepoint) knows who you are, where you charged your car, when, and for how long. Non-networked charging stations don’t require you to use an ID card, so they can’t collect any personalized data on you. Don't use the networked charging stations. Use the non-networked ones or just use your own charging cable instead. # Automatic License Plate Readers -Automatic license plate readers or [ALPRs](https://www.eff.org/pages/automated-license-plate-readers-alpr) are cameras that capture all license plate numbers that pass by. There isn't anything you can do about these besides political activism against them. Purposely obscuring your plates from these cameras might be illegal or cause you to get tickets. Even if there's nothing you can do, I still think it's important to be aware of ALPRs. +Automatic license plate readers or [ALPRs](https://sls.eff.org/technologies/automated-license-plate-readers-alprs) are cameras that capture all license plate numbers that pass by. There isn't anything you can do about these besides political activism against them. Purposely obscuring your plates from these cameras might be illegal or cause you to get tickets. Even if there's nothing you can do, I still think it's important to be aware of ALPRs. # Consumer Surveillance -It may be possible to infer where you drive based on consumer surveillance alone. As a final piece of advice to further improve your vehicle's location privacy, follow the tips in my post on [avoiding consumer surveillance](/2020/11/16/avoiding-consumer-surveillance). +It may be possible to infer where you drive based on consumer surveillance alone. As a final piece of advice to further improve your vehicle's location privacy, follow the tips in my post on [avoiding consumer surveillance](/2020/11/16/avoiding-consumer-surveillance/). # Political Action When I make posts on how to avoid surveillance, what I'm trying to do is build resistance to tools of mass surveillance. At the end of the day there needs to be both technological and political changes to protect drivers' data. I offer temporary workarounds for avoiding surveillance until the dangerous trend of increased surveillance reverses itself. Society needs to start being proactive rather than reactive to corporate and government surveillance. I don't know when or how or if the trend of increased surveillance will be reversed, but I'll continue writing about ways to resist surveillance until I no longer need to. diff --git a/content/entry/avoiding-consumer-surveillance.md b/content/entry/avoiding-consumer-surveillance.md index 79e9e92..db002b3 100644 --- a/content/entry/avoiding-consumer-surveillance.md +++ b/content/entry/avoiding-consumer-surveillance.md @@ -5,20 +5,20 @@ tags: ['computing'] draft: false --- # The Age of Surveillance -We live in the age of [surveillance capitalism](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_capitalism). Intimate data about us is collected, bought and sold for profit and social control. Intermediaries like banks, payment companies, credit card companies and governments have unprecedented access into our private lives through our purchases. This level of surveillance is tyrannical. [Mass surveillance is dangerous to the health of democracy](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/surveillance-vs-democracy.en.html) and must be stopped. Big Brother should not know what we buy. In this post, I'm going to talk about how we avoid consumer surveillance. In a future post, I'll talk about anonymous online shopping and some promising software projects that could be a more permanent remedy to consumer surveillance. Ultimately, there is going to have to be political action to curtail surveillance, not just new technology. But until there is increased awareness of mass surveillance and real political action against it occurs, all we can hope to do is avoid the surveillance. So here's how you do that. +We live in the age of [surveillance capitalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_capitalism). Intimate data about us is collected, bought and sold for profit and social control. Intermediaries like banks, payment companies, credit card companies and governments have unprecedented access into our private lives through our purchases. This level of surveillance is tyrannical. [Mass surveillance is dangerous to the health of democracy](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/surveillance-vs-democracy.en.html) and must be stopped. Big Brother should not know what we buy. In this post, I'm going to talk about how we avoid consumer surveillance. In a future post, I'll talk about anonymous online shopping and some promising software projects that could be a more permanent remedy to consumer surveillance. Ultimately, there is going to have to be political action to curtail surveillance, not just new technology. But until there is increased awareness of mass surveillance and real political action against it occurs, all we can hope to do is avoid the surveillance. So here's how you do that. # Always Pay Cash -This is the golden rule. To avoid surveillance, you should always pay in cash. Never use a credit or debit card. Never use Google Pay, Apple Pay, Cash App, Samsung Pay, Paypal, Circle Pay, Venmo, Square Cash, Zelle, Facebook Messenger, or any other payment app. Reject online shopping unless you can remain anonymous. Don't shop at Amazon, Ebay, or other online marketplaces that require you to identify yourself. Is always paying in cash inconvenient? Maybe. That depends on how reliant you are on online shopping. Is it possible? Definitely. Is it worth it? Absolutely. Paying cash even once helps resist surveillance. Even though Big Brother would love to see a [cashless society](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cashless_society) where all your purchases are fully transparent, we aren't in that dystopian nightmare yet. If a merchant refuses to accept your cash, then find another merchant that will take cash. You'll be anonymous and you'll create economic pressure against a cashless society. If the story ended there, I'd just end this post now. But it's not that easy. +This is the golden rule. To avoid surveillance, you should always pay in cash. Never use a credit or debit card. Never use Google Pay, Apple Pay, Cash App, Samsung Pay, Paypal, Circle Pay, Venmo, Square Cash, Zelle, Facebook Messenger, or any other payment app. Reject online shopping unless you can remain anonymous. Don't shop at Amazon, Ebay, or other online marketplaces that require you to identify yourself. Is always paying in cash inconvenient? Maybe. That depends on how reliant you are on online shopping. Is it possible? Definitely. Is it worth it? Absolutely. Paying cash even once helps resist surveillance. Even though Big Brother would love to see a [cashless society](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cashless_society) where all your purchases are fully transparent, we aren't in that dystopian nightmare yet. If a merchant refuses to accept your cash, then find another merchant that will take cash. You'll be anonymous and you'll create economic pressure against a cashless society. If the story ended there, I'd just end this post now. But it's not that easy. # Avoid Disloyalty Programs -Paying in cash is [necessary but not sufficient](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency) for anonymous purchases. Just because you pay in cash doesn't mean you're anonymous. Retailers have come up with clever ways to trick you into deanonymizing yourself even when you pay cash. They're called [loyalty programs](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalty_program). Here's how their dirty scheme works: An "operator" asks you if you're already signed up for the rewards program. If you say no, they ask you if you want to sign up. If you agree, then they begin asking you for personally identifying information about yourself like your name, address, and phone number. Things they have absolutely no business knowing that are irrelevant to the transaction you're performing. Once you cough up your information, they give you a [rewards card](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cashback_reward_program), otherwise known as a points card, advantage card, or club card. On all your future purchases, you use your loyalty card and earn "points" which gives you future discounts and deals. The catch is they link all your purchases with your identity and then sell that data to data brokers. I call them disloyalty cards because you're being disloyal to your fellow citizens by tacitly approving of consumer surveillance. Disloyalty programs are only loyal to Big Brother. Every time you use them, you make it harder for other people to reject them. You're voting for surveillance with your money. Others that don't submit themselves to the unjust surveillance may have to pay fees of up to 10% for not being signed up. See [Sam's Club](https://www.samsclub.com/). +Paying in cash is [necessary but not sufficient](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency) for anonymous purchases. Just because you pay in cash doesn't mean you're anonymous. Retailers have come up with clever ways to trick you into deanonymizing yourself even when you pay cash. They're called [loyalty programs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalty_program). Here's how their dirty scheme works: An "operator" asks you if you're already signed up for the rewards program. If you say no, they ask you if you want to sign up. If you agree, then they begin asking you for personally identifying information about yourself like your name, address, and phone number. Things they have absolutely no business knowing that are irrelevant to the transaction you're performing. Once you cough up your information, they give you a [rewards card](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cashback_reward_program), otherwise known as a points card, advantage card, or club card. On all your future purchases, you use your loyalty card and earn "points" which gives you future discounts and deals. The catch is they link all your purchases with your identity and then sell that data to data brokers. I call them disloyalty cards because you're being disloyal to your fellow citizens by tacitly approving of consumer surveillance. Disloyalty programs are only loyal to Big Brother. Every time you use them, you make it harder for other people to reject them. You're voting for surveillance with your money. Others that don't submit themselves to the unjust surveillance may have to pay fees of up to 10% for not being signed up. See [Sam's Club](https://www.samsclub.com/). -Even if the disloyalty program doesn't require you to give any personal information to sign up, it can still be used to [link your purchases](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linked_data) together. When your "buyer profile" gets sold and combined with other data, it's trivially easy to deanonymize your purchases. Let's say you sign up for a disloyalty card that doesn't require giving your personal information. The items purchased and time and date of purchase are all linked on your disloyalty card. Useless information on its own. But then the supermarket you buy from sells your "buyer profile" to [Goolag](https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Goolag) who compares your location history from your phone to the disloyalty card data. The supermarket has 3,000 customers that use a disloyalty card, but only 1 customer has a location history that matches the times and dates that the card made purchases. That's you. And just like that, your purchases are deanonymized. But you're clever. You turn your phone off before you go to the store. Doesn't matter. Goolag correlates the time at which your phone turns off with the time of the purchases. You're deanonymized again. Let's say you don't even have a mobile phone. Doesn't matter. You drive a car to the supermarket. A private [automatic license plate reader](https://www.eff.org/pages/what-alpr) company records your license plate number as you drive to the store and sells that data to Goolag. Goolag correlates your driving times with the card purchase times and now all your purchases going back years are deanonymized. So you walk to the supermarket with your disloyalty card instead of driving. That won't help you either. [AI-powered facial recognition cameras](https://www.eff.org/pages/face-recognition) all over the supermarket identify you and the times you're there. The company that makes those cameras sells that data to Goolag. Goolag correlates the times again and your purchases are deanonymized. So you go to a different supermarket with a different disloyalty card. You don't have a phone. You walk there. There are no surveillance cameras inside. How could you possibly be deanonymized now? Your bandwidth usage on your home network is low while you're gone at the store. Your ISP sells this data to Goolag who correlates it with your card and you're deanonymized again. +Even if the disloyalty program doesn't require you to give any personal information to sign up, it can still be used to [link your purchases](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linked_data) together. When your "buyer profile" gets sold and combined with other data, it's trivially easy to deanonymize your purchases. Let's say you sign up for a disloyalty card that doesn't require giving your personal information. The items purchased and time and date of purchase are all linked on your disloyalty card. Useless information on its own. But then the supermarket you buy from sells your "buyer profile" to [Goolag](https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Goolag) who compares your location history from your phone to the disloyalty card data. The supermarket has 3,000 customers that use a disloyalty card, but only 1 customer has a location history that matches the times and dates that the card made purchases. That's you. And just like that, your purchases are deanonymized. But you're clever. You turn your phone off before you go to the store. Doesn't matter. Goolag correlates the time at which your phone turns off with the time of the purchases. You're deanonymized again. Let's say you don't even have a mobile phone. Doesn't matter. You drive a car to the supermarket. A private [automatic license plate reader](https://www.eff.org/pages/what-alpr) company records your license plate number as you drive to the store and sells that data to Goolag. Goolag correlates your driving times with the card purchase times and now all your purchases going back years are deanonymized. So you walk to the supermarket with your disloyalty card instead of driving. That won't help you either. [AI-powered facial recognition cameras](https://sls.eff.org/technologies/face-recognition) all over the supermarket identify you and the times you're there. The company that makes those cameras sells that data to Goolag. Goolag correlates the times again and your purchases are deanonymized. So you go to a different supermarket with a different disloyalty card. You don't have a phone. You walk there. There are no surveillance cameras inside. How could you possibly be deanonymized now? Your bandwidth usage on your home network is low while you're gone at the store. Your ISP sells this data to Goolag who correlates it with your card and you're deanonymized again. -Just pay a little extra to avoid the disloyalty card. Refusing disloyalty cards also protects the anonymity of others. If you use a disloyalty card, then you might shrink the [anonymity set](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymity) of others not using a card. Whether others have consumer privacy is not your choice to make. You won't get the discount but so what? At least everything you buy won't be in a searchable database. +Just pay a little extra to avoid the disloyalty card. Refusing disloyalty cards also protects the anonymity of others. If you use a disloyalty card, then you might shrink the [anonymity set](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymity) of others not using a card. Whether others have consumer privacy is not your choice to make. You won't get the discount but so what? At least everything you buy won't be in a searchable database. # Don't Identify Yourself to Merchants -Some places of business won't offer you a disloyalty card, but they will ask for [personally identifiable information](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personally_identifiable_information) (PII) like your name and phone number. The crux of the problem with consumer surveillance is identifying yourself to the merchant. Never identify yourself. Yes, disloyalty cards identify you. All payment methods besides cash identify you. But also giving any information about yourself that gets put into a computer system identifies you. If the merchant demands you identify yourself during a purchase where you would not otherwise be identified, then don't do it. +Some places of business won't offer you a disloyalty card, but they will ask for [personally identifiable information](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personally_identifiable_information) (PII) like your name and phone number. The crux of the problem with consumer surveillance is identifying yourself to the merchant. Never identify yourself. Yes, disloyalty cards identify you. All payment methods besides cash identify you. But also giving any information about yourself that gets put into a computer system identifies you. If the merchant demands you identify yourself during a purchase where you would not otherwise be identified, then don't do it. However, it makes more sense to use a credit or debit card for airline tickets and car rentals because they demand ID anyway. I would still recommend paying cash that way your bank and credit card company don't automatically see that you rented a car, the make and model, where and when you rented it and how much it costed. Sure you're already identifying yourself to the rental company. Your purchase is already being recorded in a database, but you can still minimize the number of databases it's stored in by paying cash. At least all your identified purchases won't be in a single centralized database that's easy to get at. They'll have to be aggregated by data brokers first. So I'm going to reiterate the golden rule: always pay cash. @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ Surveillance cameras combined with facial recognition technology can uniquely id There are other ways you can be deanonymized through video surveillance besides facial recognition, but there's not much you can do about them. For that reason, I'm not going to cover them. Just know that they exist and that they have to be addressed through political action, not personal choices. ## Wi-Fi Location Tracking -The other way that big retailers have become more invasive is through Wi-Fi location tracking of your smartphone. Your phone emits Wi-Fi signals to determine which wireless networks are available nearby. The person operating the retailer's Wi-Fi network can use those signals to track your movements within the store. It's profitable to collect your movement data, so you should assume that retailers are doing it. Your phone also has a [MAC address](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAC_address) which can uniquely identify you, especially if your phone doesn't randomize it. Other wireless protocols that you leave activated on your phone might also be able to be misused by the retailer to track your movements. To avoid location tracking altogether, you can fully power down your phone before you enter the store. If that isn't good enough for you, another option is placing your phone inside a [Faraday bag](https://privacypros.io/faraday-bags/). Be sure to test it out before you use it though. +The other way that big retailers have become more invasive is through Wi-Fi location tracking of your smartphone. Your phone emits Wi-Fi signals to determine which wireless networks are available nearby. The person operating the retailer's Wi-Fi network can use those signals to track your movements within the store. It's profitable to collect your movement data, so you should assume that retailers are doing it. Your phone also has a [MAC address](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAC_address) which can uniquely identify you, especially if your phone doesn't randomize it. Other wireless protocols that you leave activated on your phone might also be able to be misused by the retailer to track your movements. To avoid location tracking altogether, you can fully power down your phone before you enter the store. If that isn't good enough for you, another option is placing your phone inside a [Faraday bag](https://privacypros.io/faraday-bags/). Be sure to test it out before you use it though. # Anonymous Online Shopping We have grown accustomed to the luxury of having whatever we want show up at our doorstep with the click of a button. It's hard to say no when you've gotten so used to it. For those who really don't want to give up online shopping, I'm going to write a guide on how to anonymously buy and sell goods online. There's a few different methods for 100% anonymous online shopping. Some of them get very involved, so I'm going to save all the details for another post. See ya next time! diff --git a/content/entry/book-lying.md b/content/entry/book-lying.md index 53328fb..1d13f73 100644 --- a/content/entry/book-lying.md +++ b/content/entry/book-lying.md @@ -3,6 +3,6 @@ title: "[Book] Lying" date: 2020-12-30T00:00:00 draft: false --- -[Sam Harris](https://samharris.org/) talks about how lying is more harmful than most people imagine. From white lies, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy to more serious political deception, Sam makes the case for not lying in any situation. +[Sam Harris](https://www.samharris.org/) talks about how lying is more harmful than most people imagine. From white lies, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy to more serious political deception, Sam makes the case for not lying in any situation. -[Book Link](https://samharris.org/books/lying/) +[Book Link](https://www.samharris.org/books/lying) diff --git a/content/entry/book-the-selfish-gene.md b/content/entry/book-the-selfish-gene.md index c65a2e0..4076a89 100644 --- a/content/entry/book-the-selfish-gene.md +++ b/content/entry/book-the-selfish-gene.md @@ -3,8 +3,8 @@ title: "[Book] The Selfish Gene" date: 2021-04-08T00:00:00 draft: false --- -Famous atheist, evolutionary biologist, and coiner of the modern term "meme" [Richard Dawkins](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins) takes a gene-centric view of Darwinian evolution by natural selection in his 1976 book The Selfish Gene. The gene-centric view of evolution is beautifully elegant. It does a better job of explaining evolutionary concepts than overly reductionist theories such as group selection. The basic idea is incredibly simple, an overview of it given in the first two chapters with the rest of the book going into further detail. +Famous atheist, evolutionary biologist, and coiner of the modern term "meme" [Richard Dawkins](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins) takes a gene-centric view of Darwinian evolution by natural selection in his 1976 book The Selfish Gene. The gene-centric view of evolution is beautifully elegant. It does a better job of explaining evolutionary concepts than overly reductionist theories such as group selection. The basic idea is incredibly simple, an overview of it given in the first two chapters with the rest of the book going into further detail. -[Book Link](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene) +[Book Link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene) > “In the beginning was simplicity.” -- Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene diff --git a/content/entry/book-waking-up.md b/content/entry/book-waking-up.md index f85b960..f43e5a1 100644 --- a/content/entry/book-waking-up.md +++ b/content/entry/book-waking-up.md @@ -3,20 +3,20 @@ title: "[Book] Waking Up" date: 2021-01-29T00:00:00 draft: false --- -This is my second book recommendation and here I am again recommending a book authored by [Sam Harris](https://samharris.org). And it's probably not the last time I'll recommend his books. Allow me to justify why his content gets so much promotion on this blog. +This is my second book recommendation and here I am again recommending a book authored by [Sam Harris](https://www.samharris.org). And it's probably not the last time I'll recommend his books. Allow me to justify why his content gets so much promotion on this blog. # Why I Promote Sam Harris Content -When someone holds a false belief, especially if it's a core belief, they are likely to accept other concomitant falsehoods. This is why you don't hear about theoretical physicist flat earthers. Being a theoretical physicist entails beliefs about the physical universe which are incompatible with believing the earth is flat. To knowingly hold contradictory beliefs, the phenomenon known as [cognitive dissonance](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance), is psychologically distressing. So people make some effort, however minimal, to reconcile their beliefs to create a consistent picture of reality. +When someone holds a false belief, especially if it's a core belief, they are likely to accept other concomitant falsehoods. This is why you don't hear about theoretical physicist flat earthers. Being a theoretical physicist entails beliefs about the physical universe which are incompatible with believing the earth is flat. To knowingly hold contradictory beliefs, the phenomenon known as [cognitive dissonance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance), is psychologically distressing. So people make some effort, however minimal, to reconcile their beliefs to create a consistent picture of reality. The converse is also true. When someone holds true core beliefs, they're usually right about concomitant truths as well. I'm vastly oversimplifying and I could mention many caveats but that's generally the case. On several subject areas of my interest Sam Harris consistently gets it right. He's adept at navigating the pitfalls others find themselves trapped in when talking about spirituality. Sometimes I learn completely new information from him but I also find that he often expounds on my own thoughts better than I can. I hope I will eventually be as articulate on this blog as he is in his writing. Nonetheless I don't agree with him about everything and I also don't desire for my own voice to be identical to his. # Waking Up -When it comes to introducing spirituality to atheists and skeptics, Waking Up is the book to read. I've read it and reread it and I couldn't find any unsupported claims. It's expressive, relevant and intelligible to sincere truth seekers. Waking Up elaborates on the self in a clearer, more comprehensible way than [my own](/2020/05/02/the-self) [past attempts](/2020/08/02/ego-traps). It mentions the idea of headlessness which [I've also talked about before](/2020/11/02/the-eternal-here-and-now). So before you read anything from other popular spiritual authors, I'd recommend reading Waking Up first. It gives the broader context that other books on spirituality leave out. +When it comes to introducing spirituality to atheists and skeptics, Waking Up is the book to read. I've read it and reread it and I couldn't find any unsupported claims. It's expressive, relevant and intelligible to sincere truth seekers. Waking Up elaborates on the self in a clearer, more comprehensible way than [my own](/2020/05/02/the-self/) [past attempts](/2020/08/02/ego-traps/). It mentions the idea of headlessness which [I've also talked about before](/2020/11/02/the-eternal-here-and-now/). So before you read anything from other popular spiritual authors, I'd recommend reading Waking Up first. It gives the broader context that other books on spirituality leave out. Waking Up is a refreshing, rational middle ground on spirituality avoiding both denial of [spiritual experiences](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Spirituality) by skeptics and [mystical woo-woo](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Woo) peddled by [Deepak Chopra](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Deepak_Chopra) and other pseudointellectuals. I recommend it to anyone remotely interested in spirituality. [Link below] -[https://samharris.org/books/waking-up](https://samharris.org/books/waking-up) +[https://www.samharris.org/books/waking-up](https://www.samharris.org/books/waking-up) To finish off this post, I'll leave you with a quote from the book. diff --git a/content/entry/bringing-civility-to-public-discourse-with-the-steel-man-technique.md b/content/entry/bringing-civility-to-public-discourse-with-the-steel-man-technique.md index 784231b..6345a54 100644 --- a/content/entry/bringing-civility-to-public-discourse-with-the-steel-man-technique.md +++ b/content/entry/bringing-civility-to-public-discourse-with-the-steel-man-technique.md @@ -4,12 +4,12 @@ date: 2020-12-01T00:00:00 draft: false --- # The United States in 2020 -The political situation in the United States right now is tense, to say the least. President-elect Joe Biden won the 2020 general election. Meanwhile [the bullshitter](https://stallman.org/glossary.html#bullshitter) continues to make baseless claims of massive mail-in voter fraud to discredit the election results. No doubt the tens of millions of Americans duped into his [personality cult](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality) will fall for his lies, with some taking political action as we near [inauguration day](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_inauguration). The rest of Americans are bewildered by how the [wannabe dictator](Wannabe Dictator) even got elected in the first place. So there is a heavy emotional and ideological divide in America today and I think any American half paying attention senses it. +The political situation in the United States right now is tense, to say the least. President-elect Joe Biden won the 2020 general election. Meanwhile [the bullshitter](https://stallman.org/glossary.html#bullshitter) continues to make baseless claims of massive mail-in voter fraud to discredit the election results. No doubt the tens of millions of Americans duped into his [personality cult](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality) will fall for his lies, with some taking political action as we near [inauguration day](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_inauguration). The rest of Americans are bewildered by how the [wannabe dictator](Wannabe Dictator) even got elected in the first place. So there is a heavy emotional and ideological divide in America today and I think any American half paying attention senses it. Therefore I feel it my duty as a citizen to do what I can to bring people together in these divided times. I don't think it's good to create consensus for the sake of it by suggesting everyone take [the middle ground](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/middle-ground). No, the goal is to collectively arrive at truth, which may or may not lie somewhere in the middle. So in this post I'm going to suggest a technique I think will drastically improve the public discourse which, I feel, is one of America's biggest problems right now. # The Steel Man Technique -Philosopher and cognitive scientist [Daniel Dennett](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Dennett) described a method for arguing with a person that holds opposing views. If you've ever heard of the [straw man fallacy](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman), it's just the opposite of that. With the straw man, you misrepresent your opponent's argument to make it easier to take down. With the steel man, you face the most charitable interpretation of your opponent's argument. There are 4 steps to steelmanning as explained by Dennett: +Philosopher and cognitive scientist [Daniel Dennett](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Dennett) described a method for arguing with a person that holds opposing views. If you've ever heard of the [straw man fallacy](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman), it's just the opposite of that. With the straw man, you misrepresent your opponent's argument to make it easier to take down. With the steel man, you face the most charitable interpretation of your opponent's argument. There are 4 steps to steelmanning as explained by Dennett: 1. You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way." 2. You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement). @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ The third step allows your target to feel good about themselves before you engag The step you've all been waiting for! In step 4 you get to tear down your target's argument. Remember you are tearing down the argument, not the person. Never tear down the person unless their character is directly relevant to the subject of debate. If I'm debating with someone about health care in the United States, that person's character is totally irrelevant to the conversation. If I'm running for public office, then my character is directly relevant to my campaign. It's not just about the issues. It's about who I am because you can't know that I'll faithfully execute my duties unless you know I'm credible. In that case it does make sense to criticize the person. # Why Steelmanning Works -Evolution hasn't caught up with modern society. It's a slow process that takes millions of years. Meanwhile society has advanced rapidly, especially since the scientific revolution. A vestige of our caveman past is the [fight-or-flight response](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fight-or-flight_response_%28in_humans%29) in our reptile brains. Back when our species was hunter-gatherer, threats were constant and danger was all around us. Nowadays, especially in civilized societies, we don't have to worry about that as much. But when our core beliefs are challenged, it can still trigger the ancient fight-or-flight response. Once that happens, we aren't going to be really listening to our debate opponent. We also subconsciously identify with our beliefs. When those beliefs are challenged, our very identity is called into question. +Evolution hasn't caught up with modern society. It's a slow process that takes millions of years. Meanwhile society has advanced rapidly, especially since the scientific revolution. A vestige of our caveman past is the [fight-or-flight response](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fight-or-flight_response_%28in_humans%29) in our reptile brains. Back when our species was hunter-gatherer, threats were constant and danger was all around us. Nowadays, especially in civilized societies, we don't have to worry about that as much. But when our core beliefs are challenged, it can still trigger the ancient fight-or-flight response. Once that happens, we aren't going to be really listening to our debate opponent. We also subconsciously identify with our beliefs. When those beliefs are challenged, our very identity is called into question. The reason steelmanning is effective is it lowers a person's psychological barriers to criticism. By making your target feel heard, validating their points, and showing them you're interested in the truth even if you're wrong, you lower their guard so they'll be more willing to hear your opinion. Steelmanning is completely independent of your political affiliation. Anyone with any set of beliefs can practice steelmanning. If more people did this, it could vastly improve public discourse. diff --git a/content/entry/businesses-should-be-required-to-accept-cash.md b/content/entry/businesses-should-be-required-to-accept-cash.md index 4ac2785..ab7afce 100644 --- a/content/entry/businesses-should-be-required-to-accept-cash.md +++ b/content/entry/businesses-should-be-required-to-accept-cash.md @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ Businesses in the U.S. don't have to accept cash as payment for purchases, but I Taking away the option to pay cash makes life harder on those trying to avoid mass surveillance and turns stores into Big Brother's little helpers. In order to protect the right to privacy, we need the right to private everyday transactions, and for that we need the right to pay cash. -The ability to buy things online anonymously is also important, but cannot be done conveniently using cash. For that, I think we ought to adopt a privacy-preserving digital payment system like [GNU Taler](https://taler.net). +The ability to buy things online anonymously is also important, but cannot be done conveniently using cash. For that, I think we ought to adopt a privacy-preserving digital payment system like [GNU Taler](https://taler.net/en/). We should not use cryptocurrency which has a track record of extreme energy inefficiency, being impossible to regulate or tax, mostly not private, wild fluctuations in value, glacial transaction confirmation times and single-digit transaction throughput. Maybe all those problems can be solved, but I'll believe it when I see it. Until then, I consider cryptocurrency not viable. diff --git a/content/entry/come-watch-me-present-at-libreplanet-2022.md b/content/entry/come-watch-me-present-at-libreplanet-2022.md index 457b57c..f309716 100644 --- a/content/entry/come-watch-me-present-at-libreplanet-2022.md +++ b/content/entry/come-watch-me-present-at-libreplanet-2022.md @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ Please register in advance, at [https://my.fsf.org/civicrm/event/info?reset=1&id ------ -Okay, enough of the boilerplate. I haven't said a word about Haketilo on this journal yet although I have shared an inspiring story about the [main developer](/2021/10/02/struggle-to-graduate-without-nonfree-software). Haketilo is a browser extension project I've had some involvement in over the past few months. I'm very excited to have the opportunity to present it to LibrePlanet this year. You can find a brief biography of me and information about the talk on the [LibrePlanet speakers website](https://libreplanet.org/2022/speakers/). +Okay, enough of the boilerplate. I haven't said a word about Haketilo on this journal yet although I have shared an inspiring story about the [main developer](/2021/10/02/struggle-to-graduate-without-nonfree-software/). Haketilo is a browser extension project I've had some involvement in over the past few months. I'm very excited to have the opportunity to present it to LibrePlanet this year. You can find a brief biography of me and information about the talk on the [LibrePlanet speakers website](https://libreplanet.org/2022/speakers/). Something like Haketilo has been badly needed ever since JavaScript became a full-fledged programming language several decades ago. I'm surprised something like it didn't arise sooner, but I'm happy it's here now and I'm happy to be a part of it. diff --git a/content/entry/companies-are-being-reckless-with-ai.md b/content/entry/companies-are-being-reckless-with-ai.md index f212a3a..1186985 100644 --- a/content/entry/companies-are-being-reckless-with-ai.md +++ b/content/entry/companies-are-being-reckless-with-ai.md @@ -6,11 +6,11 @@ draft: false --- Today I want to talk about a problem with the incentive structure inside which powerful AIs are being developed. -Companies are incentivized to be the first to develop new technology since they'll benefit from the [first-mover advantage](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-mover_advantage). The problem is that it's cheaper and easier to develop powerful unsafe AI than powerful safe(r) AI. So **companies are economically incentivized to neglect AI safety**. I have been thinking about this issue for a while and now we have a very concrete example of it. +Companies are incentivized to be the first to develop new technology since they'll benefit from the [first-mover advantage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-mover_advantage). The problem is that it's cheaper and easier to develop powerful unsafe AI than powerful safe(r) AI. So **companies are economically incentivized to neglect AI safety**. I have been thinking about this issue for a while and now we have a very concrete example of it. Microsoft's Bing Chat was released very quickly, almost certainly to prevent competitors from releasing something similar first. Microsoft didn't share its training methodology for Bing Chat, so all we can do is speculate. But there are strong indicators that Bing Chat wasn't trained using Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) despite RLHF seeming to yield safer AI than other methods at the moment. -Microsoft had clear monetary incentives not to use RLHF since it takes more time and money to implement over other techniques. So naturally, Bing Chat was less aligned and apparently less safe than [OpenAI's ChatGPT](https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt), which is itself already [misaligned](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_alignment) and thus unsafe. I think Microsoft has since improved Bing Chat's alignment, but their past actions still set a very dangerous precedent. +Microsoft had clear monetary incentives not to use RLHF since it takes more time and money to implement over other techniques. So naturally, Bing Chat was less aligned and apparently less safe than [OpenAI's ChatGPT](https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt), which is itself already [misaligned](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_alignment) and thus unsafe. I think Microsoft has since improved Bing Chat's alignment, but their past actions still set a very dangerous precedent. Companies continuing to develop increasingly powerful AI disregarding safety poses an existential threat to humanity. They can't be allowed to continue. @@ -20,4 +20,4 @@ But there is no reacting to artificial general intelligence. It's going to be sm I'm aware that neither of those options is easy to pull off, but it's hard to see an alternative. -Note: The same logic could apply to nations if there is indeed an [AI arms race](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence_arms_race). +Note: The same logic could apply to nations if there is indeed an [AI arms race](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence_arms_race). diff --git a/content/entry/comparing-multi-factor-authentication-methods.md b/content/entry/comparing-multi-factor-authentication-methods.md index 834247e..16373bd 100644 --- a/content/entry/comparing-multi-factor-authentication-methods.md +++ b/content/entry/comparing-multi-factor-authentication-methods.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ date: 2022-08-05T00:00:00 tags: ['computing'] draft: false --- -I made a nice little chart comparing [multi-factor authentication](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-factor_authentication) methods from a user standpoint. Despite some of the information in the chart being slightly subjective and depending on one's threat model, I still think it's useful. So here it is: +I made a nice little chart comparing [multi-factor authentication](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-factor_authentication) methods from a user standpoint. Despite some of the information in the chart being slightly subjective and depending on one's threat model, I still think it's useful. So here it is: ## Multi-Factor Authentication Chart ```chart comparing multi-factor authentication methods diff --git a/content/entry/consumer-data-protection-is-a-distraction.md b/content/entry/consumer-data-protection-is-a-distraction.md index 1fe66a0..d163147 100644 --- a/content/entry/consumer-data-protection-is-a-distraction.md +++ b/content/entry/consumer-data-protection-is-a-distraction.md @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ That last part is important. "...a sufficiently skilled, funded and motivated at The central reason you can't trust businesses to keep your data safe is you don't know how it's being handled once it's out of your hands. Even if the business claims to have reasonable data protection, how can you possibly know that for sure? All it takes is 1 incompetent or malicious employee for your data to be leaked. All it takes is 1 out of date software package or 1 software vulnerability. All it takes is 1 government to steal from or coerce the business for the data. And if there's ever a merger or acquisition then some other business acquires your data as an asset by default. -And let's not forget data is combined with other data by data brokers to derive things about you that you didn't explicitly share. You might think that 5 minute Youtube video of yourself doesn't reveal too much but [disturbing uses of AI](https://github.com/daviddao/awful-ai) can be applied to it to derive information that you didn't intend to include. And AI will only get better over time. You can't predict the capabilities future AI will have to derive new information from your data. Even if it's just [metadata](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metadata), remember the former CIA and NSA director Michael Hayden's statement concerning NSA bulk surveillance: "We kill people based on metadata". Put simply, consumer data protection is, has always been, and will be for the foreseeable future, a house of cards. +And let's not forget data is combined with other data by data brokers to derive things about you that you didn't explicitly share. You might think that 5 minute Youtube video of yourself doesn't reveal too much but [disturbing uses of AI](https://github.com/daviddao/awful-ai) can be applied to it to derive information that you didn't intend to include. And AI will only get better over time. You can't predict the capabilities future AI will have to derive new information from your data. Even if it's just [metadata](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metadata), remember the former CIA and NSA director Michael Hayden's statement concerning NSA bulk surveillance: "We kill people based on metadata". Put simply, consumer data protection is, has always been, and will be for the foreseeable future, a house of cards. # How to Protect Yourself The only foolproof way to protect yourself from data leaks is to never give data to businesses in the first place. "Consumer data protection" is a distraction campaign. You see, the more businesses talk about "consumer data protection" the less "bandwidth" there is in public discourse to talk about outright refusal to give up your data. Businesses can tout their data security practices all they want but it distracts from the truth which is you can just choose not to give your data to companies. We now live in a culture of "I agree" to the point that people forget they can say no to these things. Don't consent. Don't click "I agree" unless you've actually read the terms. Don't provide identifying information without serious consideration. diff --git a/content/entry/cover-your-cameras.md b/content/entry/cover-your-cameras.md index 3dad448..b5eb273 100644 --- a/content/entry/cover-your-cameras.md +++ b/content/entry/cover-your-cameras.md @@ -18,4 +18,4 @@ The reasons to cover your phone camera when you aren't using it overlap with the * Covering your cameras encourages others to do the same. Most people have loads of big brother apps on their phones, so getting others to cover their cameras is highly desirable. It should be the norm. * There's no good reason not to. If you don't want the inconvenience of peeling tape and stickers off your devices, a cheap sliding piece of plastic will also solve the problem. See [plastic webcam covers](https://ae01.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1sxaIm8jTBKNjSZFNq6ysFXXaQ/Computer-Camera-CoverMetal-Plastic-Webcam-Cover-Slide-for-Mac-Macbook-Pro-iMac-Laptop-Surfcase-Pro-Echo.jpg). -If you can think of more reasons, [shoot me an email](/about)! +If you can think of more reasons, [shoot me an email](/about/)! diff --git a/content/entry/dead-mans-switch.md b/content/entry/dead-mans-switch.md index 31df52f..2817922 100644 --- a/content/entry/dead-mans-switch.md +++ b/content/entry/dead-mans-switch.md @@ -5,11 +5,11 @@ tags: ['computing'] draft: false --- # Definition -There are many kinds of dead man's switches (abbreviated here as DMS). The DMS's this post is concerned with are [software-based](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_man%27s_switch#Software). More specifically this post is concerned with what I will call Wikileaks/Mr. Robot style DMS's. +There are many kinds of dead man's switches (abbreviated here as DMS). The DMS's this post is concerned with are [software-based](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_man%27s_switch#Software). More specifically this post is concerned with what I will call Wikileaks/Mr. Robot style DMS's. [Wikileaks](https://wikileaks.org/) is a non-profit that has a history of publishing highly classified news leaks obtained through anonymous sources. In order to protect the leaks, some are prereleased in encrypted form with the decryption key rigged to self-publish in case the operations of Wikileaks are obstructed in the meantime. -DMS's are also used 3 times in [the TV series Mr. Robot](https://mrrobot.fandom.com). One is first used by [Elliot Alderson](https://mrrobot.fandom.com/wiki/Elliot_Alderson) threatening to leak [Fernando Vera](https://mrrobot.fandom.com/wiki/Fernando_Vera)'s drug supplying operation to protect his dealer sweetheart [Shayla](https://mrrobot.fandom.com/wiki/Shayla_Nico) ([S1E6](https://mrrobot.fandom.com/wiki/Eps1.6_v1ew-s0urce.flv)). The second is in the form of an email from [Trenton](https://mrrobot.fandom.com/wiki/Trenton) to Elliot hinting how to undo the 5/9 hack ([S3E8](https://mrrobot.fandom.com/wiki/Eps3.8_stage3.torrent)). The last comes again from Elliot threatening to leak information to hurt the antagonist [White Rose](https://mrrobot.fandom.com/wiki/Whiterose) ([S3E10](https://mrrobot.fandom.com/wiki/Shutdown_-r)). +DMS's are also used 3 times in [the TV series Mr. Robot](https://mrrobot.fandom.com/wiki/Mr._Robot_Wiki). One is first used by [Elliot Alderson](https://mrrobot.fandom.com/wiki/Elliot_Alderson) threatening to leak [Fernando Vera](https://mrrobot.fandom.com/wiki/Fernando_Vera)'s drug supplying operation to protect his dealer sweetheart [Shayla](https://mrrobot.fandom.com/wiki/Shayla_Nico) ([S1E6](https://mrrobot.fandom.com/wiki/Eps1.6_v1ew-s0urce.flv)). The second is in the form of an email from [Trenton](https://mrrobot.fandom.com/wiki/Shama_Biswas) to Elliot hinting how to undo the 5/9 hack ([S3E8](https://mrrobot.fandom.com/wiki/Eps3.8_stage3.torrent)). The last comes again from Elliot threatening to leak information to hurt the antagonist [White Rose](https://mrrobot.fandom.com/wiki/Whiterose) ([S3E10](https://mrrobot.fandom.com/wiki/Shutdown_-r)). There are 2 key elements common to the DMS's I've referenced so far: @@ -22,12 +22,12 @@ Now I'll consider the potential uses for such a device. ## Self-Defense The first use case that comes to mind for a Wikileaks/Mr. Robot style DMS is self-defense. If you learn something others want to keep private, you could be in danger. You "know too much". From organized crime to classified government documents the most obvious way to deal with someone who knows too much is to have them killed, assuming you have let's say a highly questionable moral compass. Dead men tell no tales. -A DMS is a way of turning the "knowing too much" problem on its head. It's especially useful for dissidents and independent journalists that regularly find themselves pitted against powerful multinational corporations, [the state](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/07/florida-police-raid-data-scientist-coronavirus) and [large criminal enterprises](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Epstein). It can be used as a bargaining chip to protect yourself and those you care about. If anyone you care about is harmed the private information is assured to leak, so instead of "dead men tell no tales" it becomes "living men tell no tales". +A DMS is a way of turning the "knowing too much" problem on its head. It's especially useful for dissidents and independent journalists that regularly find themselves pitted against powerful multinational corporations, [the state](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/07/florida-police-raid-data-scientist-coronavirus) and [large criminal enterprises](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Epstein). It can be used as a bargaining chip to protect yourself and those you care about. If anyone you care about is harmed the private information is assured to leak, so instead of "dead men tell no tales" it becomes "living men tell no tales". You should carefully consider before using one. They have the potential to be effective only if used correctly. You might ask what is the value of the leak? The final time Elliot used one in Mr. Robot the threat of the leak wasn't devastating enough to protect him from White Rose. Elliot was only able to save himself by proving he had worth. It's also important to consider how long will the leak hold value? After Vera's operation was over he stood to lose nothing from Elliot's leak. Elliot was again saved only because of his value, not his DMS. The lesson there is to be thoughtful before using one. ## Leak Defense -The next use case is to protect the leak itself. When the leak is obtained from an anonymous source it's disorganized and hard to read. So before Wikileaks publishes a leak they have to [curate](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_curation) the content. But there's a danger that while they're doing that the leak could be seized or destroyed by an adversary. To mitigate that they can set up a DMS so the data will get published either way. Then the adversary no longer has any incentive to interfere with the data curation process. +The next use case is to protect the leak itself. When the leak is obtained from an anonymous source it's disorganized and hard to read. So before Wikileaks publishes a leak they have to [curate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_curation) the content. But there's a danger that while they're doing that the leak could be seized or destroyed by an adversary. To mitigate that they can set up a DMS so the data will get published either way. Then the adversary no longer has any incentive to interfere with the data curation process. ## Offense As for offense, it doesn't make as much sense to use a DMS. Even though it could be used illegally for blackmail or extortion it would only be necessary if the offender was concerned about ending up in a situation where they can't leak the information. At that point they'd probably be more interested in self-defense than offense anyway. Unless there are circumstances I'm overlooking then Wikileaks/Mr. Robot style DMS's aren't very useful for offense. @@ -36,12 +36,12 @@ For the rest of this post I'm going to focus only on the self-defense use case. # Theory and Practice ## In Theory -In theory the DMS represents a sequential, [noncooperative game](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-cooperative_game) between 2 players. Player 1 (the defender) chooses between leaking Player 2's secrets and doing nothing. Player 2 (the attacker) chooses between violence against Player 1 and doing nothing. Both players are assumed to be rational. Here are the payoffs for each strategy: +In theory the DMS represents a sequential, [noncooperative game](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-cooperative_game) between 2 players. Player 1 (the defender) chooses between leaking Player 2's secrets and doing nothing. Player 2 (the attacker) chooses between violence against Player 1 and doing nothing. Both players are assumed to be rational. Here are the payoffs for each strategy: 1. If Player 2 commits violence then 1. Player 1 loses 2 points (harm) 2. Player 2 gains 1 point (retribution) 2. If Player 1 leaks data then 1. Player 2 loses 2 points (harm) 2. Player 1 gains 1 point (retribution) -This point structure assumes both Players value retribution but not as much as avoiding harm. Both Players assume the other will adopt the strategy of maximizing their own points. Using the [Minimax](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimax#Example_2) algorithm it can be determined that both Players will do nothing. Any other action would result in both players having less points. Points are represented for each Player in the format (P1,P2) in the decision tree below: +This point structure assumes both Players value retribution but not as much as avoiding harm. Both Players assume the other will adopt the strategy of maximizing their own points. Using the [Minimax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimax#Example_2) algorithm it can be determined that both Players will do nothing. Any other action would result in both players having less points. Points are represented for each Player in the format (P1,P2) in the decision tree below: [decision_tree [IMG]](/decision_tree.jpg) @@ -52,21 +52,21 @@ In practice there are a number of complicating factors. Player 2 may not know ex If you still want to configure a DMS the first thing to consider is how to format the data you wish to include. ## Luks2 -If you're gathering data to be included in the leak on an ongoing basis then you should probably use an encrypted disk image file. I recommend using [LUKS2](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Unified_Key_Setup) for the encrypted disk image. There are plenty of tutorials out there on how to use it so I won't be going over that in this post. To leak the data is easy. Just publish the encryption slot passphrase. +If you're gathering data to be included in the leak on an ongoing basis then you should probably use an encrypted disk image file. I recommend using [LUKS2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Unified_Key_Setup) for the encrypted disk image. There are plenty of tutorials out there on how to use it so I won't be going over that in this post. To leak the data is easy. Just publish the encryption slot passphrase. ## GnuPG2 -If instead you already have all the data you're ever going to leak then you can just create a [Tar](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_%28computing%29) archive encrypted with [GnuPG](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Privacy_Guard). [GnuPG is awful](https://secushare.org/PGP) so you might consider other file encryption methods as well. It doesn't matter that much so long as you use free software. +If instead you already have all the data you're ever going to leak then you can just create a [Tar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_%28computing%29) archive encrypted with [GnuPG](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Privacy_Guard). [GnuPG is awful](https://secushare.org/PGP) so you might consider other file encryption methods as well. It doesn't matter that much so long as you use free software. ## Content Distribution Once your encrypted archive is prepared you'll need to distribute it to others. Wikileaks "insurance" files were distributed through torrents. In Mr. Robot email was used. There's no standard for this. It's completely up to you how you do this part. The important part is anyone that would want a copy knows about the leak and can get a copy. ## VPS Setup -Now comes the part of the setup where you need a server machine to actually trigger the DMS. If you're using a DMS there's no reason not to make it as secure as possible because securing it from a state-level adversary is only a few steps extra versus securing it from a mobster. I won't cover how to secure your personal computer but if you're using a DMS you should at a minimum have [full-disk encryption](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_disk_encryption) enabled with a strong password. +Now comes the part of the setup where you need a server machine to actually trigger the DMS. If you're using a DMS there's no reason not to make it as secure as possible because securing it from a state-level adversary is only a few steps extra versus securing it from a mobster. I won't cover how to secure your personal computer but if you're using a DMS you should at a minimum have [full-disk encryption](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_disk_encryption) enabled with a strong password. -To get started use an anonymous VPS since you shouldn't have physical access to the server. If you have physical access an adversary could also gain physical access and permanently disarm the switch. So the first thing you need to do is acquire [Monero](https://www.monero.how/). Then use Tor Browser to [purchase a foreign VPS with the Monero](https://www.getmonero.org/community/merchants/#hosting), but don't give the VPS provider your true credentials. You can ssh into your VPS with the command torify ssh <user>@<server>. Then you should [harden your ssh configuration](https://stribika.github.io/2015/01/04/secure-secure-shell.html) and put sshd behind a [Tor v3 Hidden Service](https://scribe.rip/@NullByteWht/how-to-set-up-an-ssh-server-with-tor-to-hide-it-from-shodan-hackers-eda93927a742) so a [MITM](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-in-the-middle) can't locate it. Once all that's done you're finally ready to set up the actual DMS. +To get started use an anonymous VPS since you shouldn't have physical access to the server. If you have physical access an adversary could also gain physical access and permanently disarm the switch. So the first thing you need to do is acquire [Monero](https://www.monero.how/). Then use Tor Browser to [purchase a foreign VPS with the Monero](https://www.getmonero.org/community/merchants/#hosting), but don't give the VPS provider your true credentials. You can ssh into your VPS with the command torify ssh <user>@<server>. Then you should [harden your ssh configuration](https://blog.stribik.technology/2015/01/04/secure-secure-shell.html) and put sshd behind a [Tor v3 Hidden Service](https://scribe.rip/@NullByteWht/how-to-set-up-an-ssh-server-with-tor-to-hide-it-from-shodan-hackers-eda93927a742) so a [MITM](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-in-the-middle) can't locate it. Once all that's done you're finally ready to set up the actual DMS. ## Cron -There is free software that automatically configures a DMS, but it's equally as easy to set one up yourself. Simply write a script that checks for the existence of a file and schedule it to run at regular intervals using [Cron](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cron). If the file exists, delete it. If the file does not exist, your script should execute a separate script that publishes the passphrase or private key needed to decrypt the data. It's up to you where you publish the decryption key. Just be sure to test it first with a fake key. +There is free software that automatically configures a DMS, but it's equally as easy to set one up yourself. Simply write a script that checks for the existence of a file and schedule it to run at regular intervals using [Cron](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cron). If the file exists, delete it. If the file does not exist, your script should execute a separate script that publishes the passphrase or private key needed to decrypt the data. It's up to you where you publish the decryption key. Just be sure to test it first with a fake key. Here's what such a script might look like: @@ -125,7 +125,7 @@ You don't hear about Wikileaks/Mr. Robot style DMS's being used very often. I as 2. They require continuous maintenance 3. They don't occur to most people to use -In my view DMS's are woefully underused and they should be more common especially with dissidents, protest organizers and investigative journalism organizations. The fact that Jeffrey Epstein didn't have a DMS before he "[killed himself](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epstein_didn%27t_kill_himself)" is almost beyond believe. A man with his wealth and criminal connections should've had one. He could've privately paid someone to set it up for him. +In my view DMS's are woefully underused and they should be more common especially with dissidents, protest organizers and investigative journalism organizations. The fact that Jeffrey Epstein didn't have a DMS before he "[killed himself](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epstein_didn%27t_kill_himself)" is almost beyond believe. A man with his wealth and criminal connections should've had one. He could've privately paid someone to set it up for him. I think about how his situation might have turned out differently if he would've set up one. Assuming he didn't commit suicide it could have protected him long enough to call out other rich and powerful people involved in sex trafficking. But it goes farther than Epstein. There are lots of situations where wealthy individuals and those with computer skills could have set up a DMS to protect themselves but apparently didn't think to do so. diff --git a/content/entry/dealing-with-close-minded-people.md b/content/entry/dealing-with-close-minded-people.md index d6ce8c5..0130bf4 100644 --- a/content/entry/dealing-with-close-minded-people.md +++ b/content/entry/dealing-with-close-minded-people.md @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ Religion is a perfect example of people closing off their minds due to fear. Peo ## Mental Effort Another reason people are close-minded is because changing your mind takes mental effort, especially if you're changing your mind about one of your core beliefs. If you believe for instance that people have free will, as the US justice system is based on, then you'd have to rearrange your entire internal moral framework if you learned people do not have free will. That's a lot of mental effort. Wouldn't it be so much easier to go on believing that people do have free will since your entire understanding of ethics is based on that? -It's not as if you can just change your mind only about free will and leave every other peripheral belief intact. You'd feel [cognitive dissonance](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance) that would demand to be addressed. Holding beliefs that you know to be mutually incompatible is unpleasant. Therefore you're forced to either suffer psychologically or invest mental energy into correcting your other beliefs built on the foundation of free will. +It's not as if you can just change your mind only about free will and leave every other peripheral belief intact. You'd feel [cognitive dissonance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance) that would demand to be addressed. Holding beliefs that you know to be mutually incompatible is unpleasant. Therefore you're forced to either suffer psychologically or invest mental energy into correcting your other beliefs built on the foundation of free will. There's also the fear that you might not know what to believe any more. What if you can't figure out how to justify holding people responsible for their actions without free will? There's the worry that any time you change one of your beliefs, you don't exactly know how that might affect the others. You don't know how it might cause you to change your behavior. And that can be scary. @@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ I hope you're starting to see how all these causes each play into one another. A But we have to get over fear, put aside our ego and be honest with ourselves when it comes to what we believe. We have to be open to hearing new evidence and to changing our minds. That's the essence of open-mindedness and that's how we advance the public conversation. # Dealing With Close-Minded People -So let's assume you yourself are open-minded. Provided the right evidence to the contrary, you would change your mind about almost anything. It's like [Anthony Magnabosco](https://anthonymagnabosco.com/) says in his [street epistemology](https://streetepistemologyinternational.org/) (SE) videos, "If I'm wrong, I wanna know it". But how do you deal with people who aren't so open-minded? +So let's assume you yourself are open-minded. Provided the right evidence to the contrary, you would change your mind about almost anything. It's like [Anthony Magnabosco](https://linktr.ee/magnabosco) says in his [street epistemology](https://streetepistemologyinternational.org/) (SE) videos, "If I'm wrong, I wanna know it". But how do you deal with people who aren't so open-minded? ## Determine Close-Mindedness If you're going to approach close-minded people differently from the open-minded, which I suggest you do to preserve your own sanity, you must first determine that the person you're dealing with is actually close-minded. To determine that, here are a couple key questions to ask them: diff --git a/content/entry/disgustingly-rich.md b/content/entry/disgustingly-rich.md index 25bcfbe..baebbb2 100644 --- a/content/entry/disgustingly-rich.md +++ b/content/entry/disgustingly-rich.md @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ With income and wealth inequality at its peak, a few billionaires now own more w * Addiction to smartphones and social media worsens as big tech uses its power to brainwash the masses. * The poor get poorer while the rich get phenomenally richer. * Poor children are forced to work in sweatshops instead of going to school. -* [29 other top-level issues as chosen by the UN](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_global_issues). +* [29 other top-level issues as chosen by the UN](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_global_issues). * A thousand other issues that won't fit on this list. Since the billionaires' greed is largely responsible for many of these crises in the first place, we ought to take back their wealth through a wealth tax and use it to solve the problems they created. diff --git a/content/entry/documentary-line-goes-up-the-problem-with-nfts.md b/content/entry/documentary-line-goes-up-the-problem-with-nfts.md index ff901cd..0e4d70d 100644 --- a/content/entry/documentary-line-goes-up-the-problem-with-nfts.md +++ b/content/entry/documentary-line-goes-up-the-problem-with-nfts.md @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ Clearly, a lot of work went into it. The information is high quality with plenty For those of you who have followed my journal for a while now, you know I've become increasingly critical of cryptocurrency over the years. I wasn't always so critical. In fact, I used to be a total sucker. ## Bitcoin -My cryptocurrency journey started years before I ever conceived of this journal. I was disappointed that I missed the opportunity to "invest" in [Bitcoin](https://bitcoin.org/) earlier, so I decided to invest in it. At the time, I was under the impression that altcoins were just Bitcoin clones. They weren't the original, so why bother with them? +My cryptocurrency journey started years before I ever conceived of this journal. I was disappointed that I missed the opportunity to "invest" in [Bitcoin](https://bitcoin.org/en/) earlier, so I decided to invest in it. At the time, I was under the impression that altcoins were just Bitcoin clones. They weren't the original, so why bother with them? ## IOTA Some time later, I realized that blockchains didn't scale. So I became enamored with [IOTA](https://www.iota.org/)'s cryptocurrency based on "the tangle", which is really just a decentralized acyclic graph. I naively believed all their false promises and dumped money into it. I even tried to get other people to invest. I ended up losing big time because I didn't pull out, even after the price dropped. I thoroughly read the white paper, having more understanding of the technology than most other "investors", and I started asking questions. @@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ I would say the two overarching lessons I learned from my experiences in cryptoc * Always question your own motives # GNU Taler -Assuming people come to their senses and cryptocurrency loses its value, there will still be a need for anonymous online payments. [GNU Taler](https://taler.net) is working on that. +Assuming people come to their senses and cryptocurrency loses its value, there will still be a need for anonymous online payments. [GNU Taler](https://taler.net/en/) is working on that. It's not another cryptocurrency ponzi scheme. It doesn't try to fulfill the anarchist/libertarian fantasy of a fully decentralized, unregulated digital payment system that promises the world but delivers next to nothing. diff --git a/content/entry/documentary-sicko.md b/content/entry/documentary-sicko.md index 0fa8732..e425f20 100644 --- a/content/entry/documentary-sicko.md +++ b/content/entry/documentary-sicko.md @@ -16,9 +16,9 @@ Also we can't forget the 27 million Americans that have no healthcare of any kin # Sicko Every other major country on earth guarantees healthcare access to every citizen. It's morally incomprehensible that in the year 2021 the US still hasn't universalized healthcare. -In the documentary film Sicko Michael Moore does a great job of comparing the US healthcare system with healthcare in the rest of the civilized world by showcasing the wastefulness and cruelty of the US system. You can find [criticism of the film on Wikipedia](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicko#Response). Keep in mind health insurance companies with billions of dollars ran a campaign to discredit the film. Given that, I take the criticisms with a grain of salt. The thrust of the film is accurate regardless: America has a broken healthcare system and fixing it is a moral imperative. +In the documentary film Sicko Michael Moore does a great job of comparing the US healthcare system with healthcare in the rest of the civilized world by showcasing the wastefulness and cruelty of the US system. You can find [criticism of the film on Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicko#Response). Keep in mind health insurance companies with billions of dollars ran a campaign to discredit the film. Given that, I take the criticisms with a grain of salt. The thrust of the film is accurate regardless: America has a broken healthcare system and fixing it is a moral imperative. [Link below] [Documentary Link](https://web.archive.org/web/20210125092526if_/https://michaelmoore.com/movies/sicko/) -The only comment I would make is the film (2007) is slightly dated because past president Barack Obama has since passed a major piece of legislation called the [Affordable Care Act](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Care_Act) (Obamacare) which was designed to address the gaps in America's healthcare system. It has improved healthcare access in the United States. If you want to catch up on American healthcare you should read about it after watching the film. President-elect Joe Biden promoted the public option which offers public healthcare to everyone as a federal program (Bidencare) forcing private insurers to compete with the government. Not as good as Bernie's Medicare for All which would catch us up with the rest of the civilized world but Bidencare would at least be better than what we have now assuming he actually goes forward with it and it doesn't end up being watered down. +The only comment I would make is the film (2007) is slightly dated because past president Barack Obama has since passed a major piece of legislation called the [Affordable Care Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Care_Act) (Obamacare) which was designed to address the gaps in America's healthcare system. It has improved healthcare access in the United States. If you want to catch up on American healthcare you should read about it after watching the film. President-elect Joe Biden promoted the public option which offers public healthcare to everyone as a federal program (Bidencare) forcing private insurers to compete with the government. Not as good as Bernie's Medicare for All which would catch us up with the rest of the civilized world but Bidencare would at least be better than what we have now assuming he actually goes forward with it and it doesn't end up being watered down. diff --git a/content/entry/documentary-the-norden-prison.md b/content/entry/documentary-the-norden-prison.md index 4bb41d8..656ef7f 100644 --- a/content/entry/documentary-the-norden-prison.md +++ b/content/entry/documentary-the-norden-prison.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ date: 2021-02-03T00:00:00 draft: false --- # The Norden -[The Norden](https://thetvdb.com/series/the-norden) is a documentary series made in 2014 first aired by Finland's national public broadcasting company [YLE](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yle). It presents the Nordic welfare model from an outsider's perspective. The first episode looks at the Norwegian prison system. It captures so much of what's wrong with "tough" prisons like those in America and most importantly it shows a better alternative. It promotes a prison model based on rehabilitation, not revenge. You can watch it for free on archive.org: +[The Norden](https://thetvdb.com/series/the-norden) is a documentary series made in 2014 first aired by Finland's national public broadcasting company [YLE](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yle). It presents the Nordic welfare model from an outsider's perspective. The first episode looks at the Norwegian prison system. It captures so much of what's wrong with "tough" prisons like those in America and most importantly it shows a better alternative. It promotes a prison model based on rehabilitation, not revenge. You can watch it for free on archive.org: [Link below] [https://archive.org/details/TheNordenS01E01-Prison](https://archive.org/details/TheNordenS01E01-Prison) @@ -12,19 +12,19 @@ draft: false # Philosophy Prison reform is a subject I'm very passionate about. It is an urgent moral necessity to address the pointless suffering that goes on in tough prisons. What's wrong with tough prisons? Simply put, tough prisons are based on falsehoods, disregard for historical data, incoherent philosophy, and confused ideas about human psychology. The term [fractal wrongness](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractal_wrongness) is a perfect descriptor. -In The Norden documentary, retired prison warden James Conway of [Attica State Prison](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attica_Correctional_Facility) in New York travels to 4 Nordic prisons to see how they operate. Now I don't want to pick on him in particular but I do want to use him as an example because he perfectly embodies everything wrong with American prisons. So for the rest of this post I'm going to take quotes from Mr. Conway in the documentary, explain what he gets wrong and why the US and other countries should immediately transition to Norwegian-style prisons. +In The Norden documentary, retired prison warden James Conway of [Attica State Prison](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attica_Correctional_Facility) in New York travels to 4 Nordic prisons to see how they operate. Now I don't want to pick on him in particular but I do want to use him as an example because he perfectly embodies everything wrong with American prisons. So for the rest of this post I'm going to take quotes from Mr. Conway in the documentary, explain what he gets wrong and why the US and other countries should immediately transition to Norwegian-style prisons. # James Conway ## Bad Philosophy > "New York State and the department of correctional services are not responsible for you being an inmate. And that means you put yourself here. Don't blame the department. Don't blame the staff. Don't blame the judge. Don't blame society. It was your actions that put yourself here...A lot of folks unfamiliar with prisons think that it's the prison's job to make sure this person comes out as a law-abiding citizen and those of us in prison realize that's not the case." -- James Conway -This quote is based on bad philosophy. Specifically it's based on the believe that people possess libertarian free will. I've already talked at length about how [free will is incoherent](/2020/06/19/free-will-is-incoherent-part-1). For someone to have free will and be ultimately responsible for their actions would be [circular](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning). +This quote is based on bad philosophy. Specifically it's based on the believe that people possess libertarian free will. I've already talked at length about how [free will is incoherent](/2020/06/19/free-will-is-incoherent-part-1/). For someone to have free will and be ultimately responsible for their actions would be [circular](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning). -This bad philosophy regarding free will is related to confusion about [the self](/2020/05/02/the-self). For example, in a sense there's not really such a thing as a chair. There are legs, a seat and armrests and when they are put together a certain way in space and used for sitting, we call the result a "chair". But if you only stand on it to reach high places it might be a "step stool". Point being "chair" and "stool" are mere nouns. They aren't the real thing because reality isn't words. The same is true of the nouns "I", "self", "ego" and "person". +This bad philosophy regarding free will is related to confusion about [the self](/2020/05/02/the-self/). For example, in a sense there's not really such a thing as a chair. There are legs, a seat and armrests and when they are put together a certain way in space and used for sitting, we call the result a "chair". But if you only stand on it to reach high places it might be a "step stool". Point being "chair" and "stool" are mere nouns. They aren't the real thing because reality isn't words. The same is true of the nouns "I", "self", "ego" and "person". To say of inmates "It was your actions that put yourself here." and the thinking that it's their responsibility to change themselves is to be confused about the self. Who is the "you" that put yourself there and who is the "you" that got put there? Who is the "you" that is doing the changing and who is the "you" that is being changed? It makes no sense. Of course people can change but there's a contradiction in assigning ultimate blame to inmates. -I don't want to make this whole post a lecture about free will and self. For that you can read 2 sections of my other post on free will [responsibility](/2020/08/22/free-will-is-incoherent-part-2) and [justice](/2020/08/22/free-will-is-incoherent-part-2). For those of you who think I'm just [intellectualizing](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectualization) to make excuses for inmates, I'm not. People should admit their past mistakes. They should make an effort to improve. They just shouldn't be thought of as ultimately responsible. Maybe there is a sense in which they are responsible, but not ultimately. Moving on. +I don't want to make this whole post a lecture about free will and self. For that you can read 2 sections of my other post on free will [responsibility](/2020/08/22/free-will-is-incoherent-part-2/) and [justice](/2020/08/22/free-will-is-incoherent-part-2/). For those of you who think I'm just [intellectualizing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectualization) to make excuses for inmates, I'm not. People should admit their past mistakes. They should make an effort to improve. They just shouldn't be thought of as ultimately responsible. Maybe there is a sense in which they are responsible, but not ultimately. Moving on. ## Double Standards James Conway explains to Jarmo Haavisto, Assistant Director of Hameenlinna Prison, how cells are searched in Attica: @@ -49,19 +49,19 @@ I'm no prison warden but I'm sure the prisoner wasn't just trying to make an iss ## Lack of Compassion > "The inmate has given up his right to be in society by violating the law, by violent crime, by committing murder, by committing rape. That person shouldn't be coddled, shouldn't be given a situation where we're concerned about how they would feel if somebody was to walk by their cell and see them on the toilet. Who cares how they feel." -- James Conway -Who cares how they feel? Someone made a mistake so it's okay to disregard their feelings? It's okay to treat them as subhuman because they broke the law? Isolating them from society is done because it's necessary to protect society. But not giving them privacy while using the toilet? If that's not [cruel and unusual punishment](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruel_and_unusual_punishment) then I don't know what is. +Who cares how they feel? Someone made a mistake so it's okay to disregard their feelings? It's okay to treat them as subhuman because they broke the law? Isolating them from society is done because it's necessary to protect society. But not giving them privacy while using the toilet? If that's not [cruel and unusual punishment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruel_and_unusual_punishment) then I don't know what is. Inmates are human beings. It doesn't matter what they've done. They deserve to be treated with dignity and respect just like everyone else. It's that simple. ## Cherry Picking -One of the reasons we have more people in jail in the United States than any other country is we throw people in jail for things that wouldn't justify [incarceration](https://www.salve.edu/sites/default/files/filesfield/documents/Incarceration_and_Recidivism.pdf) elsewhere. US prisons are filled with nonviolent drug offenders, victims of [the war on drugs which should never have been waged in the first place](/2020/11/08/legalize-all-drugs). There wouldn't be as many violent drug offenders either if not for the war on drugs. +One of the reasons we have more people in jail in the United States than any other country is we throw people in jail for things that wouldn't justify [incarceration](https://www.salve.edu/sites/default/files/filesfield/documents/Incarceration_and_Recidivism.pdf) elsewhere. US prisons are filled with nonviolent drug offenders, victims of [the war on drugs which should never have been waged in the first place](/2020/11/08/legalize-all-drugs/). There wouldn't be as many violent drug offenders either if not for the war on drugs. Mr. Conway doesn't mention any of that. Like a true [radical individualist](https://www.shondaland.com/act/news-politics/a34729330/the-radical-individualism-raging-throughout-america/), he shrugs off societal influences, such as poverty and poor education, which we know based on evidence push people into a lives of crime. Instead he cherry picks the criminals we have the least sympathy for. That is, murderers and rapists. ## Disregard for Evidence (Dogmatism) Mr. Conway claims we shouldn't care about how inmates feel and they shouldn't be coddled. But how does he know that? What logic did he use to take the step from "The inmate has given up his right to be in society by violating the law, by violent crime..." to "That person shouldn't be coddled, shouldn't be given a situation where we're concerned about how they would feel..."? How did he go about determining that? -People with Mr. Conway's attitude would probably say it's self-evident. Isn't it obvious they shouldn't be treated well? After all they committed a crime. To that I would give the same general answer I give to all moral questions: [What do you care about?](/2020/10/11/metaethics). I care about minimizing the number of people in prison. I care about people getting better even if that means we have to treat them better than their victims would approve of. I care about the evidence and results from the Nordic prison system as compared to other systems. +People with Mr. Conway's attitude would probably say it's self-evident. Isn't it obvious they shouldn't be treated well? After all they committed a crime. To that I would give the same general answer I give to all moral questions: [What do you care about?](/2020/10/11/metaethics/). I care about minimizing the number of people in prison. I care about people getting better even if that means we have to treat them better than their victims would approve of. I care about the evidence and results from the Nordic prison system as compared to other systems. It really comes down to your values. If you value living in a society where where you don't have millions of citizens going through the rotating door of prison, poverty and crime more than any other country, where you don't punish and degrade people for the sake of it, where people getting better is more important than revenge, then the best working example of that is the Nordic prison model and you should want to shift other countries closer towards it. @@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ Just ask Christer Karlsson, an ex-criminal that served 27 years in a Norwegian p > Journalist: "And is that a good thing that they are soft?" Christer Karlsson: thinking..."Yeah. I think it's good, to behave to treat people with human thinking. I think it's good. Because if you are treat them badly they be badly more badly by themself. Do some more awful crime when they come out." -If you only value retribution, punishing people even though all the evidence shows it causes them to become more hardened criminals in the future making society less safe with mass incarceration and recidivism paid for at the taxpayers' expense, inmates becoming more antisocial not getting the help they need just to fulfill a dogmatic fantasy based on nothing and in contradiction with our current understanding of [the brain](/2020/06/19/free-will-is-incoherent-part-1), [the self](/2020/05/02/the-self), modern psychology and sociology, then punishment is the way to go. +If you only value retribution, punishing people even though all the evidence shows it causes them to become more hardened criminals in the future making society less safe with mass incarceration and recidivism paid for at the taxpayers' expense, inmates becoming more antisocial not getting the help they need just to fulfill a dogmatic fantasy based on nothing and in contradiction with our current understanding of [the brain](/2020/06/19/free-will-is-incoherent-part-1/), [the self](/2020/05/02/the-self/), modern psychology and sociology, then punishment is the way to go. ## Red Herring When Mr. Conway saw a unit inside the maximum security Halden prison he said this: @@ -93,6 +93,6 @@ Of course "everybody" won't go along with the prison changes. But in Norway the Mr. Conway is basically saying that 4 out of 20 prisoners reoffending isn't better than 15 out of 20 because it's not 0. His implicit message seems to be "If the Nordic system fails even for one inmate then it'll have to revert to being a tough US prison". Only someone who is obsessed with punishing every slight would fail to appreciate the relative success of the Nordic system. Clearly Mr. Conway is obsessed with punishing every slight because he thought it was appropriate to force an inmate to stay inside and not walk for a week just because he didn't want to be on camera. -I'll end this post with a quote from Russian novelist and philosopher [Fyodor Dostoyevsky](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fyodor_Dostoyevsky): +I'll end this post with a quote from Russian novelist and philosopher [Fyodor Dostoyevsky](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fyodor_Dostoyevsky): > "A society should be judged not by how it treats its outstanding citizens but by how it treats its criminals." -- Dostoyevsky diff --git a/content/entry/dont-call-people-homophobic-transphobic-or-islamophobic.md b/content/entry/dont-call-people-homophobic-transphobic-or-islamophobic.md index d7f99f6..de36a01 100644 --- a/content/entry/dont-call-people-homophobic-transphobic-or-islamophobic.md +++ b/content/entry/dont-call-people-homophobic-transphobic-or-islamophobic.md @@ -13,4 +13,4 @@ To clear this confusion up, we should use the suffixes "ism" and "ist" instead o The word "islamophobia" is doubly misleading. Despite the prefix "islam", it actually means anti-Muslim. [Islam is a despicable religion](https://thereligionofpeace.com) that decent people should ideologically oppose. Being anti-Islam is totally different from being anti-Muslim. So I propose the terms "antimuslimism" and "antimuslimist" instead. -[Language affects how we think](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity), so we should be careful what words we include in our vocabulary. Are there any other words we should change? Let me know what you think. +[Language affects how we think](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity), so we should be careful what words we include in our vocabulary. Are there any other words we should change? Let me know what you think. diff --git a/content/entry/dont-let-cannabis-dispensaries-scan-your-id.md b/content/entry/dont-let-cannabis-dispensaries-scan-your-id.md index 6d5556e..f756ca1 100644 --- a/content/entry/dont-let-cannabis-dispensaries-scan-your-id.md +++ b/content/entry/dont-let-cannabis-dispensaries-scan-your-id.md @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ So there's 2 problems with allowing cannabis dispensaries to scan your ID (for U If old white anti-progressive assholes regain control of the federal government, they can compel dispensaries to hand over their customer databases. When that happens, you're liable to federal prosecution. # Problem 2: Consumer surveillance is an injustice -I've written about how to [avoid consumer surveillance](/2020/11/16/avoiding-consumer-surveillance) before. The biggest thing is not identifying yourself. Some places of business require ID, which is not a problem as long as only a human is reading it. But if your ID gets scanned, it might be put into a database, creating a digital record of your purchase. This is an injustice and the first problem that I pointed out is just a consequence of this initial injustice. Yet another reason why we must make it illegal for businesses to collect personalized data about people. +I've written about how to [avoid consumer surveillance](/2020/11/16/avoiding-consumer-surveillance/) before. The biggest thing is not identifying yourself. Some places of business require ID, which is not a problem as long as only a human is reading it. But if your ID gets scanned, it might be put into a database, creating a digital record of your purchase. This is an injustice and the first problem that I pointed out is just a consequence of this initial injustice. Yet another reason why we must make it illegal for businesses to collect personalized data about people. The problem from the perspective of cannabis dispensaries is depending on the state, it may be mandatory for dispensaries to scan ID and even put it into a state database. If you live in a state which requires ID scanning, avoiding dispensaries altogether is the only way to avoid surveillance (and possible future prosecution). If your state doesn't force dispensaries to scan ID, then look for ones that don't scan. diff --git a/content/entry/dont-record-others-without-permission.md b/content/entry/dont-record-others-without-permission.md index 1f3d31f..8d3f4b1 100644 --- a/content/entry/dont-record-others-without-permission.md +++ b/content/entry/dont-record-others-without-permission.md @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ I don't have a perfect solution for what to do about this, but it's clearly less # Social Norm 1 It would be extremely dangerous for the government to strictly regulate what citizens are allowed to record. Perhaps a better way to mitigate the privacy problem caused by everyone having mobile smartphones with cameras on their person is to make it a strict social taboo to record others without their permission. To record another person having a bad day or distressed or shouting things they don't mean out of pure frustration and send it to others or upload it online for internet points is perverse, even if said person is in the wrong. People change. People improve. But that footage won't reflect that and it lasts forever. How would you like for the rest of your life to be about the worst thing you ever said or did? Would that be just? -Of course there would be many exceptional circumstances. Video recordings are sometimes important. Police officers and public officials should be subject to recording just as covert investigations may require recording others without their knowledge or consent. What should happen to the recording after an investigation concludes for example is equally deserving of its own discussion and has been discussed by groups such as the [Electronic Frontier Foundation](https://www.eff.org/) in the context of [police body cams](https://www.eff.org/pages/body-worn-cameras). Then there are cases where recording others is important, but there are steps that should be taken before the footage is shared with anyone. Media coverage of protests is vital, but video footage can be used to identify the protesters. At a minimum, faces and identifiable markings should be blurred out to protect protester identities. +Of course there would be many exceptional circumstances. Video recordings are sometimes important. Police officers and public officials should be subject to recording just as covert investigations may require recording others without their knowledge or consent. What should happen to the recording after an investigation concludes for example is equally deserving of its own discussion and has been discussed by groups such as the [Electronic Frontier Foundation](https://www.eff.org/) in the context of [police body cams](https://sls.eff.org/technologies/body-worn-cameras). Then there are cases where recording others is important, but there are steps that should be taken before the footage is shared with anyone. Media coverage of protests is vital, but video footage can be used to identify the protesters. At a minimum, faces and identifiable markings should be blurred out to protect protester identities. So that's one side of the equation. Society needs a taboo against recording people without permission except under extenuating circumstances. The norm should be not to record people without permission, where permission means informed consent. If you lie about the reasons you want to record someone or what you plan to do with the recording, you've obtained bastardized consent, not real informed consent. There can't be informed consent if the other party isn't informed. @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ There is a second side to the equation when it comes to recording people. It is Imagine a man in a fast food place that starts shouting and treating the workers poorly. Is he like this all the time or is he just having a very bad day? Who knows. Perhaps his son just died yesterday and he doesn't know how to process it. Even if that's just the way he normally is, regularly treating service workers poorly, what good comes of recording the situation and posting it online? Shaming people generally makes them spiteful and angry. It doesn't usually invoke their self-reflective, compassionate capacity within them. Maybe nothing would, but recording someone in a bad moment and uploading it to the internet, stoking an online hate mob to destroy their public image, that's only going to be counterproductive. -This is why I strongly dislike cancel culture. It's hate-based. It's not about giving people the benefit of the doubt. It's not about considering their capacity to become better or change. Of course having a bad day or trying to get past a horrible life event doesn't license you to be rude to people. But that's really a confused way of looking at it. It's not about "license" to treat people badly. People who think it is don't understand [free will](/2020/06/19/free-will-is-incoherent-part-1). +This is why I strongly dislike cancel culture. It's hate-based. It's not about giving people the benefit of the doubt. It's not about considering their capacity to become better or change. Of course having a bad day or trying to get past a horrible life event doesn't license you to be rude to people. But that's really a confused way of looking at it. It's not about "license" to treat people badly. People who think it is don't understand [free will](/2020/06/19/free-will-is-incoherent-part-1/). The fact is, for whatever reason, you have a man treating a service worker badly. But even if he has no excuse, he isn't ultimately responsible for the way his brain is wired which inevitably pushed him into being rude to the service worker. If he were responsible for his brain wiring, that would be circular. Point being that this cancel culture of making people lose their job and lose respect should be replaced with "compassion culture". We ought to find ways to be compassionate and help those who mistreat others rather than shaming and wanting the worst for them. Wanting people to fail and to be shamed and to hurt is a sick desire and people who possess it themselves require our empathy and compassion. diff --git a/content/entry/dont-rely-exclusively-on-a-vpn-for-online-privacy-and-security.md b/content/entry/dont-rely-exclusively-on-a-vpn-for-online-privacy-and-security.md index aaca3de..8d6e5f5 100644 --- a/content/entry/dont-rely-exclusively-on-a-vpn-for-online-privacy-and-security.md +++ b/content/entry/dont-rely-exclusively-on-a-vpn-for-online-privacy-and-security.md @@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ VPNs also aren't a magic bullet for digital security. Some common ways people ge VPNs do prevent a relatively common attack vector which is the man in the middle attack (MITM) over Wi-Fi. However, most of the time, people are using the Web and nearly all websites support secure connections. Any halfway decent browser will tell you when you're connecting over an insecure connection and not to enter any login credentials. That thwarts Wi-Fi MITM attacks and even with a VPN, you ought to heed that warning. You don't need a VPN to prevent MITM attacks. ## What VPNs Are Good For -VPNs are still good for a number of other things. I live in the United States, a country heavily engaged in the [War on Sharing](http://stallman.org/articles/end-war-on-sharing.html). I use a VPN to torrent and prevent my ISP from throttling my connection. VPNs can also be used to get around region-locked content and bypass censorship. +VPNs are still good for a number of other things. I live in the United States, a country heavily engaged in the [War on Sharing](https://stallman.org/articles/end-war-on-sharing.html). I use a VPN to torrent and prevent my ISP from throttling my connection. VPNs can also be used to get around region-locked content and bypass censorship. VPNs have some limited use for security. Hackers can't geolocate you via IP address. They can't bring down your home network with a distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack. They can't hack your router, MITM attack your network, or work their way into other devices on the network. VPNs aren't necessary for preventing these types of attacks though. The same protections can be had by connecting over [Tor](/2022/01/16/always-use-tor/) and flashing your router with secure custom firmware like [OpenWrt](https://openwrt.org/). diff --git a/content/entry/doublethink.md b/content/entry/doublethink.md index d4b1763..d65810b 100644 --- a/content/entry/doublethink.md +++ b/content/entry/doublethink.md @@ -6,13 +6,13 @@ draft: false # Quick Note As a quick note, what people post online is often taken as something they will forever agree with and are forever held to. This is unreasonable. There needs to be some equivalent of forgiveness if one posts something horrible online, but that's a topic for another post. I'm not saying people aren't responsible for what they post. But I am saying we should aspire to take the most charitable interpretation of what people post if we care about advancing the conversation. Obviously a person's character is a factor in how you interpret what they post. -On my blog, I want to retain the right to post not only ideas that I understand well. But I also want the freedom to talk about things I'm not sure about. That means I run the risk of being wrong. No one posting their ideas online openly should expect to be immune to criticism. Criticism comes with the territory. But I want to say I'm interested in sharing ideas. If it's clear to me you're only interested in taking my words out of context, twisting what I write or using cheap gotchas because I didn't state something perfectly, then I probably won't respond. If you want clarification about anything I discuss, visit my [about page](/about) for contact details. With that cleared up, let's move on to the meat of this post. +On my blog, I want to retain the right to post not only ideas that I understand well. But I also want the freedom to talk about things I'm not sure about. That means I run the risk of being wrong. No one posting their ideas online openly should expect to be immune to criticism. Criticism comes with the territory. But I want to say I'm interested in sharing ideas. If it's clear to me you're only interested in taking my words out of context, twisting what I write or using cheap gotchas because I didn't state something perfectly, then I probably won't respond. If you want clarification about anything I discuss, visit my [about page](/about/) for contact details. With that cleared up, let's move on to the meat of this post. # Caring What Others Think Most people are going around supremely concerned with what other people think of them. People convince themselves they don't care about what others think, almost as a badge of honor. If someone tells you this, express disbelief as a test. If they insist they don't care, then you might say they care enough about what you think to try to convince you that they don't. If I get any emails from people who insist they don't, I'll probably find it funny because it only serves to further my point. Humans are social animals. It's pretty well baked into all of us to be concerned with what other people think. Our brains have the capacity for theory of mind not by accident. It keeps us all in check so to speak. This is especially true if you're around a lot of people, in a densely populated city like NYC for example. You literally have less room to think without the input of others. ## Meeting Expectations -There is no shortage of outside influences telling us how we ought to think, feel, and behave. In Japan, due to the influence of social conformity, [tiger parenting](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_parenting) and strict societal expectations to perpetual the status quo, there are over a million [hikikomoris](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hikikomori) in Japan. For those who don't know, a hikikomori is a reclusive person who undergoes self-isolation for extended periods of time. This could be months or years even. There are surely other contributing factors to hikikomoris such as [psychiatric disorders](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hikikomori#Psychiatric_disorders), but I want to focus on social conformity. +There is no shortage of outside influences telling us how we ought to think, feel, and behave. In Japan, due to the influence of social conformity, [tiger parenting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_parenting) and strict societal expectations to perpetual the status quo, there are over a million [hikikomoris](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hikikomori) in Japan. For those who don't know, a hikikomori is a reclusive person who undergoes self-isolation for extended periods of time. This could be months or years even. There are surely other contributing factors to hikikomoris such as [psychiatric disorders](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hikikomori#Psychiatric_disorders), but I want to focus on social conformity. In an extremely socially conformist culture where differences are not well-tolerated, is it any surprise that young Japanese are rejecting it, opting to live in isolation? Japanese children are often being crushed under the weight of parent's and peer's expectations, especially in education. Some hikikomoris attended "cram schools", or juku. Ikuo Amano, professor of Sociology at the University of Tokyo said "It's not healthy for kids to have so little free time. It is not healthy to become completely caught up in competition and status at such a young age". In some cases in cram schools, Japanese children spend almost all their waking hours short of basic biological needs cramming. This is not good for their emotional or physical well-being. It's not allowing enough room for the individual to flourish. @@ -67,4 +67,4 @@ The sky is simply the space in which the clouds appear and dissipate. The sky do You might object: "You said earlier one cannot resist caring about what others think. So how can I be like the sky if I can't stop judging my thoughts"? This is why they call it meditation practice. Non-attachment takes practice. And mindfulness meditation is one of the most effective ways to achieve that state. It's not always easy to let go, because you have been conditioned your whole life to be passionate and cling. If you can't resist judging your thoughts, then judge them. Just don't judge your judgments of your thoughts. Let your judgments of your thoughts pass like clouds in the sky. So on and so forth. With meditation, your mind will tire of thinking and judging everything all the time. You will become thoughtless. That doesn't mean you can't think when you need to. It means you won't be held hostage by the next so called negative thought you have. You can see you true nature, prior to any idea about who society has told you you are supposed to be. It is a state of nonjudgmental, pure awareness. Some people report getting the feeling that their mind is in complete harmony with all that is. -This is not a state of mind you can force. It's a state of mind that comes about naturally as you practice meditation. It relates to the Chinese term "[Wu Wei](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_wei)". "Non-action" can be seen as not acting upon the contents of consciousness, nor judging them. It doesn't mean you are completely isolated from society. To me, it means not being so involved in society that you lose who you are. Being in a state of mindlessness might sound contrary to intellectualism, but that's a misunderstanding. The opposite is true. It's easier to think when your mind isn't getting in the way. +This is not a state of mind you can force. It's a state of mind that comes about naturally as you practice meditation. It relates to the Chinese term "[Wu Wei](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_wei)". "Non-action" can be seen as not acting upon the contents of consciousness, nor judging them. It doesn't mean you are completely isolated from society. To me, it means not being so involved in society that you lose who you are. Being in a state of mindlessness might sound contrary to intellectualism, but that's a misunderstanding. The opposite is true. It's easier to think when your mind isn't getting in the way. diff --git a/content/entry/dr-phil-is-a-bully.md b/content/entry/dr-phil-is-a-bully.md index 0d9cbe1..434d3d7 100644 --- a/content/entry/dr-phil-is-a-bully.md +++ b/content/entry/dr-phil-is-a-bully.md @@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ As Danielle Bregoli pointed out in the video I linked above, it's very hard to b If I were to create a comprehensive list of everything awful about the Dr. Phil show, I'd probably have to write about every episode. Unfortunately, I don't have the time for that. But I will mention a few more notable things. -Besides what I've already mentioned, I also found out that Phil and/or his production crew allegedly created a [toxic workplace](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/krystieyandoli/dr-phil-show-employees-allegations "Current And Former “Dr. Phil” Employees Say The Set Is A Toxic Workplace. The Show Says Everything’s Fine."), apparently believed in the pseudoscience of polygraphs, humiliated a depressed young adult for living with his grandmother, told a mother not to let her son play with barbie dolls, [made spectacles of schizophrenic people](https://yewtu.be/embed/r073eeGR78Q?local=true "Shelley Duvall - Phil McGraw Interview Analysis"), encouraged guests to act crazy for ratings, allegedly provisioned alcohol to an alcoholic and gave him a Xanax (a deadly combination) before coming on the show, allegedly withheld a guest's medication to make them seem "crazy", and actively sought out vulnerable people including Britney Spears, to which he later issued a [non-apology](https://web.archive.org/web/20230528201653id_/https://www.drphil.com/pages/page-britney-spears/ "Dr. Phil's Statement about His Visit with Britney Spears"). +Besides what I've already mentioned, I also found out that Phil and/or his production crew allegedly created a [toxic workplace](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/krystieyandoli/dr-phil-show-employees-allegations "Current And Former “Dr. Phil” Employees Say The Set Is A Toxic Workplace. The Show Says Everything’s Fine."), apparently believed in the pseudoscience of polygraphs, humiliated a depressed young adult for living with his grandmother, told a mother not to let her son play with barbie dolls, [made spectacles of schizophrenic people](https://yewtu.be/embed/r073eeGR78Q?local=true "Shelley Duvall - Phil McGraw Interview Analysis"), encouraged guests to act crazy for ratings, allegedly provisioned alcohol to an alcoholic and gave him a Xanax (a deadly combination) before coming on the show, allegedly withheld a guest's medication to make them seem "crazy", and actively sought out vulnerable people including Britney Spears, to which he later issued a [non-apology](https://web.archive.org/web/20230528201653if_/https://www.drphil.com/pages/page-britney-spears/ "Dr. Phil's Statement about His Visit with Britney Spears"). ## The Psychology Community Doesn't Respect Him @@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ So why do people even watch the Dr. Phil show? I think there are two main reason * Morbid curiosity * Downward social comparisons -People watch the Dr. Phil show for the same reasons they watch [Jerry Springer](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jerry_Springer_Show) and other trash TV. It's entertaining in a morbid kind of way to see other people's life drama. +People watch the Dr. Phil show for the same reasons they watch [Jerry Springer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jerry_Springer_Show) and other trash TV. It's entertaining in a morbid kind of way to see other people's life drama. But I think people also watch the show because they get to make downward social comparisons. They gain a sense of superiority watching Phil embarrass people who are just looking for help. diff --git a/content/entry/ego-traps.md b/content/entry/ego-traps.md index 8f6361d..7c51c08 100644 --- a/content/entry/ego-traps.md +++ b/content/entry/ego-traps.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ date: 2020-08-02T00:00:00 draft: false --- # The Ego -Before I get into ego traps, I need to explain what the ego is. I made a post previously about [the self](/2020/05/02/the-self). But, for this post, I'm going to give a simple definition. Ego is the sensation of "I". Ego is your idea of yourself. When asked to describe yourself, the ego is what you're describing. The ego is your "persona" that you display not only to others, but that you yourself believe. It's incomplete. This has to be true because consciousness can never be an object of itself. +Before I get into ego traps, I need to explain what the ego is. I made a post previously about [the self](/2020/05/02/the-self/). But, for this post, I'm going to give a simple definition. Ego is the sensation of "I". Ego is your idea of yourself. When asked to describe yourself, the ego is what you're describing. The ego is your "persona" that you display not only to others, but that you yourself believe. It's incomplete. This has to be true because consciousness can never be an object of itself. Notice that I don't say it's inaccurate, just incomplete. You can never know exactly who you are. This is because, as far as we know, systems can't simulate themselves. It always leads to infinite regression. Let's use a computer system as a thought experiment. diff --git a/content/entry/encryption-is-a-timer-not-a-lock.md b/content/entry/encryption-is-a-timer-not-a-lock.md index 1e8cc8d..410181d 100644 --- a/content/entry/encryption-is-a-timer-not-a-lock.md +++ b/content/entry/encryption-is-a-timer-not-a-lock.md @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ draft: false # Encryption is Not a Lock Encryption is often explained as a lock. When you lock a safe with your valuables inside it, only yourself and the others who are granted access can unlock it. It's not a perfect analogy. A determined thief can crack a safe. By contrast, as far as we know, it's impossible to decrypt securely encrypted data without the key. -The lock analogy also breaks down in another way. When I think of an abstract lock, I imagine something that's secure now and will be secure in the future. But encryption won't necessarily be secure in the future. We could have [Shor-capable](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor%27s_algorithm) quantum computers soon or maybe mathematicians will figure out how to break [cryptographic primitives](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographic_primitive). +The lock analogy also breaks down in another way. When I think of an abstract lock, I imagine something that's secure now and will be secure in the future. But encryption won't necessarily be secure in the future. We could have [Shor-capable](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor%27s_algorithm) quantum computers soon or maybe mathematicians will figure out how to break [cryptographic primitives](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographic_primitive). Historically, cryptography has had an expiration date. There are reasons to think that trend won't continue, but nobody knows the future for certain. @@ -26,14 +26,14 @@ It would be naive to think NSA isn't capturing encrypted internet traffic right # What To Do About It Security experts are quick to point out that the NSA doesn't really need to decrypt our data. Metadata alone is sufficient for mass surveillance. They're right, but if the actual contents of the data didn't matter at all, they wouldn't have spent money trying to build a quantum computer. -We all have a reason to [resist mass surveillance](/2020/11/14/raising-the-bar-on-privacy), but how can we do that when NSA might be able to retroactively decrypt our internet activity in an unspecified length of time? Here's my take: +We all have a reason to [resist mass surveillance](/2020/11/14/raising-the-bar-on-privacy/), but how can we do that when NSA might be able to retroactively decrypt our internet activity in an unspecified length of time? Here's my take: Avoiding using the internet entirely isn't practical nor desirable, but it can be practical to avoid the internet for things that really need to stay private. For instance, maybe you partake in certain activities/meetings that your current or possible future government wouldn't approve of. You know the kind. If that's you, you'd be wise to avoid using the internet for that. -I don't care if you use Signal. How do you know for certain those messages won't be decrypted in the future? Have your meetings in person, not online. Intelligence agencies aren't made of magic. They cannot break secure protocols. But they will bug your hardware. They will use [zero-day](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-day_%28computing%29) exploits. And if you're really interesting, they'll use a brute force attack straight to your knees. +I don't care if you use Signal. How do you know for certain those messages won't be decrypted in the future? Have your meetings in person, not online. Intelligence agencies aren't made of magic. They cannot break secure protocols. But they will bug your hardware. They will use [zero-day](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-day_%28computing%29) exploits. And if you're really interesting, they'll use a brute force attack straight to your knees. -Have your private meetings in the middle of a field without any cell phones. Prefer in-person communication over [PGP](/2022/01/03/goodbye-pgp) or Signal. Prefer conducting private transactions with cash, not [Monero](/2021/12/13/warning-to-monero-users). Despite all of today's fancy encryption, real life is still the most secure option. +Have your private meetings in the middle of a field without any cell phones. Prefer in-person communication over [PGP](/2022/01/03/goodbye-pgp/) or Signal. Prefer conducting private transactions with cash, not [Monero](/2021/12/13/warning-to-monero-users/). Despite all of today's fancy encryption, real life is still the most secure option. And lastly, if you've spent so much time online that you're unsure where to find Real Life, here's a Wikipedia article to help you out: -[What is Real Life?](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_life#As_distinct_from_the_Internet) +[What is Real Life?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_life#As_distinct_from_the_Internet) diff --git a/content/entry/essay-the-simulation-argument.md b/content/entry/essay-the-simulation-argument.md index 2ecec60..5fd4893 100644 --- a/content/entry/essay-the-simulation-argument.md +++ b/content/entry/essay-the-simulation-argument.md @@ -3,6 +3,6 @@ title: "[Essay] The Simulation Argument" date: 2020-12-30T00:00:00 draft: false --- -[Nick Bostrom](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Bostrom) proposes that we are living inside a computer simulation with a 1 in 3 probability. It's easy to get the basic idea of the argument, but it's also widely misunderstood. If you read it, read carefully. +[Nick Bostrom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Bostrom) proposes that we are living inside a computer simulation with a 1 in 3 probability. It's easy to get the basic idea of the argument, but it's also widely misunderstood. If you read it, read carefully. -[Essay Link](https://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html) +[Essay Link](https://simulation-argument.com/simulation/) diff --git a/content/entry/explore-neocities.md b/content/entry/explore-neocities.md index c23fbac..49c56ab 100644 --- a/content/entry/explore-neocities.md +++ b/content/entry/explore-neocities.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ date: 2023-07-08T00:00:00 tags: ['computing'] draft: false --- -This story starts with GeoCities. I'll let [Wikipedia](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeoCities) do the explaining: +This story starts with GeoCities. I'll let [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeoCities) do the explaining: > "GeoCities, later Yahoo! GeoCities, was a Web hosting service that allowed users to create and publish websites for free and to browse user-created websites by their theme or interest. GeoCities was started in November 1994 by David Bohnett and John Rezner, and was named Beverly Hills Internet briefly before being renamed GeoCities. On January 28, 1999, it was acquired by Yahoo!, at which time it was reportedly the third-most visited website on the World Wide Web. > @@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ This story starts with GeoCities. I'll let [Wikipedia](https://www.wikipedia.org The third most visited website on the World Wide Web. 38 million mostly user-written pages before it was terminated in 2009. Just wow. That's impressive. I was only ten years old when GeoCities shut down, so it was before my time. I never got to experience it in its prime. -Thankfully it was archived by [The Internet Archive](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Archive) and others before being shut down. So now there are [mirrors](https://geocities.restorativland.org "GeoCities mirror") out there which still allow navigating GeoCities in case you wish to browse. There's also a [torrent](magnet:?xt=urn:btih:2DC18F47AFEE0307E138DAB3015EE7E5154766F6&dn=Geocities%20-%20The%20PATCHED%20Torrent&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.coppersurfer.tk%3A6969%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3A6969%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.bittor.pw%3A1337%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.opentrackr.org%3A1337&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fbt.xxx-tracker.com%3A2710%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fpublic.popcorn-tracker.org%3A6969%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Feddie4.nl%3A6969%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.torrent.eu.org%3A451%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fp4p.arenabg.com%3A1337%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.tiny-vps.com%3A6969%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fopen.stealth.si%3A80%2Fannounce "GeoCities Torrent") available for download containing archived GeoCities. +Thankfully it was archived by [The Internet Archive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Archive) and others before being shut down. So now there are [mirrors](https://geocities.restorativland.org "GeoCities mirror") out there which still allow navigating GeoCities in case you wish to browse. There's also a [torrent](magnet:?xt=urn:btih:2DC18F47AFEE0307E138DAB3015EE7E5154766F6&dn=Geocities%20-%20The%20PATCHED%20Torrent&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.coppersurfer.tk%3A6969%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3A6969%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.bittor.pw%3A1337%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.opentrackr.org%3A1337&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fbt.xxx-tracker.com%3A2710%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fpublic.popcorn-tracker.org%3A6969%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Feddie4.nl%3A6969%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.torrent.eu.org%3A451%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fp4p.arenabg.com%3A1337%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.tiny-vps.com%3A6969%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fopen.stealth.si%3A80%2Fannounce "GeoCities Torrent") available for download containing archived GeoCities. In my [Gemini appreciation entry](/2022/04/26/gemini-appreciation-entry/ "Gemini Appreciation Entry"), I briefly mentioned a site called [Neocities](https://neocities.org/browse), but decided that it deserves it's own entry, which is what this is. Neocities is what it sounds like: a continuation of the idea of GeoCities. Unlike other site-creation websites which come with predefined templates with professional site designs, Neocities targets site designers who have a passion and interest for making fun websites, not just profit. @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ The goal of Neocities is to revive the Web of old, where people made their own c While I ultimately think that the Web should be replaced with a better protocol, I still very much enjoy browsing Neocities. There's all sorts of zany websites there and it's much more personal than anything you can find on the big search engines. -Back in the day when the Web wasn't a hypercommercialized advertising and tracking cesspool, people used to surf the Web. You followed [webrings](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webring "Webring") from one website to the next and it was fun. Maybe you'd find a deep conspiracy, or read someone's blog about their twenty cats, or take a virtual tour of someone's garden. You never knew what you'd find, but every website you visited was personal. It was someone's way of expressing themselves. It was a way of connecting with other people. +Back in the day when the Web wasn't a hypercommercialized advertising and tracking cesspool, people used to surf the Web. You followed [webrings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webring "Webring") from one website to the next and it was fun. Maybe you'd find a deep conspiracy, or read someone's blog about their twenty cats, or take a virtual tour of someone's garden. You never knew what you'd find, but every website you visited was personal. It was someone's way of expressing themselves. It was a way of connecting with other people. Sure people express themselves today with social media, but it's not how it used to be. People no longer surf the Web. They browse it, often just mindlessly scrolling to keep the dopamine levels up. Their creative freedom is more limited. Everyone's profile pages look almost exactly alike. The Web is no longer the wild west it used to be. Now it's just ruled by companies that want to mine our data and waste our time with ads. diff --git a/content/entry/exposing-zoom.md b/content/entry/exposing-zoom.md index 6c3b595..a6d8396 100644 --- a/content/entry/exposing-zoom.md +++ b/content/entry/exposing-zoom.md @@ -8,22 +8,22 @@ draft: false I often feel like my posts can come off as preachy. So this post is going to be a different than usual. This time, I want to include more facts. This post is for the people that don't necessarily share my opinion that all software should be free (as in freedom). My hope is that this will speak to a wider audience. # Scale and Growth -To start off, I want to give you an idea of the scale of Zoom. Zoom is a video and audio conferencing platform for desktop and mobile devices. According to [Zoom's blog](https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2020/04/22/90-day-security-plan-progress-report-april-22/) from 22 April 2020, Zoom CEO Eric S. Yuan said in a webinar that Zoom has surpassed 300 million daily Zoom meeting participants. This does not mean that Zoom has 300 million active daily users, but 300 million participants in Zoom calls daily. For example, one user may participate in several Zoom meetings and be double-counted. So the 300 million does not correspond to the number of users. Nonetheless, 300 million is no small number. For comparison, [the U.S. population](https://www.census.gov/popclock/) is estimated to be about 329 million during the time of this writing. +To start off, I want to give you an idea of the scale of Zoom. Zoom is a video and audio conferencing platform for desktop and mobile devices. According to [Zoom's blog](https://web.archive.org/web/20200423091751if_/https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2020/04/22/90-day-security-plan-progress-report-april-22/) from 22 April 2020, Zoom CEO Eric S. Yuan said in a webinar that Zoom has surpassed 300 million daily Zoom meeting participants. This does not mean that Zoom has 300 million active daily users, but 300 million participants in Zoom calls daily. For example, one user may participate in several Zoom meetings and be double-counted. So the 300 million does not correspond to the number of users. Nonetheless, 300 million is no small number. For comparison, [the U.S. population](https://www.census.gov/popclock/) is estimated to be about 329 million during the time of this writing. -But Zoom didn't always have such a huge user base. The Coronavirus pandemic causing people to work from home is what skyrocketed their numbers. According to Zoom's Blog post, "Usage of Zoom has ballooned overnight - far surpassing what we expected when we first announced our desire to help in late February. This includes over 90,000 schools across 20 countries that have taken us up on our offer to help children continue their education remotely. To put this growth in context, as of the end of December last year, the maximum number of daily meeting participants, both free and paid, conducted on Zoom was approximately 10 million. In March this year, we reached more than 200 million daily meeting participants, both free and paid. We have been working around the clock to ensure that all of our users new and old, large and small can stay in touch and operational...our platform was built primarily for enterprise customers large institutions with full IT support. These range from the world’s largest financial services companies to leading telecommunications providers, government agencies, universities, healthcare organizations, and telemedicine practices". Eric S. Yuan. (2020, April 1). Retrieved May 24, 2020 from Zoom, Zoom blog, [https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2020/04/01/a-message-to-our-users/](https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2020/04/01/a-message-to-our-users/). +But Zoom didn't always have such a huge user base. The Coronavirus pandemic causing people to work from home is what skyrocketed their numbers. According to Zoom's Blog post, "Usage of Zoom has ballooned overnight - far surpassing what we expected when we first announced our desire to help in late February. This includes over 90,000 schools across 20 countries that have taken us up on our offer to help children continue their education remotely. To put this growth in context, as of the end of December last year, the maximum number of daily meeting participants, both free and paid, conducted on Zoom was approximately 10 million. In March this year, we reached more than 200 million daily meeting participants, both free and paid. We have been working around the clock to ensure that all of our users new and old, large and small can stay in touch and operational...our platform was built primarily for enterprise customers large institutions with full IT support. These range from the world’s largest financial services companies to leading telecommunications providers, government agencies, universities, healthcare organizations, and telemedicine practices". Eric S. Yuan. (2020, April 1). Retrieved May 24, 2020 from Zoom, Zoom blog, [https://web.archive.org/web/20200523154804if_/https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2020/04/01/a-message-to-our-users/](https://web.archive.org/web/20200523154804if_/https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2020/04/01/a-message-to-our-users/). # Terms of Service -"ACCESSING THE ZOOM WEBSITE OR BY UTILIZING THE ZOOM SERVICES YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THESE TERMS OF SERVICE AND ALL EXHIBITS, ORDER FORMS, AND INCORPORATED POLICIES" Terms of Service. (2020, April 13). Retrieved May 23, 2020 from Zoom, Zoom terms of service website, [https://zoom.us/terms](https://zoom.us/terms). This means that even using the Zoom website or web app instantly binds you to the terms of service of Zoom whether you know about it or not. Section 2d.i states that you are prohibited from reverse engineering Zoom services. Since Zoom is proprietary, you can't investigate the source code to figure out what it's doing. Worse than that, the terms of services denies you to even try to figure out how Zoom works or what it does behind the scenes or help anyone else do so. This means that independent security audits of Zoom software are not possible unless Zoom gives up their source code. Therefore, any of the claims Zoom makes about security, encryption, data protection or privacy are impossible to verify without breaking the law. You just have to take their word on it. +"ACCESSING THE ZOOM WEBSITE OR BY UTILIZING THE ZOOM SERVICES YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THESE TERMS OF SERVICE AND ALL EXHIBITS, ORDER FORMS, AND INCORPORATED POLICIES" Terms of Service. (2020, April 13). Retrieved May 23, 2020 from Zoom, Zoom terms of service website, [https://explore.zoom.us/en/terms/](https://explore.zoom.us/en/terms/). This means that even using the Zoom website or web app instantly binds you to the terms of service of Zoom whether you know about it or not. Section 2d.i states that you are prohibited from reverse engineering Zoom services. Since Zoom is proprietary, you can't investigate the source code to figure out what it's doing. Worse than that, the terms of services denies you to even try to figure out how Zoom works or what it does behind the scenes or help anyone else do so. This means that independent security audits of Zoom software are not possible unless Zoom gives up their source code. Therefore, any of the claims Zoom makes about security, encryption, data protection or privacy are impossible to verify without breaking the law. You just have to take their word on it. -According to section 2d.iv, you may not transmit materials that infringe intellectual property. This means if you have music playing in the background of a Zoom call or a movie playing on your television on in the background, you could be breaking Zoom's terms of service without even trying. Section 2d.vi says you cannot "use the Services to communicate any message or material that is harassing, libelous, threatening, obscene, indecent, would violate the intellectual property rights of any party or is otherwise unlawful, that would give rise to civil liability, or that constitutes or encourages conduct that could constitute a criminal offense, under any applicable law or regulation" Terms of Service. (2020, April 13). Retrieved May 23, 2020 from Zoom, Zoom terms of service website, [https://zoom.us/terms](https://zoom.us/terms). I'm not a lawyer so I can't interpret this, but the language seems to place broad restrictions on what you are allowed to say over Zoom. Section 15 also says you cannot use Zoom while in a "high-risk" environment. +According to section 2d.iv, you may not transmit materials that infringe intellectual property. This means if you have music playing in the background of a Zoom call or a movie playing on your television on in the background, you could be breaking Zoom's terms of service without even trying. Section 2d.vi says you cannot "use the Services to communicate any message or material that is harassing, libelous, threatening, obscene, indecent, would violate the intellectual property rights of any party or is otherwise unlawful, that would give rise to civil liability, or that constitutes or encourages conduct that could constitute a criminal offense, under any applicable law or regulation" Terms of Service. (2020, April 13). Retrieved May 23, 2020 from Zoom, Zoom terms of service website, [https://explore.zoom.us/en/terms/](https://explore.zoom.us/en/terms/). I'm not a lawyer so I can't interpret this, but the language seems to place broad restrictions on what you are allowed to say over Zoom. Section 15 also says you cannot use Zoom while in a "high-risk" environment. In section 7d, the terms say that Zoom "content" can be turned over to law enforcement. Section 2b seems to define content as anything that is transmitted from you to Zoom. For example, audio, video, text messages, etc. including metadata is all accessible to law enforcement at any time. # Privacy Policy -The [privacy policy](https://zoom.us/privacy) is always where it gets interesting for tech behemoths. So let's dive in. Here is a list of data Zoom collects: account owner name, billing name, address, payment method, phone number, language, password, title, department, cloud recordings, instant messages, files, whiteboards, voice mails, and "other information shared while using the service". This is mostly data that you explicitly give to Zoom. Let's look at the technical data that you may not even know you are giving Zoom: IP address (who you are online), MAC address (unique to your device), "other device ID", device type, operating system type and version, client version, type of camera, microphone or speakers, connection type, the nearest city you are in, whether you use VoIP, mobile or desktop client, whether you join with video on or off, if your meeting has a password or waiting room or allows screen sharing, how long the meeting was, your email or other identifying information, join and leave time, name of the meeting, date and time of the meeting, chat status, and call data records. For a service that claims to protect user privacy and not sell data to advertisers, that's a lot of non-essential data being collected. +The [privacy policy](https://explore.zoom.us/en/privacy/) is always where it gets interesting for tech behemoths. So let's dive in. Here is a list of data Zoom collects: account owner name, billing name, address, payment method, phone number, language, password, title, department, cloud recordings, instant messages, files, whiteboards, voice mails, and "other information shared while using the service". This is mostly data that you explicitly give to Zoom. Let's look at the technical data that you may not even know you are giving Zoom: IP address (who you are online), MAC address (unique to your device), "other device ID", device type, operating system type and version, client version, type of camera, microphone or speakers, connection type, the nearest city you are in, whether you use VoIP, mobile or desktop client, whether you join with video on or off, if your meeting has a password or waiting room or allows screen sharing, how long the meeting was, your email or other identifying information, join and leave time, name of the meeting, date and time of the meeting, chat status, and call data records. For a service that claims to protect user privacy and not sell data to advertisers, that's a lot of non-essential data being collected. ## Recordings -The recordings section is explaining that anyone in a Zoom call can record a meeting on their local device and save it and that Zoom acknowledges they have no control over this. Despite this, Zoom Phone makes it easier for customers to record calls. "Zoom Phone allows customers to record phone calls, receive voice mail recordings, and obtain transcripts of voicemail, all which may contain personal information and also be stored in our cloud". Privacy Policy. (2020, March 29). Retrieved May 23, 2020 from Zoom, Zoom privacy policy website, [https://zoom.us/privacy](https://zoom.us/privacy). Creating the transcripts happens automatically which means that the audio data of a call is fed into some automated system which has to listen to the call to create the transcript. +The recordings section is explaining that anyone in a Zoom call can record a meeting on their local device and save it and that Zoom acknowledges they have no control over this. Despite this, Zoom Phone makes it easier for customers to record calls. "Zoom Phone allows customers to record phone calls, receive voice mail recordings, and obtain transcripts of voicemail, all which may contain personal information and also be stored in our cloud". Privacy Policy. (2020, March 29). Retrieved May 23, 2020 from Zoom, Zoom privacy policy website, [https://explore.zoom.us/en/privacy/](https://explore.zoom.us/en/privacy/). Creating the transcripts happens automatically which means that the audio data of a call is fed into some automated system which has to listen to the call to create the transcript. ## Attention Tracking The section on attention tracking in the Privacy Policy explains that if the host of the meeting is sharing their screen, they can activate a feature called "attention tracking". This means the host can see whether or not the participants have the Zoom window open or are doing something else. This gives whoever the host might be (employers, teachers, etc.) power to invade the participants' computers (employees, students, etc.) to check if they are paying attention or not. Zoom does not give participants any kind of forewarning that what they are doing on their own computers is being monitored and sent to the host other than it being buried in the Privacy Policy which, let's be real, nobody reads. And even if people did read it, they still are not in a position to understand the significance of some of the data collected on them like IP address, MAC address, etc. @@ -33,28 +33,28 @@ It's peculiar how Zoom website obviously tries to give the overwhelming impressi Their own privacy policy says they collect data about you from Google Analytics and Google Ads. Google analytics can run in your browser as JavaScript that watches what you do and collects data on you as you browse the web. If you don't know how to block JavaScript, Google Analytics could be watching you in the background on any website without you even knowing it's there. Zoom also collects data from "Data Enrichment Services", and public sources. This could be just about anything from your social media accounts to arrest records. One way this is done is through tracking cookies. # Cookies Policy -On the [Cookie Policy page](https://zoom.us/cookie-policy), it starts off explaining how cookies work. Essentially, cookies are any data a site can store in the browser. They can persist across browsing sessions and unfortunately they are used to track you across the web. I want to pay special attention on the Cookie Policy page to the analytics subtype under functional cookies. "Zoom uses cookies and other identifiers to gather usage and performance data...This includes cookies from Zoom and from third-party analytics providers". Cookie Policy. (2020, January 1). Retrieved May 23, 2020 from Zoom, Zoom cookie policy website, [https://zoom.us/cookie-policy](https://zoom.us/cookie-policy). Notice the important line about how they use third-party analytics providers. How is it possible for Zoom to ensure your data is protected if they use third party analytics providers of which they don't control the data? It's not. We know Zoom uses Google Analytics, and we know that Google's business model is centered around collecting data on its users and selling it for profit. +On the [Cookie Policy page](https://explore.zoom.us/en/cookie-policy/), it starts off explaining how cookies work. Essentially, cookies are any data a site can store in the browser. They can persist across browsing sessions and unfortunately they are used to track you across the web. I want to pay special attention on the Cookie Policy page to the analytics subtype under functional cookies. "Zoom uses cookies and other identifiers to gather usage and performance data...This includes cookies from Zoom and from third-party analytics providers". Cookie Policy. (2020, January 1). Retrieved May 23, 2020 from Zoom, Zoom cookie policy website, [https://explore.zoom.us/en/cookie-policy/](https://explore.zoom.us/en/cookie-policy/). Notice the important line about how they use third-party analytics providers. How is it possible for Zoom to ensure your data is protected if they use third party analytics providers of which they don't control the data? It's not. We know Zoom uses Google Analytics, and we know that Google's business model is centered around collecting data on its users and selling it for profit. -Despite claiming they protect your data, they have advertising cookies. The interest-based advertising section states "Zoom uses cookies to collect data about your online activity and identify your interests so that we can provide advertising that is most relevant to you. You can opt out of receiving interest-based advertising from Zoom as described in the How to Control Cookies section of this cookie policy and in our Privacy Policy. Users who opt out of the “sale” of their personal information won’t receive interest-based advertising from us on their device. Note: If you opt out of interest-based advertising, we store your opt-out preference in a cookie on your device". Retrieved May 23, 2020 from Zoom, Zoom cookie policy website, [https://zoom.us/cookie-policy](https://zoom.us/cookie-policy). +Despite claiming they protect your data, they have advertising cookies. The interest-based advertising section states "Zoom uses cookies to collect data about your online activity and identify your interests so that we can provide advertising that is most relevant to you. You can opt out of receiving interest-based advertising from Zoom as described in the How to Control Cookies section of this cookie policy and in our Privacy Policy. Users who opt out of the “sale” of their personal information won’t receive interest-based advertising from us on their device. Note: If you opt out of interest-based advertising, we store your opt-out preference in a cookie on your device". Retrieved May 23, 2020 from Zoom, Zoom cookie policy website, [https://explore.zoom.us/en/cookie-policy/](https://explore.zoom.us/en/cookie-policy/). There is a lot there. They collect interest-based data on you automatically. That is, unless you opt-out. Notice it's not opt-in. The default is collecting your data. You have to know it's happening and then choose to opt out which a lot of the more non-technical users of Zoom aren't going to figure out how to do. I personally find it condescending how they put "sale" in quotes like that's not exactly what they're doing. Further, when you opt out, the fact that you want opted out is stored in a cookie. So if you try to clear tracking cookies from your browser, you might accidentally clear the cookie which says you don't want to be tracked. This also means if you switch browsers or devices, or ever clear your browser cookies, the preference is forgotten and you have to remember to reactivate it every single time. And until you do, you are being tracked by Zoom cookies. Even if you opt-out, there's no guarantee that Zoom doesn't enable a feature to get the same information out of you a different way without using cookies. Again, it's impossible to know because it's against terms of service to reverse engineer Zoom. -"Some of our websites and Products include code snippets provided by social media companies that can sense if you are already logged into a given social media account so you can easily share Zoom content with other social media users via that account". Retrieved May 23, 2020 from Zoom, Zoom cookie policy website, [https://zoom.us/cookie-policy](https://zoom.us/cookie-policy). This means sites like Facebook and Google know you are using Zoom services and what page you are on. Social media sites use tracking cookies to track what websites you visit. Social media sites shouldn't be allowed to know that. Nevertheless, they are found on Zoom's website and services, the videoconferencing platform that "cares about your privacy". +"Some of our websites and Products include code snippets provided by social media companies that can sense if you are already logged into a given social media account so you can easily share Zoom content with other social media users via that account". Retrieved May 23, 2020 from Zoom, Zoom cookie policy website, [https://explore.zoom.us/en/cookie-policy/](https://explore.zoom.us/en/cookie-policy/). This means sites like Facebook and Google know you are using Zoom services and what page you are on. Social media sites use tracking cookies to track what websites you visit. Social media sites shouldn't be allowed to know that. Nevertheless, they are found on Zoom's website and services, the videoconferencing platform that "cares about your privacy". # Third Parties -Zoom gives your data to third parties. On their [sub-processors page](https://zoom.us/subprocessors), they list the following third parties which they give your data to: People.ai, Zendesk, Wootric, Totango, Answerforce, Rocket Science Group LLC, Five9, EPS Ventures, WKJ Consultancy, Salesforce, CyberSource, Adyen, Zuora, Amazon Web Services, Oracle America Inc, and Bandwidth. We will ignore the 3 third parties related to billing (CyberSource, Adyen, and Zuora) since if you're not paying Zoom it probably doesn't apply to you. That still leaves 13 sub-processors each with their own privacy policies and their own third parties. You can see very quickly how the amount of third parties your data is being shared with grows exponentially. 11 of the 13 relevant third parties are under US jurisdiction. Since the [2013 Snowden leaks](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#Global_surveillance_disclosures), We know that the U.S. government performs massive dragnet surveillance on US-based companies without any oversight, so it's probably safe to say that the U.S. government is collecting Zoom data from either Zoom itself or Zoom sub-processors. +Zoom gives your data to third parties. On their [sub-processors page](https://explore.zoom.us/en/subprocessors/), they list the following third parties which they give your data to: People.ai, Zendesk, Wootric, Totango, Answerforce, Rocket Science Group LLC, Five9, EPS Ventures, WKJ Consultancy, Salesforce, CyberSource, Adyen, Zuora, Amazon Web Services, Oracle America Inc, and Bandwidth. We will ignore the 3 third parties related to billing (CyberSource, Adyen, and Zuora) since if you're not paying Zoom it probably doesn't apply to you. That still leaves 13 sub-processors each with their own privacy policies and their own third parties. You can see very quickly how the amount of third parties your data is being shared with grows exponentially. 11 of the 13 relevant third parties are under US jurisdiction. Since the [2013 Snowden leaks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#Global_surveillance_disclosures), We know that the U.S. government performs massive dragnet surveillance on US-based companies without any oversight, so it's probably safe to say that the U.S. government is collecting Zoom data from either Zoom itself or Zoom sub-processors. # Weasel Words -Here, Zoom is trying to weasel out of the fact that they are selling your data: "As described in the Zoom marketing sites section, Zoom does use certain standard advertising tools on our marketing sites which, provided you have allowed it in your cookie preferences, sends personal data to the tool providers, such as Google. This is not a “sale” of your data in the sense that most of us use the word sale...It is only with the recent developments in data privacy laws that such activities may fall within the definition of a “sale”". Retrieved May 23, 2020 from Zoom, Zoom Privacy Policy website, [https://zoom.us/privacy](https://zoom.us/privacy). +Here, Zoom is trying to weasel out of the fact that they are selling your data: "As described in the Zoom marketing sites section, Zoom does use certain standard advertising tools on our marketing sites which, provided you have allowed it in your cookie preferences, sends personal data to the tool providers, such as Google. This is not a “sale” of your data in the sense that most of us use the word sale...It is only with the recent developments in data privacy laws that such activities may fall within the definition of a “sale”". Retrieved May 23, 2020 from Zoom, Zoom Privacy Policy website, [https://explore.zoom.us/en/privacy/](https://explore.zoom.us/en/privacy/). Sadly, Zoom's privacy policy is right. When Zoom gives your data to Google, they are not "selling" your data in the traditional sense that most people understand the word sale to mean. The part Zoom left out is this. Most people wouldn't understand it as a sale because you're not paying for the service with money. You're paying with your data which is far worse. Zoom allows Google to collect and sell your data and in return, Zoom receives services from Google such as analytics without explicitly paying Google for it. Put simply, Zoom pays for Google services with your data. You are the product. Google gets the valuable data to sell, and in return they process it and make it available to Zoom to improve their software or whatever else. This has been Google's business model for a very long time now and just because most customers don't think of the word "sale" that way doesn't mean they wouldn't expand their definition if they understood the business model. This is tantamount to saying "Zoom isn't really selling customer data because customers don't understand Zoom's business model". That way Zoom can confidently say they aren't selling customer data misleading customers to think that their data is safe. It's absurd. The essence of what Zoom is doing is a sale. It's a value transaction of customer data for service. If that isn't a sale I don't know what is. They also use the word "standard" to make you feel safer. Standard doesn't mean secure. Google analytics and social media tracking cookies may be standard, but that doesn't mean they are good, or even acceptable. It's an example of the bandwagon fallacy. # Citizen Lab Findings -I already mentioned how Zoom must provide data to the U.S. government, a member of [the Five Eyes](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes). But Zoom provides data to China as well. [Citizen Lab](https://citizenlab.ca/2020/04/move-fast-roll-your-own-crypto-a-quick-look-at-the-confidentiality-of-zoom-meetings/), an interdisciplinary laboratory at the University of Toronto, reported several troubling findings on 3 April 2020. I'll just go over the key findings and expand on them. +I already mentioned how Zoom must provide data to the U.S. government, a member of [the Five Eyes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes). But Zoom provides data to China as well. [Citizen Lab](https://citizenlab.ca/2020/04/move-fast-roll-your-own-crypto-a-quick-look-at-the-confidentiality-of-zoom-meetings/), an interdisciplinary laboratory at the University of Toronto, reported several troubling findings on 3 April 2020. I'll just go over the key findings and expand on them. -[Zoom claimed to use AES-256 in their security white paper](https://zoom.us/docs/doc/Zoom-Security-White-Paper.pdf), however Citizenlab found that they actually use AES-128 in ECB mode. Anyone that knows about block cipher modes knows that ECB mode is not suitable for video conferencing. Citizen Lab included the classic example of the [ECB penguin](https://citizenlab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/image1.png), which is why you don't use ECB mode for large files. Any audio or video conferencing over ECB would be as secure as the penguin image on the right, not very secure. Worse yet, the encryption keys were found to be generated by Zoom servers in China even when all meeting participants were outside of China. So the Chinese authorities could get the keys and decrypt Zoom communications of children in K-12 classrooms, U.S. courts using Zoom, meetings between government officials, college students, and everyday Americans as well as non-Americans and other countries that used Zoom. +[Zoom claimed to use AES-256 in their security white paper](https://explore.zoom.us/docs/doc/Zoom-Security-White-Paper.pdf), however Citizenlab found that they actually use AES-128 in ECB mode. Anyone that knows about block cipher modes knows that ECB mode is not suitable for video conferencing. Citizen Lab included the classic example of the [ECB penguin](https://citizenlab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/image1.png), which is why you don't use ECB mode for large files. Any audio or video conferencing over ECB would be as secure as the penguin image on the right, not very secure. Worse yet, the encryption keys were found to be generated by Zoom servers in China even when all meeting participants were outside of China. So the Chinese authorities could get the keys and decrypt Zoom communications of children in K-12 classrooms, U.S. courts using Zoom, meetings between government officials, college students, and everyday Americans as well as non-Americans and other countries that used Zoom. Citizen Lab also shows [Zoom advertising their use of end-to-end encryption](https://citizenlab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/image4.png). End-to-end encryption means only the communicating parties are able to decrypt the communication. Clearly, with the encryption keys generated on the Zoom server itself, that's not possible. Zoom can decrypt your communications. Citizen Lab also claims that they found a "serious security issue" with Zoom's waiting room feature, advising users not to use waiting rooms if they care about meeting confidentiality. @@ -62,20 +62,20 @@ Citizen Lab also shows [Zoom advertising their use of end-to-end encryption](htt On 30 March 2020, [Boston FBI](https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/boston/news/press-releases/fbi-warns-of-teleconferencing-and-online-classroom-hijacking-during-covid-19-pandemic) issued a warning about using Zoom. According to the warning by Setera (30 March 2020) "The FBI has received multiple reports of conferences being disrupted by pornographic and/or hate images and threatening language". This is followed by advice of what to do to prevent Zoom-bombing. But Zoom is not innocent in this because it was possible to scan for random meetings to join. It doesn't strike me as a very useful or necessary feature. Zoom is for teleconferencing. Most meetings will have a specific purpose and the participants don't want random people joining in to disrupt the meeting. So it doesn't make sense to me why this was a feature in the first place. To make matters worse, the FBI report explains Zoom didn't have passwords enabled by default for meetings until January 2020. # Zoom's Response -It wouldn't be fair for me to criticize Zoom without also pointing out steps they have taken to address the platform's many problems. First, I want to focus on their [April 1st blog post](https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2020/04/01/a-message-to-our-users/). Eric S. Yuan claims (April 1, 2020) "Thousands of enterprises around the world have done exhaustive security reviews of our user, network, and data center layers and confidently selected Zoom for complete deployment". I would like a full list of these enterprises so I know not to trust their "security reviews". Frankly, 128-bit AES in ECB mode is an embarrassing rookie mistake. It basically only happens when you don't know what you're doing. Just looking at Zoom's track record of horrible security and privacy that I've outlined above, I don't see how thousands of "exhaustive security reviews" could miss so much. +It wouldn't be fair for me to criticize Zoom without also pointing out steps they have taken to address the platform's many problems. First, I want to focus on their [April 1st blog post](https://web.archive.org/web/20200523154804if_/https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2020/04/01/a-message-to-our-users/). Eric S. Yuan claims (April 1, 2020) "Thousands of enterprises around the world have done exhaustive security reviews of our user, network, and data center layers and confidently selected Zoom for complete deployment". I would like a full list of these enterprises so I know not to trust their "security reviews". Frankly, 128-bit AES in ECB mode is an embarrassing rookie mistake. It basically only happens when you don't know what you're doing. Just looking at Zoom's track record of horrible security and privacy that I've outlined above, I don't see how thousands of "exhaustive security reviews" could miss so much. -In that blog post, Yuan mentions the increased outreach and video tutorials. But security mistakes caused by user error are not really in the scope of this post. One of the first things the post mentions is that on March 27th, [the Facebook SDK](https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2020/03/27/zoom-use-of-facebook-sdk-in-ios-client/) was removed from the Zoom app on iOS. It's astounding to me that Yuan can claim in the same blog post detailing the removal of the Facebook SDK that (March 27, 2020) "Our customers’ privacy is incredibly important to us". This is insane. If customer privacy was important then the Facebook SDK would never ever have been in the Zoom app. Facebook is an absolute surveillance monster. The SDK spies on people that don't even use Facebook. Apps that really care about privacy don't touch anything Facebook or Google with a ten foot pole. Some information sent by the Facebook SDK was: Application bundle identifier, application instance ID, application version, device carrier, iOS advertiser ID (gross), iOS device CPU cores, iOS disk space available (why???), iOS device disk space remaining, iOS device display dimensions, iOS device model, iOS language, iOS timezone, and iOS version. This doesn't happen by accident. At some point, a developer for Zoom wrote some code for the iOS app to make it send that device information to Facebook on purpose. For a teleconferencing app, the Facebook SDK is absolutely unnecessary. [Zoom only removed the SDK after being called out](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/z3b745/zoom-removes-code-that-sends-data-to-facebook). for it. This is an example of being reactive to security and privacy issues, not proactive. +In that blog post, Yuan mentions the increased outreach and video tutorials. But security mistakes caused by user error are not really in the scope of this post. One of the first things the post mentions is that on March 27th, [the Facebook SDK](https://web.archive.org/web/20200328021708if_/https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2020/03/27/zoom-use-of-facebook-sdk-in-ios-client/) was removed from the Zoom app on iOS. It's astounding to me that Yuan can claim in the same blog post detailing the removal of the Facebook SDK that (March 27, 2020) "Our customers’ privacy is incredibly important to us". This is insane. If customer privacy was important then the Facebook SDK would never ever have been in the Zoom app. Facebook is an absolute surveillance monster. The SDK spies on people that don't even use Facebook. Apps that really care about privacy don't touch anything Facebook or Google with a ten foot pole. Some information sent by the Facebook SDK was: Application bundle identifier, application instance ID, application version, device carrier, iOS advertiser ID (gross), iOS device CPU cores, iOS disk space available (why???), iOS device disk space remaining, iOS device display dimensions, iOS device model, iOS language, iOS timezone, and iOS version. This doesn't happen by accident. At some point, a developer for Zoom wrote some code for the iOS app to make it send that device information to Facebook on purpose. For a teleconferencing app, the Facebook SDK is absolutely unnecessary. [Zoom only removed the SDK after being called out](https://www.vice.com/en/article/z3b745/zoom-removes-code-that-sends-data-to-facebook). for it. This is an example of being reactive to security and privacy issues, not proactive. ## Reactive, Not Proactive -The Facebook SDK isn't an isolated case either. Zoom didn't start caring about user privacy until they had to start caring about it due to increased media pressure. Here's a Zoom [blog post on April 1st about Zoom encryption practices](https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2020/04/01/facts-around-zoom-encryption-for-meetings-webinars/). In the following quote, we can see Zoom trying to weasel their way around not having end-to-end encryption by redefining words again. Oded gal posted (April 1, 2020) "...we used the term end-to-end encryption. While we never intended to deceive any of our customers, we recognize that there is a discrepancy between the commonly accepted definition of end-to-end encryption and how we were using it...". When in doubt, just change the meanings of words so you don't look bad. In Zoom's defense, they don't use end-to-end encryption that way legacy protocols can be supported. Protocols such as H.323, SIP, and PSTN don't work with end-to-end encryption. In my personal opinion, these are good reasons to abandon the PSTN (public switched telephone network) and other legacy protocols that don't support end-to-end encryption. In the year 2020, end-to-end encryption should be ubiquitous and we should reject any applications not using it. +The Facebook SDK isn't an isolated case either. Zoom didn't start caring about user privacy until they had to start caring about it due to increased media pressure. Here's a Zoom [blog post on April 1st about Zoom encryption practices](https://web.archive.org/web/20200402102018if_/https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2020/04/01/facts-around-zoom-encryption-for-meetings-webinars/). In the following quote, we can see Zoom trying to weasel their way around not having end-to-end encryption by redefining words again. Oded gal posted (April 1, 2020) "...we used the term end-to-end encryption. While we never intended to deceive any of our customers, we recognize that there is a discrepancy between the commonly accepted definition of end-to-end encryption and how we were using it...". When in doubt, just change the meanings of words so you don't look bad. In Zoom's defense, they don't use end-to-end encryption that way legacy protocols can be supported. Protocols such as H.323, SIP, and PSTN don't work with end-to-end encryption. In my personal opinion, these are good reasons to abandon the PSTN (public switched telephone network) and other legacy protocols that don't support end-to-end encryption. In the year 2020, end-to-end encryption should be ubiquitous and we should reject any applications not using it. -Another absolutely disgusting thing is that Zoom lied to customers again about not selling their data: "...we do not sell our users’ data, we have never sold user data in the past, and have no intention of selling users’ data going forward" Eric S. Yuan. (2020, April 1). Retrieved May 24, 2020 from Zoom, Zoom blog, [https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2020/04/01/a-message-to-our-users/](https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2020/04/01/a-message-to-our-users/). They did permanently removed the attention tracking feature which never should have existed to begin with. There is no mention of removing Google Analytics though. +Another absolutely disgusting thing is that Zoom lied to customers again about not selling their data: "...we do not sell our users’ data, we have never sold user data in the past, and have no intention of selling users’ data going forward" Eric S. Yuan. (2020, April 1). Retrieved May 24, 2020 from Zoom, Zoom blog, [https://web.archive.org/web/20200523154804if_/https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2020/04/01/a-message-to-our-users/](https://web.archive.org/web/20200523154804if_/https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2020/04/01/a-message-to-our-users/). They did permanently removed the attention tracking feature which never should have existed to begin with. There is no mention of removing Google Analytics though. ## 90-Day Plan -To play devil's advocate, I can go through [Zoom's 90-day plan](https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2020/05/22/zoom-publishes-draft-design-of-end-to-end-encryption-offering/) focusing all their resources on security and privacy to fix their platform. A few things they have done so far: only the host can screen share by default, participants need consent to be unmuted, audio indication for the waiting rooms, removing Giphy, and giving the host more control over the meeting. They also published a [draft crypto design](https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2020/05/22/zoom-publishes-draft-design-of-end-to-end-encryption-offering/) to redo their cryptography. It is apparently available for [peer review on Github](https://github.com/zoom/zoom-e2e-whitepaper/blob/master/zoom_e2e.pdf). It's still early to see where all this goes. But given that Zoom hasn't ever owned up to selling user data in exchange for service, I don't have my hopes high. +To play devil's advocate, I can go through [Zoom's 90-day plan](https://web.archive.org/web/20200523035015if_/https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2020/05/22/zoom-publishes-draft-design-of-end-to-end-encryption-offering/) focusing all their resources on security and privacy to fix their platform. A few things they have done so far: only the host can screen share by default, participants need consent to be unmuted, audio indication for the waiting rooms, removing Giphy, and giving the host more control over the meeting. They also published a [draft crypto design](https://web.archive.org/web/20200523035015if_/https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2020/05/22/zoom-publishes-draft-design-of-end-to-end-encryption-offering/) to redo their cryptography. It is apparently available for [peer review on Github](https://github.com/zoom/zoom-e2e-whitepaper/blob/master/zoom_e2e.pdf). It's still early to see where all this goes. But given that Zoom hasn't ever owned up to selling user data in exchange for service, I don't have my hopes high. # Use Jitsi Instead -Zoom is a [proprietary](https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/) platform. This means it is essentially a black box. As I mentioned earlier, this means it will always be less trustworthy than free software video conferencing solutions such as [Jitsi](https://jitsi.org/security). [The Tor Project](https://nitter.net/torproject/status/1244986986278072322) recommended using Jitsi instead of Zoom. I haven't done much research on Jitsi yet, but if the Tor Project is saying to try Jitsi, I would use it over Zoom any day. It's also cross-platform and features actual end-to-end encryption. Even if Zoom implements end-to-end encryption, how can you trust it if it can't be independently reviewed by anyone and no one outside of Zoom can see the source code? How can you trust the implementation on desktop or mobile platforms? In short, you can't. No platform is perfect, however there are more secure and less secure solutions out there. And in general, you want to avoid proprietary programs because they cause the incentives to be aligned in such a way that Zoom will always have reasons to insert privacy-corroding features into their platform. +Zoom is a [proprietary](https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/) platform. This means it is essentially a black box. As I mentioned earlier, this means it will always be less trustworthy than free software video conferencing solutions such as [Jitsi](https://jitsi.org/security/). [The Tor Project](https://x.com/torproject/status/1244986986278072322) recommended using Jitsi instead of Zoom. I haven't done much research on Jitsi yet, but if the Tor Project is saying to try Jitsi, I would use it over Zoom any day. It's also cross-platform and features actual end-to-end encryption. Even if Zoom implements end-to-end encryption, how can you trust it if it can't be independently reviewed by anyone and no one outside of Zoom can see the source code? How can you trust the implementation on desktop or mobile platforms? In short, you can't. No platform is perfect, however there are more secure and less secure solutions out there. And in general, you want to avoid proprietary programs because they cause the incentives to be aligned in such a way that Zoom will always have reasons to insert privacy-corroding features into their platform. When no one except you or your organization can see the source code, there are incentives to insert malicious pieces of code that benefit you at the user's expense. Jitsi does not have the same incentive structure because it's [free software](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html). Anyone with the know-how can look over the code and see if something fishy is going on. This will never be true of Zoom. Zoom has no reason to ever give away their source code and make their program trusted free software. Part of the reason I dropped out of my classes at my university was because Zoom because being forced on us students and [I refused to use it](/2020/03/30/the-tipping-point-rejecting-windows-zoom-lockdown-browser-and-the-lockdown-monitor/). diff --git a/content/entry/extreme-capitalism-ruins-everything.md b/content/entry/extreme-capitalism-ruins-everything.md index 6c167de..91f4d70 100644 --- a/content/entry/extreme-capitalism-ruins-everything.md +++ b/content/entry/extreme-capitalism-ruins-everything.md @@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ Why is it that policies which poll well among most Americans either never come t The reason for this is America has been steadily moving towards plutocracy for about half a century now. Plutocracy is an illegitimate form of government where the wealthy dictate politics and the will of the majority is ignored. # Money in Politics -Robert Reich's main preoccupation in life is to spread awareness on the issues of inequality, money in politics, and plutocracy. He's the former U.S. Secretary of Labor and political commentator who does a lot of important work on these issues and should be promoted. He has a [website](https://robertreich.org/), [Youtube channel](https://yewtu.be/channel/UCuDv5p8E-evaRSh542hDV5g?dark_mode=true), and [Twitter](https://nitter.net/rbreich). He has made podcasts and written articles and books about these subjects which you can find on the media outlet he founded, [Inequality Media](https://www.inequalitymedia.org/). +Robert Reich's main preoccupation in life is to spread awareness on the issues of inequality, money in politics, and plutocracy. He's the former U.S. Secretary of Labor and political commentator who does a lot of important work on these issues and should be promoted. He has a [website](https://robertreich.org/), [Youtube channel](https://yewtu.be/channel/UCuDv5p8E-evaRSh542hDV5g?dark_mode=true), and [Twitter](https://x.com/rbreich). He has made podcasts and written articles and books about these subjects which you can find on the media outlet he founded, [Inequality Media](https://www.inequalitymedia.org/). I'd like to include his latest tweet: @@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ I'd like to include his latest tweet: > The oil industry buys off Congress. No action on climate. > Insurance companies buy off Congress. No action on health care. > Pharma buys off Congress. No action on drug prices. -> Money in politics is the root of our dysfunction." - [Robert Reich](https://nitter.net/RBReich/status/1532412155667984384#m) +> Money in politics is the root of our dysfunction." - [Robert Reich](https://x.com/RBReich/status/1532412155667984384#m) He's right. It doesn't matter what else we push for politically. If we can't get money out of politics, we won't see any change as long as it's against the interests of the wealthy. You can learn a lot more about inequality from him than me, since he has basically dedicated his life to it. I highly recommend checking him out. @@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ Extreme capitalism also means an unthinkable amount of human intelligence and cr When your population is drowning in student debt and medical debt they can never get out from under and paying sky high rent because of zoning laws and because there's no low income housing, you force intelligent creative people who would otherwise be helping society to do demeaning bullshit clerical and administrative work which doesn't really need done. -If you're in Burgerland, you won't necessarily get any benefits either. No paid vacation time. No maternity leave. No union membership to help you collectively bargain. Undemocratic workplaces where the decisions all come from the top down, not from the bottom up. No [right to disconnect](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_disconnect) so you're always on call ready to be interrupted at any moment of the day. Workers are subjugated while CEOs make record profits. +If you're in Burgerland, you won't necessarily get any benefits either. No paid vacation time. No maternity leave. No union membership to help you collectively bargain. Undemocratic workplaces where the decisions all come from the top down, not from the bottom up. No [right to disconnect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_disconnect) so you're always on call ready to be interrupted at any moment of the day. Workers are subjugated while CEOs make record profits. What's the alternative to this? Socialism. A society where nobody falls through the cracks, where intelligent people aren't forced to work bullshit jobs just to survive. A society where you would be expected to contribute back if able, but if you decided not to work because your job was evil or pointless or you weren't able to work, you wouldn't starve. You'd have the free time to do what you thought was important and contribute to society in your own way rather than taking orders from a superior. diff --git a/content/entry/fable-the-fable-of-the-dragon-tyrant.md b/content/entry/fable-the-fable-of-the-dragon-tyrant.md index d66301a..926cffc 100644 --- a/content/entry/fable-the-fable-of-the-dragon-tyrant.md +++ b/content/entry/fable-the-fable-of-the-dragon-tyrant.md @@ -9,12 +9,12 @@ Death has been an ever-present fact of life since the dawn of humanity. Large pa The idea of curing death makes many of us uncomfortable, at least initially. It's hard to imagine a society where aging and death no longer pose a threat. So much about our culture would have to change. And yet [Nick Bostrom](https://nickbostrom.com) argues not only is curing death preferable, it's a moral imperative we should strive to achieve as soon as possible. He goes so far as to argue that "deathist" ideologies, ideologies that endorse or encourage complacency with death as a part of life, while useful in the past for consoling people, today pose "fatal barriers to urgently needed action". Anyone with an interest in philosophy should read his fable about death. [Link below] -[The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant](https://nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon.html) +[The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant](https://nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon) # Morality -My own view of death is informed by [how I see morality](/2020/10/11/metaethics). To give you a taste of it, I'll start by saying this: Your intrinsic values can never be wrong. Another way of expressing that is: If there are things you value above everything else, those things cannot be mistaken. They may be highly abstract. They may not fit into words. They may even change over time. But it's incoherent to say you are wrong about your [intrinsic values](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_value_%28ethics%29). +My own view of death is informed by [how I see morality](/2020/10/11/metaethics/). To give you a taste of it, I'll start by saying this: Your intrinsic values can never be wrong. Another way of expressing that is: If there are things you value above everything else, those things cannot be mistaken. They may be highly abstract. They may not fit into words. They may even change over time. But it's incoherent to say you are wrong about your [intrinsic values](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_value_%28ethics%29). -In reference to what can your intrinsic values be said to be wrong? For example if you value happiness above all else and you think money (the things you can do with it) makes you happy, money is an [instrumental value](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_value). You value money because you value happiness. If you hit the lottery tomorrow and you're no happier than before, then perhaps you're wrong to value money. But you can't be wrong to value happiness. If it ever seems that you are that just means happiness isn't an intrinsic value for you. +In reference to what can your intrinsic values be said to be wrong? For example if you value happiness above all else and you think money (the things you can do with it) makes you happy, money is an [instrumental value](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_value). You value money because you value happiness. If you hit the lottery tomorrow and you're no happier than before, then perhaps you're wrong to value money. But you can't be wrong to value happiness. If it ever seems that you are that just means happiness isn't an intrinsic value for you. So if someone asked me "Should we cure death?", my response would be "Well what do you value?". If your eventual demise is one of your intrinsic values then I can't really tell you you're wrong to value death. I can, but if you're a rational agent, it won't convince you. What Bostrom is saying in his fable to "deathists" is "You only think you value death. You don't really want to die". The purpose of his fable is to correct your intuition about death. It's the same as my earlier example where you value money because you value happiness, but then hitting the lottery corrects the intuition that money brings happiness. Bostrom is saying, like money, you only think you value death, but you don't really. diff --git a/content/entry/fighting-the-war-on-drugs-with-jury-nullification.md b/content/entry/fighting-the-war-on-drugs-with-jury-nullification.md index f33bb4b..438b64f 100644 --- a/content/entry/fighting-the-war-on-drugs-with-jury-nullification.md +++ b/content/entry/fighting-the-war-on-drugs-with-jury-nullification.md @@ -6,12 +6,12 @@ draft: false Disclaimer: The information provided in this entry does not and is not intended to constitute legal advice. This entry is for general informational purposes only. # The War on Drugs -[Drug prohibition was a mistake](https://www.aclu.org/other/against-drug-prohibition) from the beginning. It's a disastrous policy that has led to mass unnecessary suffering. It has endangered public health and safety, caused the prison population to explode, and led to the militarization of the police and loss of personal liberty for everyone. +[Drug prohibition was a mistake](https://www.aclu.org/documents/against-drug-prohibition) from the beginning. It's a disastrous policy that has led to mass unnecessary suffering. It has endangered public health and safety, caused the prison population to explode, and led to the militarization of the police and loss of personal liberty for everyone. # Using Jury Nullification to Fight The War on Drugs Now if you're over eighteen, you may have been asked to serve on a jury already. I've been asked to. It's common for people to come up with an excuse to get out of jury duty, but I urge you not to! You may get the opportunity to help fight against the War on Drugs. -I'm going to tell you something judges don't want you to know about. It's called [jury nullification](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification). In the United States and many other free countries, juries cannot be punished for having an unpopular verdict. You're free to vote not guilty, even if you believe the defendant broke the law. +I'm going to tell you something judges don't want you to know about. It's called [jury nullification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification). In the United States and many other free countries, juries cannot be punished for having an unpopular verdict. You're free to vote not guilty, even if you believe the defendant broke the law. If you show up to jury duty and end up serving as a juror on a nonviolent drug offense case, you can just vote not guilty, even if the defendant is obviously guilty. You can't be punished for jury nullification as long as you don't indicate you're doing it. Do avoid mentioning it to anybody though because judges frown upon it, it may prevent you from serving on the jury, and it may be a violation of your juror duties. @@ -19,14 +19,14 @@ If you show up to jury duty and end up serving as a juror on a nonviolent drug o You might object "Sure I can nullify the jury, but the law was decided by the majority through a democratic process. Who am I to override it with my personal sense of justice? Doesn't that create a bad precedent where everybody votes however they want regardless of the law?". Those are two very good questions. I'll address the first question first. ## Isn't Jury Nullification Undemocratic? -[Two-thirds of Americans now support "ending the War on Drugs" and "eliminating criminal penalties for drug possession and reinvesting drug enforcement resources into treatment and addiction services".](https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/bpi-aclu_wod_public_release_memo_060221_updated060821_final.pdf) There are powerful interests who stand to benefit from prolonging the War on Drugs, but the majority want the laws to change. +[Two-thirds of Americans now support "ending the War on Drugs" and "eliminating criminal penalties for drug possession and reinvesting drug enforcement resources into treatment and addiction services".](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/legal-documents/bpi-aclu_wod_public_release_memo_060221_updated060821_final.pdf) There are powerful interests who stand to benefit from prolonging the War on Drugs, but the majority want the laws to change. So it's actually the laws that are undemocratic. Nullifying the drug laws in court is the more democratic thing to do since most voters don't support prohibition. ## Doesn't Jury Nullification Set a Bad Precedent? Now onto the second question. Does jury nullification set a bad precedent? -Just for the sake of argument, let's entertain the [slippery slope fallacy](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope) and assume the worst case. Using jury nullification against the War on Drugs leads to jurors being more likely to vote guilty for defendants they dislike, even if they believe the defendant is not guilty. +Just for the sake of argument, let's entertain the [slippery slope fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope) and assume the worst case. Using jury nullification against the War on Drugs leads to jurors being more likely to vote guilty for defendants they dislike, even if they believe the defendant is not guilty. Judges can still override a guilty verdict if jury nullification is obvious. They cannot overturn an acquittal though. And even if a defendant gets convicted, they still have a chance to appeal. So jury nullification doesn't lend itself to guilty verdicts. diff --git a/content/entry/flygskam.md b/content/entry/flygskam.md index 4f6f5d3..2a90748 100644 --- a/content/entry/flygskam.md +++ b/content/entry/flygskam.md @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ Some airlines offer carbon offsets. It's debatable how effective these are in ac # Covid-19 Now you might be wondering how practical it actually is to just not fly on planes. Can society function with far less air travel? Luckily the Covid-19 pandemic has given us a clue. -Because of Covid-19, [airlines cut up to 95% of their trips in April of 2020](https://www.pri.org/stories/2020-04-03/coronavirus-has-changed-how-we-transport-goods-and-ourselves-will-it-last). Now I don't know how sustainable that 95% is. But it at least shows that, no matter what the airline industry says, it's feasible to cut back massively on air travel. Another way of putting that is a lot of air travel going on right now is non-essential. And Covid-19 may have helped many of us frequent fliers realize that we don't actually need to fly and there are alternatives to flying. So take that into consideration next time you think about flying. +Because of Covid-19, [airlines cut up to 95% of their trips in April of 2020](https://theworld.org/stories/2020/04/03/coronavirus-has-changed-how-we-transport-goods-and-ourselves-will-it-last). Now I don't know how sustainable that 95% is. But it at least shows that, no matter what the airline industry says, it's feasible to cut back massively on air travel. Another way of putting that is a lot of air travel going on right now is non-essential. And Covid-19 may have helped many of us frequent fliers realize that we don't actually need to fly and there are alternatives to flying. So take that into consideration next time you think about flying. # Freedom and Privacy But maybe the environmental reason isn't good enough. After all, flying makes up less than 3% of total carbon emissions. Well if you live in the United States, I have one more bonus reason for you to avoid flying. That is, all the changes made to airports since 9/11. I'm agnostic with respect to how much this applies to other countries. But for the TSA, I recommend Bruce Schneier's blog post on [Reassessing Airport Security](https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/06/reassessing_air.html) where he spells out many good reasons that the airport security implemented since 9/11 is mostly a futile waste of everyone's time and money. @@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ Now you might be thinking "So what if airports waste money on security. What doe The last time I flew, I felt like I was being interrogated by the TSA. They asked me questions which I can't imagine were relevant to their job. They also left a nice little note in my luggage letting me know they snooped through all my stuff and I didn't feel any safer for it. Actually, it made me feel less safe. It was a pointless charade of security theater. ## Boycott Flying Movement -So if you want to avoid your privacy being invaded, being under suspicion to thwart a threat that is one-fourth as likely as getting hit by lightning, then boycott flying. Again, I'm not the first person to think of rejecting flying because of freedom and privacy reasons. My Political Science instructor was the one who first put the idea in my head. After some research, I also found a post on Axis Of Logic calling for people to [boycott flying to preserve their freedom](https://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_57976.shtml). I'm not promoting Axis of Logic, but I do respect this particular article. The Boycott Flying link is dead, but you can still view the site archived by [the Wayback Machine](https://web.archive.org/web/20100826093256id_/http://www.boycottflying.com/). +So if you want to avoid your privacy being invaded, being under suspicion to thwart a threat that is one-fourth as likely as getting hit by lightning, then boycott flying. Again, I'm not the first person to think of rejecting flying because of freedom and privacy reasons. My Political Science instructor was the one who first put the idea in my head. After some research, I also found a post on Axis Of Logic calling for people to [boycott flying to preserve their freedom](https://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_57976.shtml). I'm not promoting Axis of Logic, but I do respect this particular article. The Boycott Flying link is dead, but you can still view the site archived by [the Wayback Machine](https://web.archive.org/web/20100826093256if_/http://www.boycottflying.com/). # Conclusion Whether you're a climate activist or you just care about your own personal freedom, you now have several good reasons to avoid boarding that next flight. For me personally, I care about the environment and my own personal freedom and privacy. I find both points of view individually convincing. So as I said before, I'm quitting flying altogether until the climate crisis is averted. If and when the climate crisis is averted, I'll probably avoid flights to places that I can reach by land until the TSA stops groping passengers. diff --git a/content/entry/free-international-texting-without-a-phone-number.md b/content/entry/free-international-texting-without-a-phone-number.md index 450201e..ffef875 100644 --- a/content/entry/free-international-texting-without-a-phone-number.md +++ b/content/entry/free-international-texting-without-a-phone-number.md @@ -20,6 +20,6 @@ And my recipient can send a text reply to that message and it will go to my emai I live in the US where we use phone numbers to contact each other, so these gateways are a big help for me personally. If I have nothing else except someone's phone number to bootstrap communication with them, I can use these gateways instead of paying monthly fees to a cell phone company. I can also send texts to some international numbers for free, which is nice. -If you live in a country that de facto requires you to use WhatsApp or WeChat or some other proprietary mobile-specific app, then avoiding smartphones and avoiding paying cell providers is going to be more challenging. In those cases, the workarounds are more involved. You're probably looking at installing and configuring your own [Matrix bridges](https://matrix.org/bridges/). +If you live in a country that de facto requires you to use WhatsApp or WeChat or some other proprietary mobile-specific app, then avoiding smartphones and avoiding paying cell providers is going to be more challenging. In those cases, the workarounds are more involved. You're probably looking at installing and configuring your own [Matrix bridges](https://matrix.org/ecosystem/bridges/). Nonetheless, I hope I helped somebody today by introducing these gateways. diff --git a/content/entry/free-will-is-incoherent-part-1.md b/content/entry/free-will-is-incoherent-part-1.md index 4c5c95c..756d720 100644 --- a/content/entry/free-will-is-incoherent-part-1.md +++ b/content/entry/free-will-is-incoherent-part-1.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ date: 2020-06-19T00:00:00 draft: false --- # Preface -Before you read what I have to write about free will, you should know that I agree fully with what [Sam Harris](https://samharris.org/the-illusion-of-free-will/) has written on the subject. I'm just going to be reiterating things he has said in my own words with some of my own observations. So if you are familiar with his words on the topic, I recommend skipping this post. +Before you read what I have to write about free will, you should know that I agree fully with what [Sam Harris](https://www.samharris.org/blog/the-illusion-of-free-will) has written on the subject. I'm just going to be reiterating things he has said in my own words with some of my own observations. So if you are familiar with his words on the topic, I recommend skipping this post. # What is Free Will? For me to explain why free will is incoherent, I must first define it. The definition I am using is this: Free will is the capacity for conscious agents to do otherwise. For example, I ate vanilla ice cream. I could have eaten chocolate instead, or so it seems. This is the definition most closely aligned with what people understand free will to mean and the first one you will find on the [Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/). @@ -53,9 +53,9 @@ When I say free will is incoherent, what I mean is it's impossible to conceive o If you ask someone that doesn't philosophize all day long what free will is, they might tell you it's the ability to choose. But what does it mean to make a choice? The problem has been pushed back a step because now we have to define what a choice is. If you ask them again, "What is a choice?", they may respond saying it's a decision. And then you can ask "Let's get very precise here since it is philosophy after all. What exactly is a decision"? And you can go on and on like this. The problem is any time they use the word "choice" or "decision", they are unknowingly sneaking in free will. Anecdotally, I have never had someone give me a satisfactory explanation to that inquiry. It was always replacing "choice" with "decision" or vice versa. I never did get to the bottom of it and it's always the same conversation. This leads one to believe that free will isn't really concrete at all. It's a vague idea that people think they understand. But when challenged, they can't explain what it physically means. # Compatibilism -There is a philosophical position called compatibilism which I should mention. Not everyone uses the same definition of free will as I have used in my argument. Compatibilists claim that free will is compatible with determinism by redefining the term "free will". I don't really consider this worth arguing against since no one thinks of or uses the word free will in that sense. [Immanuel Kant](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant) called it "word jugglery" and [William James](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James) pejoratively referred to it as "soft determinism". +There is a philosophical position called compatibilism which I should mention. Not everyone uses the same definition of free will as I have used in my argument. Compatibilists claim that free will is compatible with determinism by redefining the term "free will". I don't really consider this worth arguing against since no one thinks of or uses the word free will in that sense. [Immanuel Kant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant) called it "word jugglery" and [William James](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James) pejoratively referred to it as "soft determinism". Our cosmos as we currently understand it isn't even deterministic, so the compatibilist also has to claim that a random cosmos is compatible with free will as well. This means a cosmos which is, at bottom, behaving in a random fashion somehow gives you free will. Free will also can't be an emergent property of determinism or randomness, so the compatibilist position is just a failed attempt at redefining common parlance to win an argument. # Conclusion -I have shown that free will is an incoherent idea and addressed some common arguments in favor of it. It's easy to despair after reading this post. In the next and final post, I want to show that the lack of free will is not something to despair about. It can actually be a source of compassion. It has important implications for how we think about responsibility as I have hinted at in [my past post on individual responsibility](/2020/04/10/the-victim-mentality-versus-individual-responsibility). It has huge implications for the US criminal justice system. I would suggest collecting some thoughts of your own and drawing your own conclusions about what this means for our society as an exercise before you go on to read the next part. It does take me a lot of work to put these ideas out expressed in a clear way. So, if you find value in my posts, send a donation (details on my [about page](/about)). +I have shown that free will is an incoherent idea and addressed some common arguments in favor of it. It's easy to despair after reading this post. In the next and final post, I want to show that the lack of free will is not something to despair about. It can actually be a source of compassion. It has important implications for how we think about responsibility as I have hinted at in [my past post on individual responsibility](/2020/04/10/the-victim-mentality-versus-individual-responsibility/). It has huge implications for the US criminal justice system. I would suggest collecting some thoughts of your own and drawing your own conclusions about what this means for our society as an exercise before you go on to read the next part. It does take me a lot of work to put these ideas out expressed in a clear way. So, if you find value in my posts, send a donation (details on my [about page](/about/)). diff --git a/content/entry/free-will-is-incoherent-part-2.md b/content/entry/free-will-is-incoherent-part-2.md index 280a1cf..2268879 100644 --- a/content/entry/free-will-is-incoherent-part-2.md +++ b/content/entry/free-will-is-incoherent-part-2.md @@ -4,12 +4,12 @@ date: 2020-08-22T00:00:00 draft: false --- # Recap -If you haven't read my [part 1 post about why free will is incoherent](/2020/06/19/free-will-is-incoherent-part-1), I recommend reading that before continuing. In it, I demonstrate that free will not only does not exist, but it is incoherent on many levels. To sum up, the cosmos is either deterministic or random. This leaves no room for the conventional notion of free will since neither determinism nor randomness get you free will. It's impossible to imagine a cosmos where free will does exist, and that's not because of lack of imagination. Even worse than that, there is no self to which free will could be ascribed in the first place. So, it's a deeply confused idea. +If you haven't read my [part 1 post about why free will is incoherent](/2020/06/19/free-will-is-incoherent-part-1/), I recommend reading that before continuing. In it, I demonstrate that free will not only does not exist, but it is incoherent on many levels. To sum up, the cosmos is either deterministic or random. This leaves no room for the conventional notion of free will since neither determinism nor randomness get you free will. It's impossible to imagine a cosmos where free will does exist, and that's not because of lack of imagination. Even worse than that, there is no self to which free will could be ascribed in the first place. So, it's a deeply confused idea. What I want to do in this post is talk about the implications of those facts. I want to talk about how we can still hold others responsible knowing they don't have free will, how we can justify a justice system and laws if people aren't ultimately responsible for what they do, and how realizing free will does not exist opens the doors to compassion. Responsibility is a good starting point to introduce the other topics, so I will start there. # Responsibility -If we have no free will, shouldn't we just do nothing since our choices aren't our own anyway? No. Because the choice to do nothing is itself not of your own free will. So you aren't "escaping" your lack of free will by doing nothing. Besides, can you really just sit around and do nothing for the rest of your life? Should you just not resist bad urges then? Also no, because every time you successfully resisted bad urges like overeating, that wasn't of your own free will either. But how can people be responsible without free will? In other words, if a thief or murderer literally could not have stopped themselves from thieving or murdering, then how can we fault them for it? To do so would be like faulting a falling rock that lands on someone for obeying gravity because it has the exact same degree of free will as people do; none. I have talked about responsibility before in [my previous post on individual responsibility](/2020/04/10/the-victim-mentality-versus-individual-responsibility). I'm not sure how we should redefine responsibility. That's philosophy of language and not really what this post is about. But, there are a few other things I can speak to. +If we have no free will, shouldn't we just do nothing since our choices aren't our own anyway? No. Because the choice to do nothing is itself not of your own free will. So you aren't "escaping" your lack of free will by doing nothing. Besides, can you really just sit around and do nothing for the rest of your life? Should you just not resist bad urges then? Also no, because every time you successfully resisted bad urges like overeating, that wasn't of your own free will either. But how can people be responsible without free will? In other words, if a thief or murderer literally could not have stopped themselves from thieving or murdering, then how can we fault them for it? To do so would be like faulting a falling rock that lands on someone for obeying gravity because it has the exact same degree of free will as people do; none. I have talked about responsibility before in [my previous post on individual responsibility](/2020/04/10/the-victim-mentality-versus-individual-responsibility/). I'm not sure how we should redefine responsibility. That's philosophy of language and not really what this post is about. But, there are a few other things I can speak to. Sam Harris gives the example of a brain tumor which I will reiterate here. A person has a tumor pressing against their brain causing a violent episode in which they commit murder. Let's say they wouldn't have committed murder absent the tumor. Then the tumor is fully exculpatory of the murder. It was the tumor's fault. The murderer couldn't help that they grew a tumor and we can all pretty much agree on that. But what if there was no tumor? We know as a matter of physics that the moments that led up to the murder, specifically the states of the murderer's brain, fully determined that a murder was going to happen. If we could see the full chain of prior causes starting at the birth of the murderer to their upbringing, the memes they were taught by their society and culture, their genetic predisposition, down to the way their brain grew, and the moments and thought processes that led up to the murder, we would have a very different intuition. Seeing the full chain of prior causes is as fully exculpatory as learning about the presence of a tumor. The only difference is a tumor is more obvious. We can see a tumor. We can't necessarily see a chain of prior causes. Instead of feeling anger or hatred or whatever at this person, we would feel empathy because we could see how, moment by moment, they were inevitably pushed into murdering. If we swapped places with this person atom by atom, we would have done exactly as they had done, inevitably forced by the chain of causality. @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ This opens us up to feel more compassion for everyone, not just people we like. # Justice How can we justify throwing people in jails and prisons if they aren't ultimately responsible for their actions? Simple. Society is better off that way. Being "tough on crime" is completely compatible with disbelief in free will. What doesn't make sense is punishment for the sake of it. Given what we now know about free will and how that corrects our idea of responsibility, it doesn't make any sense at all to punish someone just for the sake of it. How does it make sense to punish someone for the sake of it when they literally could not have done anything else? Punishment should always be toward some end. Hopefully toward a constructive end like rehabilitation, rather than a destructive end like vengeance. Sadly, the (in)justice system in the United States (and many other countries) does not reflect our modern understanding of the brain or free will. That is to say it isn't based on reality. -The philosophy of punishment for the sake of it, punishment because it is "deserved", pervades the United States (in)justice system. One stated purpose of the (in)justice system is rehabilitation. But this is in stark contrast to how prisoners are actually treated. It is, frankly, absolutely disgusting how our society treats lawbreakers, especially felons, in and outside of jails and prisons. The punishment itself is only supposed to be separation from society to keep the public safe and rehabilitate the criminal. The justification should sound something like "We have to isolate you from the general public to rehabilitate you for your own good and everyone else's. It's for the best". But we all know it goes far beyond that. As a felon in the United States, it's hard to get a decent job or housing. We need to ask ourselves, how does this help with rehabilitation? How does telling someone they can't vote because they committed a crime help reintegrate them? What is the rational, rehabilitative basis for [mandatory minimum sentencing](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_sentencing)? Is it justice to make several million workers work for slave wages (a few dollars per day) because they previously committed a crime? In what universe does slave labor help rehabilitate incarcerated workers? What about the fact that prison food is often unhealthy and nutritionally inadequate for adults? How does that help? How does it help prisoners by throwing them into solitary confinement for sometimes years to the point where they become antisocial and lose communication skills? I could go on but you get the point. +The philosophy of punishment for the sake of it, punishment because it is "deserved", pervades the United States (in)justice system. One stated purpose of the (in)justice system is rehabilitation. But this is in stark contrast to how prisoners are actually treated. It is, frankly, absolutely disgusting how our society treats lawbreakers, especially felons, in and outside of jails and prisons. The punishment itself is only supposed to be separation from society to keep the public safe and rehabilitate the criminal. The justification should sound something like "We have to isolate you from the general public to rehabilitate you for your own good and everyone else's. It's for the best". But we all know it goes far beyond that. As a felon in the United States, it's hard to get a decent job or housing. We need to ask ourselves, how does this help with rehabilitation? How does telling someone they can't vote because they committed a crime help reintegrate them? What is the rational, rehabilitative basis for [mandatory minimum sentencing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_sentencing)? Is it justice to make several million workers work for slave wages (a few dollars per day) because they previously committed a crime? In what universe does slave labor help rehabilitate incarcerated workers? What about the fact that prison food is often unhealthy and nutritionally inadequate for adults? How does that help? How does it help prisoners by throwing them into solitary confinement for sometimes years to the point where they become antisocial and lose communication skills? I could go on but you get the point. The way incarcerated people are treated in the United States demonstrates 3 things: 1. The (in)justice system does not reflect an understanding that free will is incoherent, but endorses it as "universal and persistent" foundation for our whole legal system. @@ -33,11 +33,11 @@ The most surprising of these for me is number 2. I understand there is a prison- How incarcerated people are treated says more about our society than it does about those incarcerated. Take the death penalty for instance. By putting someone to death, we are essentially saying, "We have no idea how to help this person. We lack the knowledge or resources to sufficiently rehabilitate them, so we just have to make them not exist any more". That says more about our competence as a society than it does about the incarcerated individuals. Every time someone is executed by capital punishment by the state, that is a failure of our society to be competent enough to help that person. The very act of capital punishment, or decades-long prison sentences, demonstrates that fact. ## We Can Do Better -I'm big on evidence-based thinking. No amount of me preaching about how broken our (in)justice system is shows that we can in fact do better. I can say everything I have above, but it doesn't prove anything. It's just me preaching. So I want to briefly cover some examples of how Nordic prison philosophy is more effective at rehabilitation and why their data makes sense in the context of everything I've already said. I'd highly recommend watching the documentaries out there on the Nordic prison system. I like the one about [Halden Prison](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halden_Prison). +I'm big on evidence-based thinking. No amount of me preaching about how broken our (in)justice system is shows that we can in fact do better. I can say everything I have above, but it doesn't prove anything. It's just me preaching. So I want to briefly cover some examples of how Nordic prison philosophy is more effective at rehabilitation and why their data makes sense in the context of everything I've already said. I'd highly recommend watching the documentaries out there on the Nordic prison system. I like the one about [Halden Prison](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halden_Prison). Norway has one of the world's lowest recidivism rates sitting at 20% while over 50% of prisoners in the United States will be back in jail within three years of release (Deady, C. W. (2014, March). Incarceration and Recidivism: Lessons from Abroad. Retrieved August 22, 2020, from [https://www.salve.edu/sites/default/files/filesfield/documents/Incarceration_and_Recidivism.pdf](https://www.salve.edu/sites/default/files/filesfield/documents/Incarceration_and_Recidivism.pdf)). Norway has no death penalty and a maximum of 21 years in prison. Meanwhile the United States has 25% of the world's prison population despite only having 5% of the world's total population. [Americans are incarcerated for much longer than people in other countries](https://www.salve.edu/sites/default/files/filesfield/documents/Incarceration_and_Recidivism.pdf) and for non-violent offenses that wouldn't even lead to incarceration in other countries. Here is a quote from Time Magazine in 2010: -> Norwegians see the island (Bastoy prison) as the embodiment of their country's long-standing penal philosophy: that traditional, repressive prisons do not work, and that treating prisoners humanely boosts their chances of reintegrating into society. (William Lee Adams, “Sentenced to Serving the Good Life in Norway,” Time, July 12, 2010. Accessed August 22, 2020, [http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2000920,00.html](http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2000920,00.html)). +> Norwegians see the island (Bastoy prison) as the embodiment of their country's long-standing penal philosophy: that traditional, repressive prisons do not work, and that treating prisoners humanely boosts their chances of reintegrating into society. (William Lee Adams, “Sentenced to Serving the Good Life in Norway,” Time, July 12, 2010. Accessed August 22, 2020, [https://time.com/archive/6597250/sentenced-to-serving-the-good-life-in-norway/](https://time.com/archive/6597250/sentenced-to-serving-the-good-life-in-norway/)). Who would have thought that treating human beings like human beings with a real interest in trying to help them would be the best thing for society? Halden prison in Norway allows prisoners to freely roam for up to 12 hours in a day while max security prisons in the United States allow comparatively very little "yard time" surrounded by electric fences, razor wire, and snipers. It's honestly very sad and disappointing that the United States and many other countries fail to do better than that. In Halden prison, each inmate's room is private containing a desk, fridge, kitchen, and television according to an [NPR article by Jeffrey Kofman](https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/05/31/410532066/in-norway-a-prison-built-on-second-chances). Halden has no razor wire or snipers and is less overcrowded than max security facilities in the United States. In Halden, violence is extremely rare. And escape attempts are very rare also. diff --git a/content/entry/fuck-advertising.md b/content/entry/fuck-advertising.md index 4c8113a..01612a8 100644 --- a/content/entry/fuck-advertising.md +++ b/content/entry/fuck-advertising.md @@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ I support total advertising denial and would be pleased to see more people engag Like Hugo, I also use an ad blocker when browsing the web, which would be totally unusable for me without it. I don't feel an ounce of guilt for using it either. It's my computer and I'll decide what content loads on it and what doesn't. I see no reason why I'm morally obligated to forego control over my own computer and waste CPU, RAM, and bandwidth looking at ads for products I'll never buy to financially support a business through a business model I'd rather didn't exist. -Since most online advertising happens through Google, even allowing ads to load in my browser contributes to [surveillance capitalism](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_capitalism), a creepy business model which reinforces [massive surveillance](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance), threatening freedom and democracy. Hugo's opinion on this from the article seems very similar to mine: +Since most online advertising happens through Google, even allowing ads to load in my browser contributes to [surveillance capitalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_capitalism), a creepy business model which reinforces [massive surveillance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance), threatening freedom and democracy. Hugo's opinion on this from the article seems very similar to mine: > "Advertising is not socially neutral. It is shitting in people's heads, or squatting in them. It is also the fundamental driver and enabler of surveillance capitalism as a business model. In this regard, I consider adblocking (with zero tolerance for adblocking failures) wholly non-optional. This is before taking into account additional advantages of adblocking, such as significantly reducing page bloat, bandwidth use, local resource consumption (CPU/memory), and exposure to potential malware." diff --git a/content/entry/gaining-clarity-after-walking-off-a-job-on-orientation-day.md b/content/entry/gaining-clarity-after-walking-off-a-job-on-orientation-day.md index 1d68d8a..77c5db2 100644 --- a/content/entry/gaining-clarity-after-walking-off-a-job-on-orientation-day.md +++ b/content/entry/gaining-clarity-after-walking-off-a-job-on-orientation-day.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ date: 2023-09-05T00:00:00 tags: ['computing'] draft: false --- -Over the past year, I've been trying to break into teaching as a career since there's no money in free software. So I earned a [TEFL certification](https://www.tefl.org/en-us/tefl-certification) and was recently offered an English teaching job at a highly-respected educational institution in Mexico, where I live. +Over the past year, I've been trying to break into teaching as a career since there's no money in free software. So I earned a [TEFL certification](https://www.tefl.org/en-us/tefl-certification/) and was recently offered an English teaching job at a highly-respected educational institution in Mexico, where I live. It came as a surprise because this type of job normally wouldn't be offered to an "unqualified" person like myself. In fact, I'm pretty sure it wasn't even legal for me to occupy the position given how "unqualified" I am, but there was a desperate need to fill it and, in this country, corruption is the rule. @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ Before I'd even discovered the teaching opportunity, I'd already made the rounds I'd need a real mobile phone to get the bank app since my computers lack the CPU instructions to spin up Android VMs. I certainly wasn't going to spend money on a closed hardware computer or mobile phone, so a family member gave me their old Android device. Thanks to planned obsolescence, I could not upgrade the system past Android 8.1, meaning it probably contained unpatched security vulnerabilities. I was unable to install a custom degoogled rom either. -Thus the phone had all the standard spyware one would expect from an off-the-shelf Android device, including a manufacturer backdoor. I removed as much of it as I could using the [Universal Android Debloater](https://github.com/0x192/universal-android-debloater), but it was still an outdated Googled Android rom. There was no real way to make it private or secure. This on top of [the other reasons I don't want a smartphone](/2021/12/26/why-i-dont-have-a-smartphone "Why I Don't Have a Smartphone") was making me progressively more agitated about the entire situation. +Thus the phone had all the standard spyware one would expect from an off-the-shelf Android device, including a manufacturer backdoor. I removed as much of it as I could using the [Universal Android Debloater](https://github.com/0x192/universal-android-debloater), but it was still an outdated Googled Android rom. There was no real way to make it private or secure. This on top of [the other reasons I don't want a smartphone](/2021/12/26/why-i-dont-have-a-smartphone/ "Why I Don't Have a Smartphone") was making me progressively more agitated about the entire situation. Then I went to the store and gave money to the Mexican telecommunications monopoly Telmex in exchange for a SIM card. After putting it in the phone, I knew it would allow my location to be constantly tracked by the telecom, at least while I was at work and when I didn't remember to put the phone in airplane mode. diff --git a/content/entry/gemini-appreciation-entry.md b/content/entry/gemini-appreciation-entry.md index f3e2bdf..e6250cc 100644 --- a/content/entry/gemini-appreciation-entry.md +++ b/content/entry/gemini-appreciation-entry.md @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ To use Gemini, you can download a Gemini client, also known as a Gemini browser. Now that you know how to access Gemini, let's talk about what's on there. In a single word, text. That's all you'll find on Gemini. A whole bunch of text. You can find other types of media, but they won't be displayed inline. So you get what you'd expect with a text-only, non-commercial Web-like protocol. You get gemlogs (the equivalent of Weblogs) talking about people's personal lives, philosophy, poetry, ramblings, ascii art, and of course, technology. -The organization resembles that of the early Web. Search engines exist, but they don't seem to be the primary way people find things. It's mainly through Gemini communities like [Flounder](//flounder.online) and Geminauts linking to other Geminaut's capsules. It's common for Geminauts to make lists of recommended capsules for readers to explore, with a few centralized hubs and aggregators linking to many capsules. Thus it seems reasonable to assume Gemini resembles a [small-world network](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small-world_network). +The organization resembles that of the early Web. Search engines exist, but they don't seem to be the primary way people find things. It's mainly through Gemini communities like [Flounder](//flounder.online) and Geminauts linking to other Geminaut's capsules. It's common for Geminauts to make lists of recommended capsules for readers to explore, with a few centralized hubs and aggregators linking to many capsules. Thus it seems reasonable to assume Gemini resembles a [small-world network](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small-world_network). The small-worldiness of Gemini reminds me very much of [Neocities](https://neocities.org/browse), which you should definitely check out if you never have before. If you're like me though and you find the Web overwhelming, Neocities is even more than your average website. That's why I can't spend too long browsing around on there, whereas I can spend hours on Gemini and not mentally tire out. @@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ There's some non-English capsules out there that are good to read if you're tryi # The Medium is the Message Gemini reminds me of this phrase coined by Canadian communication theorist Marshall McLuhan: -> ["The medium is the message".](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_medium_is_the_message) +> ["The medium is the message".](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_medium_is_the_message) What he meant was that most of us focus entirely on the contents of the message. We forget about the communication medium in which we encounter it. This is to say that the same message in a different communication medium isn't really the same message. The medium may in fact be more important than the message itself. diff --git a/content/entry/get-an-anonymous-phone-number-with-dtmfio.md b/content/entry/get-an-anonymous-phone-number-with-dtmfio.md index 854bb72..b69dd34 100644 --- a/content/entry/get-an-anonymous-phone-number-with-dtmfio.md +++ b/content/entry/get-an-anonymous-phone-number-with-dtmfio.md @@ -8,12 +8,12 @@ draft: false DTMF.io has shut down. Links to the website have been replaced with archival links. # Disclaimer -I am not in any way affiliated with [DTMF.io](https://web.archive.org/web/20210403000611id_/https://dtmf.io/). I was not paid to write this (I wish). If I am paid to write about something, I will always disclose it. I will never write things I do not agree with for money. I just happen to think [DTMF.io](https://web.archive.org/web/20210403000611id_/https://dtmf.io/) is a good service and people ought to know about it. +I am not in any way affiliated with [DTMF.io](https://web.archive.org/web/20210403000611if_/https://dtmf.io/). I was not paid to write this (I wish). If I am paid to write about something, I will always disclose it. I will never write things I do not agree with for money. I just happen to think [DTMF.io](https://web.archive.org/web/20210403000611if_/https://dtmf.io/) is a good service and people ought to know about it. # Purpose -One reason I feel compelled to write about privacy and anonymity is there are so many poorly researched guides out there that don't offer real anonymity, but advertise that they do. Existing guides either have a [freedom](/2020/10/20/use-free-software) issue, privacy issue, or other issue which makes them less than ideal. [DTMF.io](https://web.archive.org/web/20210403000611id_/https://dtmf.io/) really impressed me, so I decided to share it with all of you. Also, I plan on writing a guide on anonymous e-commerce in the future. When I do that, this post will make a good reference since a phone number is required in many cases when doing e-commerce. +One reason I feel compelled to write about privacy and anonymity is there are so many poorly researched guides out there that don't offer real anonymity, but advertise that they do. Existing guides either have a [freedom](/2020/10/20/use-free-software/) issue, privacy issue, or other issue which makes them less than ideal. [DTMF.io](https://web.archive.org/web/20210403000611if_/https://dtmf.io/) really impressed me, so I decided to share it with all of you. Also, I plan on writing a guide on anonymous e-commerce in the future. When I do that, this post will make a good reference since a phone number is required in many cases when doing e-commerce. -Sometimes I get asked why I insist on such high standards of anonymity, privacy and freedom in everything. What on earth kind of threat model do I have to insist on such high standards? No, I don't possess state secrets or anything of that level. If I did, I wouldn't be blogging about Big Brother since Big Brother is probably on the list of keywords that gets flagged by [3 letter agencies](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_agencies_in_the_United_States). My philosophy on this actually aligns pretty closely with [Richard Stallman](https://stallman.org/). I'm just very ethically motivated. Specifically, it's a matter of [preserving my freedom](/2020/10/20/use-free-software) and resisting Big Brother. It's not just that I want to resist Big Brother. I think everyone ought to hold high standards like I do in order to [raise the bar on privacy](/2020/11/14/raising-the-bar-on-privacy) and protect democracy. +Sometimes I get asked why I insist on such high standards of anonymity, privacy and freedom in everything. What on earth kind of threat model do I have to insist on such high standards? No, I don't possess state secrets or anything of that level. If I did, I wouldn't be blogging about Big Brother since Big Brother is probably on the list of keywords that gets flagged by [3 letter agencies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_agencies_in_the_United_States). My philosophy on this actually aligns pretty closely with [Richard Stallman](https://stallman.org/). I'm just very ethically motivated. Specifically, it's a matter of [preserving my freedom](/2020/10/20/use-free-software/) and resisting Big Brother. It's not just that I want to resist Big Brother. I think everyone ought to hold high standards like I do in order to [raise the bar on privacy](/2020/11/14/raising-the-bar-on-privacy/) and protect democracy. # Problems with Existing Anonymous Phone Number Guides I'll begin by pointing out a few problems with existing guides out there for obtaining an anonymous phone number. Let's take a look at [appsverse](https://www.appsverse.com/blog/heres-how-to-get-an-untraceable-phone-number/) as a case study. Their first method for getting an untraceable phone number is a burner phone. @@ -34,11 +34,11 @@ Method 3 is phone apps. Appsverse recommends phoner, which is a proprietary app # SMS Privacy Update (19 Sept. 2022): This service no longer exists. -[SMSPrivacy.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20220511142136id_/https://smsprivacy.org/) is worth a mention. You can send and receive sms messages over a web interface. The sign up process doesn't require providing any personal information. It has a [v2 onion address](http://smspriv6fynj23u6.onion/) and doesn't require JavaScript which is always a plus. The only gripe I have is the price. 0.0015 BTC per day per phone number is asking too much for most people. It's even more expensive for a physical phone number that you can use to sign up for websites. +[SMSPrivacy.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20220511142136if_/https://smsprivacy.org/) is worth a mention. You can send and receive sms messages over a web interface. The sign up process doesn't require providing any personal information. It has a v2 onion address and doesn't require JavaScript which is always a plus. The only gripe I have is the price. 0.0015 BTC per day per phone number is asking too much for most people. It's even more expensive for a physical phone number that you can use to sign up for websites. # Introducing DTMF.io -[DTMF.io](https://web.archive.org/web/20210403000611id_/https://dtmf.io/) is the best service I've come across for an anonymous phone number. Like SMS Privacy, it can be accessed over a web portal. There is no third party JavaScript. The web portal is available in several languages. It requires no [personally identifiable information](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personally_identifiable_information) (PII) to sign up and supports 2-factor authentication. Unlike SMS Privacy, it has a more reasonable price tag. It has a [v3 onion address](http://dtmfiovjh42uviqez6qn75igbagtiyo724hy3rdxm77dy2m5tt7lbaqd.onion/) for Tor. It supplies landline, mobile, SIM mobile and toll-free phone numbers from all over the world. You can pay with Bitcoin, Lightning, Ethereum, Litecoin, Monero and Perfect Money. Monero support is a huge plus since it's the only cryptocurrency with private payments by default. You can also make calls using SIP or your web browser. SIP is convenient because it allows you to bypass [the JavaScript trap](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html) of using the web portal. Like SMS Privacy, it does not require you to enable JavaScript in the browser for sign up or sms, although calling won't work without it. DTMF.io has an API available to pro and business customers allowing automated account control, sms and calling. Their [terms of service](https://web.archive.org/web/20210506055108id_/https://dtmf.io/terms) and [privacy policy](https://web.archive.org/web/20210506063909id_/https://dtmf.io/privacy) seem reasonable enough. You can't expect much privacy using sms anyway, which is why I can't recommend using it for very much except maybe website sign up and only if it's required. I also recommend you avoid sharing PII using your anonymous number. Keep in mind a social graph could still be constructed of which numbers you're contacting and at what time. To reduce linkability, you should use a different number for each website you sign up for, if you can afford it. +[DTMF.io](https://web.archive.org/web/20210403000611if_/https://dtmf.io/) is the best service I've come across for an anonymous phone number. Like SMS Privacy, it can be accessed over a web portal. There is no third party JavaScript. The web portal is available in several languages. It requires no [personally identifiable information](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personally_identifiable_information) (PII) to sign up and supports 2-factor authentication. Unlike SMS Privacy, it has a more reasonable price tag. It has a v3 onion address for Tor. It supplies landline, mobile, SIM mobile and toll-free phone numbers from all over the world. You can pay with Bitcoin, Lightning, Ethereum, Litecoin, Monero and Perfect Money. Monero support is a huge plus since it's the only cryptocurrency with private payments by default. You can also make calls using SIP or your web browser. SIP is convenient because it allows you to bypass [the JavaScript trap](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html) of using the web portal. Like SMS Privacy, it does not require you to enable JavaScript in the browser for sign up or sms, although calling won't work without it. DTMF.io has an API available to pro and business customers allowing automated account control, sms and calling. Their [terms of service](https://web.archive.org/web/20210506055108if_/https://dtmf.io/terms) and [privacy policy](https://web.archive.org/web/20210506063909if_/https://dtmf.io/privacy) seem reasonable enough. You can't expect much privacy using sms anyway, which is why I can't recommend using it for very much except maybe website sign up and only if it's required. I also recommend you avoid sharing PII using your anonymous number. Keep in mind a social graph could still be constructed of which numbers you're contacting and at what time. To reduce linkability, you should use a different number for each website you sign up for, if you can afford it. -I know I criticized using apps for an anonymous number before, but that's because they are proprietary. DTMF.io supports SIP. So, you can use free (as in freedom) SIP calling apps to make calls or you can use the official free (as in freedom) [DTMF.io app](https://web.archive.org/web/20201030213136id_/https://dtmf.io/app) for sms and calling currently available on Android. You can build it from source for Android, iOS, Windows, Mac and GNU/Linux. Voice calls aren't currently supported in Windows or GNU/Linux though. It does not require Goolag Play Services and only asks for permissions it needs. It will even work without camera, microphone or contacts permissions enabled. +I know I criticized using apps for an anonymous number before, but that's because they are proprietary. DTMF.io supports SIP. So, you can use free (as in freedom) SIP calling apps to make calls or you can use the official free (as in freedom) [DTMF.io app](https://web.archive.org/web/20201030213136if_/https://dtmf.io/app) for sms and calling currently available on Android. You can build it from source for Android, iOS, Windows, Mac and GNU/Linux. Voice calls aren't currently supported in Windows or GNU/Linux though. It does not require Goolag Play Services and only asks for permissions it needs. It will even work without camera, microphone or contacts permissions enabled. The only recommendation I'd make if you plan on using it is that you pay anonymously and don't provide an identifying email address on sign up. Also, if you use the Android app, you should proxy the connection over a VPN or Tor (with [Orbot](https://guardianproject.info/apps/org.torproject.android/)) that way the service never gets your real IP address. Use Tor Browser with the onion address to access it over the web. Other than that I don't know what more you can ask for. The other anonymous phone number services (except for SMS Privacy) either don't allow you to pay anonymously, require identifying information, have proprietary JavaScript, or some other problem that makes them unsuitable. As far as I can tell, DTMF.io is the only game in town for a cheap, ethical, anonymous phone number. If you're using anything else, you should definitely make the switch. diff --git a/content/entry/get-the-vaccine.md b/content/entry/get-the-vaccine.md index 6037d24..38346e8 100644 --- a/content/entry/get-the-vaccine.md +++ b/content/entry/get-the-vaccine.md @@ -11,12 +11,12 @@ I got the Moderna vaccine, so I received the second shot one month apart from th # Covid Variants But I get it. Nobody likes being ill. Nobody likes getting shots. But getting your vaccination is a matter of personal and public safety. You're not only putting your own life at risk by not getting the vaccine, you're also risking the community by being a potential host for a more dangerous variant of Covid. The super-contagious delta variant from India is now spreading throughout the world. It's only going to get worse the more people that put off getting vaccinated. -According to the CDC, [only 66% of American adults are vaccinated](https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccinations). Dr. Anthony Fauci's guess was that 70-85% of the entire US population needs to be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity, but that was before the delta variant. It's likely higher now making it even more important for you to get vaccinated. If you still think "waiting to see what happens" is the safer bet, consider that you might catch Covid and die while waiting. It's not clever or safer. You're just playing Russian roulette with a dangerous virus. +According to the CDC, [only 66% of American adults are vaccinated](https://web.archive.org/web/20210628235004if_/https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccinations). Dr. Anthony Fauci's guess was that 70-85% of the entire US population needs to be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity, but that was before the delta variant. It's likely higher now making it even more important for you to get vaccinated. If you still think "waiting to see what happens" is the safer bet, consider that you might catch Covid and die while waiting. It's not clever or safer. You're just playing Russian roulette with a dangerous virus. # Safety Concerns Many people have heard that the vaccine is experimental, risky, and that people have died from it. So let me address those concerns directly. -The Covid-19 vaccines are new mRNA vaccines. mRNA vaccines do not contain the virus as other vaccines do. mRNA vaccines instruct cells to make a protein. The immune system recognizes that protein as not belonging in the body and makes antibodies for it. Then you're protected against Covid-19 without ever catching it. As the [CDC website](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/mrna.html) explains, these vaccines are new, but they are not unknown. Researchers have been studying mRNA vaccines for decades. +The Covid-19 vaccines are new mRNA vaccines. mRNA vaccines do not contain the virus as other vaccines do. mRNA vaccines instruct cells to make a protein. The immune system recognizes that protein as not belonging in the body and makes antibodies for it. Then you're protected against Covid-19 without ever catching it. As the [CDC website](https://web.archive.org/web/20210628212119if_/https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/mrna.html) explains, these vaccines are new, but they are not unknown. Researchers have been studying mRNA vaccines for decades. The vaccines available to the public have gone through months of trials being tested on hundreds of thousands of people with no indication that they are unsafe. Hundreds of millions more have been fully vaccinated since, still with no indication that the vaccines are unsafe. diff --git a/content/entry/git-is-not-github-git-is-not-github-git-is-not-github.md b/content/entry/git-is-not-github-git-is-not-github-git-is-not-github.md index da60028..0c5de57 100644 --- a/content/entry/git-is-not-github-git-is-not-github-git-is-not-github.md +++ b/content/entry/git-is-not-github-git-is-not-github-git-is-not-github.md @@ -6,9 +6,9 @@ draft: false --- A common confusion among new programmers is that Git and Github are the same thing, despite dozens of online articles and videos explaining the difference. I was probably in their position once myself, so I'm not assigning blame. I'm writing this entry because I think the conflation of Git and Github is harmful. -Git is a powerful version control tool that makes software development and collaboration easier. Github is a cloud-based repository hosting service operated by corporate monster Micro$oft. Git helps millions of developers write better code. Github sold code to [ICE](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Immigration_and_Customs_Enforcement), who used it to assist separating families at the border and putting immigrants in cages. +Git is a powerful version control tool that makes software development and collaboration easier. Github is a cloud-based repository hosting service operated by corporate monster Micro$oft. Git helps millions of developers write better code. Github sold code to [ICE](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Immigration_and_Customs_Enforcement), who used it to assist separating families at the border and putting immigrants in cages. -I have said before nobody should use [Github](/2021/05/31/dont-use-github), especially not people who write free software. If you need a software development platform, use [Sourcehut](https://sourcehut.org/). It has no advertising, tracking, or JavaScript. It's 100% free software and it's the fastest and lightest software forge, [bar none](https://forgeperf.org/). And if you don't like Sourcehut, there's other free software forges out there for whatever your needs are. +I have said before nobody should use [Github](/2021/05/31/dont-use-github/), especially not people who write free software. If you need a software development platform, use [Sourcehut](https://sourcehut.org/). It has no advertising, tracking, or JavaScript. It's 100% free software and it's the fastest and lightest software forge, [bar none](https://forgeperf.org/). And if you don't like Sourcehut, there's other free software forges out there for whatever your needs are. A morally neutral version control tool being frequently confused with a morally onerous big tech company is bad. More than just technical confusion, it invites moral confusion. Without knowing the difference, new developers may confuse criticism of Github the company with criticism of Git the tool. They will think "Github is bad? It can't be because I use that program and it's helpful to me." diff --git a/content/entry/give-up-hope-take-action.md b/content/entry/give-up-hope-take-action.md index 08ec061..bac4a33 100644 --- a/content/entry/give-up-hope-take-action.md +++ b/content/entry/give-up-hope-take-action.md @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ title: "Give Up Hope. Take Action." date: 2022-10-13T00:00:00 draft: false --- -Humanity is in dire circumstances right now. We're at something of a precipice. We face the threats of nuclear weapons, artificial intelligence, [global heating](/glossary), superbugs, ecological destruction, resource exhaustion, overpopulation, mass surveillance, authoritarianism, and much more. +Humanity is in dire circumstances right now. We're at something of a precipice. We face the threats of nuclear weapons, artificial intelligence, [global heating](/glossary/), superbugs, ecological destruction, resource exhaustion, overpopulation, mass surveillance, authoritarianism, and much more. Cory Doctorow, writer, blogger, and activist, wrote an article titled "[The Swerve](https://doctorow.medium.com/the-swerve-ace9a1c270c1)". I recommend everybody read it because it's a very accurate analogy for our situation, at least in terms of global heating. diff --git a/content/entry/goodbye-pgp.md b/content/entry/goodbye-pgp.md index 372bcb5..579385e 100644 --- a/content/entry/goodbye-pgp.md +++ b/content/entry/goodbye-pgp.md @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ tags: ['computing'] draft: false --- # Introduction -I often do research for my journal entries and decide to change or delete them based on what I learn during the writing process. The original title of this entry was actually "The Right Way to Use PGP". After researching PGP more, I came to the conclusion that it's not worth using, which led me to write the [Statement of GPG Key Transition](/2021/12/30/statement-of-gpg-key-transition). +I often do research for my journal entries and decide to change or delete them based on what I learn during the writing process. The original title of this entry was actually "The Right Way to Use PGP". After researching PGP more, I came to the conclusion that it's not worth using, which led me to write the [Statement of GPG Key Transition](/2021/12/30/statement-of-gpg-key-transition/). To keep my Statement of GPG Key Transition concise, I gave no explanation of why I was abandoning PGP. Since it's uncommon for PGP users to just abandon their key, I still want to provide that explanation, which is why I'm writing this. @@ -53,13 +53,13 @@ Many users still have v3 keys, which are insecure because v3 uses spoofable key This makes PGP software more error-prone since fingerprints aren't unique, it decreases key longevity, and potentially leaves you [open to attack](https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/68105/gpg-keys-sha-1). ## Packet Format -PGP also uses a [variable length packet format](https://nitter.net/lambdafu/status/1147162583969009664) which has caused problems in some implementations. +PGP also uses a [variable length packet format](https://x.com/lambdafu/status/1147162583969009664) which has caused problems in some implementations. ## Compression + Encryption The OpenPGP format combines [compression and encryption](https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/43413/is-it-safe-for-gpg-to-compress-all-messages-prior-to-encryption-by-default) which is a very bad idea. Depending on the context, it may help an attacker decipher your encrypted messages. ## No Deniability -PGP does not have [cryptographic deniability](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deniable_encryption) even though it could be implemented. Anyone who receives a signed message from you can prove to others you sent it. +PGP does not have [cryptographic deniability](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deniable_encryption) even though it could be implemented. Anyone who receives a signed message from you can prove to others you sent it. For email encryption, it hardly even matters that PGP lacks deniability. Any half decent email server uses DKIM anyways, which can and has been used to prove email provenance. Unless your email provider rotates and publishes DKIM keys, and most don't, then your emails aren't deniable. @@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ If it still bothers you, you can use a regularly rotated signing subkey and publ Of course rotating PGP subkeys is a pain in the ass for you and your correspondents, so you might be better off just not signing your emails. ## Lack of Forward Secrecy -The email provider cartel comprised of Gmail, Outlook, Yahoo, Aol, and others collect and store emails forever. Even if you delete your emails from the trash folder, the major email providers keep copies that are provided to law enforcement at request and sent directly to the NSA. See [XKeyscore](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/XKeyscore). +The email provider cartel comprised of Gmail, Outlook, Yahoo, Aol, and others collect and store emails forever. Even if you delete your emails from the trash folder, the major email providers keep copies that are provided to law enforcement at request and sent directly to the NSA. See [XKeyscore](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XKeyscore). This means if your PGP key is ever compromised, all your emails can be retroactively decrypted. PGP isn't solely to blame though. Email is partially responsible. But if PGP had forward secrecy, email surveillance wouldn't be as bad. @@ -81,7 +81,7 @@ If that's not enough to convince you not to use PGP for messaging, let me give y If you use PGP for email, you should at least use PGP/MIME to hide attachment file types. Leaking file type and length is bad, but leaking length alone is still pretty bad since it can be used to infer file and message content. -PGP is also unsuitable for automated decryption since it's vulnerable to [padding oracle attacks](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Padding_oracle_attack). +PGP is also unsuitable for automated decryption since it's vulnerable to [padding oracle attacks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Padding_oracle_attack). ## Lack of Use Cases Now let's talk about how PGP's flaws affects its use cases. In summary, it does everything poorly. For every use case, there's a better application-specific tool for the job. @@ -90,19 +90,19 @@ Now let's talk about how PGP's flaws affects its use cases. In summary, it does With its lack of forward secrecy and deniability, dated cryptography, lack of message padding, metadata leakage, and no proper authenticated encryption, PGP is unsuitable for the secure messaging use case. You're better off using an application that incorporates the [Double Ratchet](https://signal.org/docs/specifications/doubleratchet/). ### File Encryption/Signing -It's bad at file encryption and signing too. You're better off using [Age](https://github.com/FiloSottile/age) for files and [LUKS](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Unified_Key_Setup) for encrypted disks and backups. +It's bad at file encryption and signing too. You're better off using [Age](https://github.com/FiloSottile/age) for files and [LUKS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Unified_Key_Setup) for encrypted disks and backups. You might need to keep GPG installed to verify others' software packages. But please don't sign your own releases with GPG. Use [Signify](https://man.openbsd.org/signify) instead. ### The Web of Trust -PGP's WoT is a good example of a non-use case. As I already mentioned, the WoT leaks the user's social graph. Experts mistrust it. It's heavily dependent on keyservers. Nobody uses it, so [key signing parties](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_signing_party) have no practical function other than being a computer nerd circlejerk. +PGP's WoT is a good example of a non-use case. As I already mentioned, the WoT leaks the user's social graph. Experts mistrust it. It's heavily dependent on keyservers. Nobody uses it, so [key signing parties](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_signing_party) have no practical function other than being a computer nerd circlejerk. In conclusion, the PGP WoT needs no alternative implementation because the trust model is fundamentally flawed. It's lack of use is a testament to its uselessness. ### Digital Identity In general, PGP's whole notion of digital identity offers very limited usefulness. -Since nobody uses the WoT, PGP users most often [trust on first use](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_on_first_use), discovering others' keys through public forums, blogs, websites, emails, social media, etc. In the event of account compromise, visitors can be led to phony keys. +Since nobody uses the WoT, PGP users most often [trust on first use](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_on_first_use), discovering others' keys through public forums, blogs, websites, emails, social media, etc. In the event of account compromise, visitors can be led to phony keys. Users who already possess the correct key won't know what to do post-compromise. Why has the key changed? Why isn't it being used to sign things anymore? Will anybody even notice? If I announce that I'm traveling without my key and can't sign journal entries, would you believe it? What if I claim my key is lost and I can't revoke it? @@ -133,7 +133,7 @@ There are already mature identity management systems for organizations such as [ When developing applications that require cryptography, there are libraries like [Libsodium](https://github.com/jedisct1/libsodium). It's modern, portable, easy to use, and just better. There's no excuse for including PGP in a new application. ### Email -As for the encrypted email use case, PGP is pretty much the only way to send end-to-end encrypted emails right now, thanks to the [Network Effect](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect#Software). +As for the encrypted email use case, PGP is pretty much the only way to send end-to-end encrypted emails right now, thanks to the [Network Effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect#Software). If you have no other choice but to use email and you use PGP to encrypt, I won't fault you for it. It's what's available and widely used. But do it at your own risk. diff --git a/content/entry/how-extreme-wealth-inequality-harms-the-wealthy.md b/content/entry/how-extreme-wealth-inequality-harms-the-wealthy.md index fd660bb..f6b93b3 100644 --- a/content/entry/how-extreme-wealth-inequality-harms-the-wealthy.md +++ b/content/entry/how-extreme-wealth-inequality-harms-the-wealthy.md @@ -12,13 +12,13 @@ More wealth inequality means less people can afford higher education. Therefore It doesn't matter how many billions you have. Once you get cancer, there is no surefire cure. Maybe we would have one with more intelligent people working on it. When intelligent people are forced to waste all their time performing [bullshit jobs](/2022/01/22/automation-bullshit-jobs-and-work/) just to survive, they don't have the time or energy to do important work. ## Sleep Deprivation And Exhaustion -When people are forced to work constantly and [accept interruptions by work during non-work hours](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_disconnect), they become exhausted and sleep deprived, which leads to [all sorts of negative consequences to the brain](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_deprivation#Effects_and_consequences). +When people are forced to work constantly and [accept interruptions by work during non-work hours](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_disconnect), they become exhausted and sleep deprived, which leads to [all sorts of negative consequences to the brain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_deprivation#Effects_and_consequences). To name a few, there are deficits in attention and working memory, irritability, depression, anxiety, severely impaired driving ability, insomnia, microsleeping, brain-localized sleeping, obesity, hypertension, a weak immune system, diabetes, headaches, mania, and many other effects. -Sleep deprivation is so harmful to a person's health, the U.S. and U.K. [governments have used it as a form of torture](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_deprivation#Interrogation). +Sleep deprivation is so harmful to a person's health, the U.S. and U.K. [governments have used it as a form of torture](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_deprivation#Interrogation). -In some countries, retail chains are allowed to be open all hours of the night. So employees sleep during the day, being exposed to bright light which confuses the body's [circadian rhythm](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circadian_rhythm), causing sleep problems and all the negative consequences that come with it. +In some countries, retail chains are allowed to be open all hours of the night. So employees sleep during the day, being exposed to bright light which confuses the body's [circadian rhythm](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circadian_rhythm), causing sleep problems and all the negative consequences that come with it. Even if you're very wealthy, do you really want to interact with people that are irritable, exhausted, and unhealthy? Because that affects you too. Wouldn't you much rather live in a society that gets enough sleep and isn't exhausted from working all the time? Wouldn't that be a happier, more fun place to live? diff --git a/content/entry/how-i-came-to-atheism.md b/content/entry/how-i-came-to-atheism.md index 0705fa9..6fde9ba 100644 --- a/content/entry/how-i-came-to-atheism.md +++ b/content/entry/how-i-came-to-atheism.md @@ -21,12 +21,12 @@ Through listening to debates and doing my own research, I learned about epistemo > "If there is a god and god is good, then surely god doesn't punish people for doing research to find out the truth about religion." -With that thought, I continued watching debates and studying and researching the arguments. Very shortly after encountering [the New Atheists](https://wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism) (mainly Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens) and listening to what they had to say and the different perspectives from which they argued, I was decidedly an atheist. +With that thought, I continued watching debates and studying and researching the arguments. Very shortly after encountering [the New Atheists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism) (mainly Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens) and listening to what they had to say and the different perspectives from which they argued, I was decidedly an atheist. I didn't decide to become an atheist to avoid the possibility of hell or for some other emotional reason. I wanted to know the truth, no matter where it led me. I reasoned my way into atheism with logic. ## Enter The Skeptic Community -After becoming an atheist, I started following atheists like [Hemant Mehta](https://yewtu.be/channel/UCsgjnUBCB9xbUXQfMg0pd8A?dark_mode=true) (The Friendly Atheist). I also found Matt Dillahunty on [The Atheist Experience](http://www.atheist-experience.com/), a show where religious people call in and try to prove that god exists. I find Matt's [Atheist Debates Project](https://yewtu.be/playlist?list=PL8U_Qmq9oNY4I2RAT94zWGS3yo7Ma3QKI&dark_mode=true) particularly valuable since it debunks a wide variety of religious irrationality in an organized and thorough way. +After becoming an atheist, I started following atheists like [Hemant Mehta](https://yewtu.be/channel/UCsgjnUBCB9xbUXQfMg0pd8A?dark_mode=true) (The Friendly Atheist). I also found Matt Dillahunty on [The Atheist Experience](https://www.axp.show/), a show where religious people call in and try to prove that god exists. I find Matt's [Atheist Debates Project](https://yewtu.be/playlist?list=PL8U_Qmq9oNY4I2RAT94zWGS3yo7Ma3QKI&dark_mode=true) particularly valuable since it debunks a wide variety of religious irrationality in an organized and thorough way. In more recent years, I've been following the work of [Anthony Magnabosco](https://yewtu.be/channel/UCocP40a_UvRkUAPLD5ezLIQ?dark_mode=true), an atheist and street epistemologist. Street epistemology, for those who don't know, is a way to "help people reflect on the quality of their reasoning through civil conversation". If done right, it's a very friendly, non-aggressive means of getting someone to think through their own beliefs. diff --git a/content/entry/how-to-proselytize-free-software.md b/content/entry/how-to-proselytize-free-software.md index 7b58add..466a0ab 100644 --- a/content/entry/how-to-proselytize-free-software.md +++ b/content/entry/how-to-proselytize-free-software.md @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ If you want people to care about free software, show them how it solves a proble You might be dealing with someone who's trying to shake off the influence of big tech in their lives. Show them free and convenient private messaging apps like [Element](https://element.io/) and [Session](https://getsession.org/). Install [LibRedirect](https://libredirect.github.io/) on their browser. [De-Google](https://itsfoss.com/android-distributions-roms/) their phone for them and install easy-to-use free apps from [F-Droid](https://f-droid.org/). They'll appreciate the privacy and simplicity without the big tech bullshit on their phone. -Whoever you're dealing with, they'll almost certainly have some use case which free software is better suited for than proprietary software. Even [Richard Stallman](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman) agrees that using any amount of free software instead of proprietary software helps. Whether you go full Stallman or you're just getting started, you are helping the cause. +Whoever you're dealing with, they'll almost certainly have some use case which free software is better suited for than proprietary software. Even [Richard Stallman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman) agrees that using any amount of free software instead of proprietary software helps. Whether you go full Stallman or you're just getting started, you are helping the cause. If someone loves LibreOffice but doesn't want to try GNU/Linux yet, give them time. Maybe they'll eventually start using more free software as they come to appreciate the benefits. In the beginning, they may appreciate free software for the quality of the software or some other less important reason than software freedom, but that's okay. Even people who don't care about freedom deserve freedom. diff --git a/content/entry/how-to-transfer-large-files-from-one-computer-to-another.md b/content/entry/how-to-transfer-large-files-from-one-computer-to-another.md index 9b009cb..2ac8f66 100644 --- a/content/entry/how-to-transfer-large-files-from-one-computer-to-another.md +++ b/content/entry/how-to-transfer-large-files-from-one-computer-to-another.md @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ draft: false The average netizen has no idea how to transfer large files to others securely. And I can't really blame them for their ignorance because most websites instructing how to do it have really bad advice. ## The Corporate Cloud -For example, there is a [WikiHow article](https://web.archive.org/web/20220223081322id_/https://www.wikihow.com/Send-Large-Files-to-Another-Computer-Using-the-Internet) that has a few suggestions on how to send large files. The first is uploading your large files to Google Drive and sharing the link. What could possible be wrong with uploading your personal files to a service run by a known surveillance monster which requires you to sign up and give lots of personal information as well as running tracking scripts in your browser? +For example, there is a [WikiHow article](https://web.archive.org/web/20220223081322if_/https://www.wikihow.com/Send-Large-Files-to-Another-Computer-Using-the-Internet) that has a few suggestions on how to send large files. The first is uploading your large files to Google Drive and sharing the link. What could possible be wrong with uploading your personal files to a service run by a known surveillance monster which requires you to sign up and give lots of personal information as well as running tracking scripts in your browser? It also suggests Microsoft Onedrive, which of course is also a service run by a known surveillance monster which requires signing up and giving lots of personal information. @@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ If the recipient is in close physical proximity to you and you trust them, you c FAT32 only supports a 4 GB max file size. If a file is too large for the encrypted volume, Linux offers the split command to split it into smaller, more manageable chunks and the receiving machine only needs the cat command to piece the file back together. ## Magic Wormhole -If you're far from the recipient, [Magic Wormhole](https://github.com/magic-wormhole/magic-wormhole) is a good option to transfer arbitrarily large files peer to peer. It's also cross-platform and uses [PAKE](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Password-authenticated_key_agreement), which makes it both secure and easy to use. +If you're far from the recipient, [Magic Wormhole](https://github.com/magic-wormhole/magic-wormhole) is a good option to transfer arbitrarily large files peer to peer. It's also cross-platform and uses [PAKE](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Password-authenticated_key_agreement), which makes it both secure and easy to use. ## OnionShare If you need to transfer large files to multiple remote recipients without revealing your IP address, there's [OnionShare](https://onionshare.org/). Like Magic Wormhole, it's also secure and cross-platform. Unlike with Magic Wormhole though, only one party (sender or receiver) needs OnionShare installed. The other just needs Tor Browser. @@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ If you have large files you want to share with multiple people efficiently and y Unlike the client-server architecture used by Magic Wormhole and OnionShare where you act as a server sending the files to the client, peers in a torrent help upload chunks of your file to others who want a copy. Peers can continue to share the file even after you go offline. ## LAN File Sharing -For computers on the same LAN, there's plenty of software for managing a shared directory of large files. There's [Rsync](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rsync), [NFS](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_File_System), [SSHFS](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSHFS), [Samba](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samba_%28software%29), and [SFTP](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/SFTP). +For computers on the same LAN, there's plenty of software for managing a shared directory of large files. There's [Rsync](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rsync), [NFS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_File_System), [SSHFS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSHFS), [Samba](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samba_%28software%29), and [SFTP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SFTP). These programs can also share files to the public internet, but most of you reading this won't have a static public IP address or domain name, so it's irrelevant. I often use Rsync for its versatility, security, and efficient delta-transfer algorithm. diff --git a/content/entry/i-wish-i-could-endorse-the-waking-up-app.md b/content/entry/i-wish-i-could-endorse-the-waking-up-app.md index 220c18f..43ebd7f 100644 --- a/content/entry/i-wish-i-could-endorse-the-waking-up-app.md +++ b/content/entry/i-wish-i-could-endorse-the-waking-up-app.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ date: 2021-12-02T00:00:00 tags: ['computing'] draft: false --- -If you've been reading my journal for a while, you know I'm a strong proponent of daily meditation practice. I consider meditation equally important as physical exercise. I believe strongly that people should develop a meditation practice and I'm highly skeptical of the claim that "it's not for me". I really can't communicate just how important meditation is better than Sam Harris can. He has practiced meditation for over 30 years (longer than I've existed) and he has studied with meditation masters from all over the world. He put his knowledge into an app called [Waking Up](https://wakingup.com/). +If you've been reading my journal for a while, you know I'm a strong proponent of daily meditation practice. I consider meditation equally important as physical exercise. I believe strongly that people should develop a meditation practice and I'm highly skeptical of the claim that "it's not for me". I really can't communicate just how important meditation is better than Sam Harris can. He has practiced meditation for over 30 years (longer than I've existed) and he has studied with meditation masters from all over the world. He put his knowledge into an app called [Waking Up](https://www.wakingup.com/). As a beginner meditator, it can be very difficult to stay on task. It's common to sit there for a half hour trying to meditate only to later realize you were thinking the entire time. There's immense value in having someone there to interrupt you when you're going off-track. Sam explains all this in the first session of the course. Since a lot of people only know what the mainstream media has told them about meditation, I'd like to include a quote from Sam's website to offer a more accurate perspective: diff --git a/content/entry/i2p-and-tor-need-your-support.md b/content/entry/i2p-and-tor-need-your-support.md index 060118c..16314b6 100644 --- a/content/entry/i2p-and-tor-need-your-support.md +++ b/content/entry/i2p-and-tor-need-your-support.md @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ draft: false --- Since June 9th of 2022, [the Tor network has been undergoing a DDoS attack](https://status.torproject.org/issues/2022-06-09-network-ddos/). Since a couple weeks ago, [I2P has also been undergoing a DDoS attack](https://geti2p.net/en/blog/post/2023/02/09/about_the_recent_denial_of_service_attacks). It's impossible to say for certain who's attacking Tor, but it's likely a nation-state. I don't think it's known who is attacking I2P or if the attacks are related. -Many people rely on these networks for their personal privacy and safety. Until [GNUnet](/2023/02/14/article-the-internet-is-broken/) or something like it provides a full solution to the weaknesses of the existing network stack, Tor and I2P are the best alternatives. In order to make the attacks more expensive, please join me and run an [I2P node](https://geti2p.net) or [Tor relay](https://community.torproject.org/relay/) if you can. +Many people rely on these networks for their personal privacy and safety. Until [GNUnet](/2023/02/14/article-the-internet-is-broken/) or something like it provides a full solution to the weaknesses of the existing network stack, Tor and I2P are the best alternatives. In order to make the attacks more expensive, please join me and run an [I2P node](https://geti2p.net/en/) or [Tor relay](https://community.torproject.org/relay/) if you can. They're both extremely easy to set up. I've run multiple Tor relays in the past for months at a time. I currently have 3 separate I2P nodes online and I'm working on provisioning a fast new Tor relay. All you have to do is install the software, change a few lines in the configuration file, restart the daemon, and you're good to go. And if you enable automatic updates, the nodes practically maintain themselves. diff --git a/content/entry/icannot-be-trusted.md b/content/entry/icannot-be-trusted.md index bd2ec32..6fc5c9b 100644 --- a/content/entry/icannot-be-trusted.md +++ b/content/entry/icannot-be-trusted.md @@ -5,9 +5,9 @@ tags: ['computing'] draft: false --- ## ICANN -The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, also known as [ICANN](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICANN), is a U.S. nonprofit which manages the [DNS](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Name_System) root servers. When you type "nicholasjohnson.ch" into your search bar and hit enter, ICANN is ultimately in control over what happens next, not me. +The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, also known as [ICANN](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICANN), is a U.S. nonprofit which manages the [DNS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Name_System) root servers. When you type "nicholasjohnson.ch" into your search bar and hit enter, ICANN is ultimately in control over what happens next, not me. -ICANN's contracts with domain registries are immune from being challenged and registries can set arbitrary restrictions on content hosted on their domains. [ICANN has an effective monopoly on almost all domain names and punishes people for past sharing.](https://nitter.net/brokep/status/1364950213790740481) For more on that, see the article "[Ending the War on Sharing](https://stallman.org/articles/end-war-on-sharing.html)". +ICANN's contracts with domain registries are immune from being challenged and registries can set arbitrary restrictions on content hosted on their domains. [ICANN has an effective monopoly on almost all domain names and punishes people for past sharing.](https://x.com/brokep/status/1364950213790740481) For more on that, see the article "[Ending the War on Sharing](https://stallman.org/articles/end-war-on-sharing.html)". Another problem I have with ICANN is one can't legally own a domain name without forking over personal information to the domain name registrar. Most registrars offer to hide that information from public view, but they still have to hand it over under certain circumstances and there's always the possibility that it gets stolen. diff --git a/content/entry/identifying-and-processing-emotions-with-alexithymia.md b/content/entry/identifying-and-processing-emotions-with-alexithymia.md index 72366a1..86b70ec 100644 --- a/content/entry/identifying-and-processing-emotions-with-alexithymia.md +++ b/content/entry/identifying-and-processing-emotions-with-alexithymia.md @@ -57,14 +57,14 @@ What I'm describing is how to use writing as a kind of meditative tool to proces "Isn't this just stream of consciousness writing?" No. It's related, but not exactly the same. The difference is I don't write down the thoughts that aren't relevant to the emotion I'm dealing with. "But how do you know if it's relevant?" If I'm writing about the death of a family member and I think "I could really use a glass of water right now." that's not relevant. I'm just thirsty. If I can't decide if it's relevant or not, I write about why I can't decide. If I have a strong emotional reaction to the thought, like "I shouldn't write that down!" then it's almost certainly relevant and I should write it down. -"How does acknowledging thoughts help process emotions?" I'm no psychologist. I just know that it does based on personal experience. The best way I can explain it is that the mind works on a similar principle to the [Observer Effect](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_%28physics%29) in physics. The classic example is when you're checking the tire pressure of an automobile. In order to check the tire pressure, a little bit of air has to seep out of the tire. The act of measuring the tire changes it. +"How does acknowledging thoughts help process emotions?" I'm no psychologist. I just know that it does based on personal experience. The best way I can explain it is that the mind works on a similar principle to the [Observer Effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_%28physics%29) in physics. The classic example is when you're checking the tire pressure of an automobile. In order to check the tire pressure, a little bit of air has to seep out of the tire. The act of measuring the tire changes it. Similarly, when you observe your own thoughts and emotions without judgment, your mind changes a little bit with each observation. If you make it a regular habit to observe your thoughts, your mind changes a lot. You feel more in control. You stop doing things you later regret. And life is just better. ### Other Methods -There are other techniques for processing emotions if you have alexithymia, but I've found meditation and writing to be particularly helpful for me personally. Maybe talking to friends or a therapist is more your style. I view those as more social methods, but I believe they accomplish the same basic thing: Getting you to acknowledge your thoughts and emotions without judgment. If you have a severe condition like [PTSD](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-traumatic_stress_disorder), definitely look for a professional or trusted friend before you try any meditative exercise. +There are other techniques for processing emotions if you have alexithymia, but I've found meditation and writing to be particularly helpful for me personally. Maybe talking to friends or a therapist is more your style. I view those as more social methods, but I believe they accomplish the same basic thing: Getting you to acknowledge your thoughts and emotions without judgment. If you have a severe condition like [PTSD](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-traumatic_stress_disorder), definitely look for a professional or trusted friend before you try any meditative exercise. -A good therapist, especially one trained in [cognitive behavioral therapy](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_behavioral_therapy), can help you shed light on your deep seated emotional baggage, related thoughts, and core beliefs. Unfortunately, the people who need therapy the most avoid it because they don't want to think they need help. In my experience, the people who are certain they don't need help need it more than anyone. Regardless, there's nothing wrong with reaching out. +A good therapist, especially one trained in [cognitive behavioral therapy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_behavioral_therapy), can help you shed light on your deep seated emotional baggage, related thoughts, and core beliefs. Unfortunately, the people who need therapy the most avoid it because they don't want to think they need help. In my experience, the people who are certain they don't need help need it more than anyone. Regardless, there's nothing wrong with reaching out. A trusted friend who is emotionally receptive can also help, but probably not as much as a trained therapist. Neither a friend nor a therapist can acknowledge your thoughts and emotions for you though. You have to step through that door. Other people can only show you the door. diff --git a/content/entry/if-you-dont-like-it-then-just-leave.md b/content/entry/if-you-dont-like-it-then-just-leave.md index 73bd47b..04d6dc9 100644 --- a/content/entry/if-you-dont-like-it-then-just-leave.md +++ b/content/entry/if-you-dont-like-it-then-just-leave.md @@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ For one, I don't own a private island. I'm not a citizen of any other country. I ## National NIMBYism Second, there's things I disagree with in every country. This is not to say all countries are equal. Saying that all countries are equal because they all have problems is idiotic. In countries more civilized than the United States, I might be generally quite satisfied with how things are going. But there is always progress to be made. -So being told to leave seems to amount to nationalistic [NIMBYism](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY). I'm allowed to want things to be different, just not things within my own country. I can just as easily reverse the script and say "If you don't like me pointing out flaws in my country then why don't you leave?" and it would be equally ridiculous. There's no civilized country free from citizens' complaints either. +So being told to leave seems to amount to nationalistic [NIMBYism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY). I'm allowed to want things to be different, just not things within my own country. I can just as easily reverse the script and say "If you don't like me pointing out flaws in my country then why don't you leave?" and it would be equally ridiculous. There's no civilized country free from citizens' complaints either. If dissent is such big problem, why do these people not take their own advice and "just move" someplace where open dissent isn't tolerated? Someplace like North Korea or China. Then they wouldn't have to listen to pesky activists trying to improve their country. diff --git a/content/entry/implications-of-synthetic-media.md b/content/entry/implications-of-synthetic-media.md index 34bf0fa..7d2de92 100644 --- a/content/entry/implications-of-synthetic-media.md +++ b/content/entry/implications-of-synthetic-media.md @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ A few months ago, I wrote an entry titled "[The Privacy Implications of Weak AI] A.I. and automation are subjects people avoid thinking about because they're scary. I can't fault anybody for that because they're right. The way weak AI is already being used is extremely worrying. It doesn't bode well for the future, but we can't find solutions without discussing the problem. So today, I thought I'd explore another way weak A.I. might disrupt society. -In case you're not familiar with the term "deepfake", it refers to [AI-generated media](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_media) (synthetic media) where a person in a picture or video is digitally replaced with somebody else. The goal is for the replacement to be so seamless that it's impossible to tell the difference. Right now, [deepfakes](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepfake) are pretty good and they're getting better all the time. This has huge implications. +In case you're not familiar with the term "deepfake", it refers to [AI-generated media](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_media) (synthetic media) where a person in a picture or video is digitally replaced with somebody else. The goal is for the replacement to be so seamless that it's impossible to tell the difference. Right now, [deepfakes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepfake) are pretty good and they're getting better all the time. This has huge implications. # Plausible Deniability ## Blackmail @@ -26,10 +26,10 @@ Deepfakes change the game by reducing the cost of creating fakes. In the future, ## Nudes This one's just a hunch, but I predict sending nudes will become more common given that the nudes will be deniable if they end up in the wrong hands. The original recipient may know that the nudes are real, but will anybody else believe them? So I think the deniability will increase people's willingness to send intimate media. -[The software for faking nudes already exists.](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepfake_pornography#DeepNude) +[The software for faking nudes already exists.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepfake_pornography#DeepNude) # Social Engineering -But there's more than just increased plausible deniability. Deepfakes will change the [social engineering](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_engineering_%28security%29) game. +But there's more than just increased plausible deniability. Deepfakes will change the [social engineering](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_engineering_%28security%29) game. I imagine it like that scene in the first Terminator movie where terminators can fake people's voices after hearing them once. You can just record someone's voice, then train an A.I. to replicate it. Unless there's a law against it, police might use this to trick suspects and obtain information from them. @@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ On the other side of the law, black hat hackers will certainly use deepfakes to # The Infopocalypse The central subject which we seem to be orbiting is the infopocalypse. That is, when sock puppets and deepfakes become absolutely pervasive everywhere on the internet. And I have to mention sock puppets because they go hand in hand with deepfakes in an important way. -Right now, what prevents bots from overtaking the internet is mainly [CAPTCHA](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAPTCHA), phone registration, and bot detection systems. CAPTCHA is a technique to tell humans and computers apart. As A.I. improves, bots will eventually be able to do all the things that humans can do, including passing CAPTCHA. They'll also be able to bypass bot detection and, with some money, buy phone numbers. +Right now, what prevents bots from overtaking the internet is mainly [CAPTCHA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAPTCHA), phone registration, and bot detection systems. CAPTCHA is a technique to tell humans and computers apart. As A.I. improves, bots will eventually be able to do all the things that humans can do, including passing CAPTCHA. They'll also be able to bypass bot detection and, with some money, buy phone numbers. We have to assume that as time passes, it will take less and less resources for anyone to create their own personal army of convincing bots. Combining this with deepfakes will make it nearly impossible to tell human from machine. Unless new techniques for bot prevention are developed, online platforms may run rampant with spam, disinformation, and sock puppets. @@ -51,14 +51,14 @@ Now, broadening the subject even more to synthetic media as a whole, not just de Maintaining relationships with real people takes effort. With synthetic media and convincing chat bots, a lot of people will probably opt for relationships with synthetic, digital A.I. systems instead of other human beings. This could be really destructive to the social fabric. The word "loner" will take on a whole new meaning. -What worries me the most is how addictive these A.I. chat bots could potentially be. We've already seen how bad social media and smartphone addiction is. Maybe it's too early to worry about this, but if A.I. chat bots pass the [Turing test](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test) and become capable of real-time audio and video calls, there will probably be less human connection in society. +What worries me the most is how addictive these A.I. chat bots could potentially be. We've already seen how bad social media and smartphone addiction is. Maybe it's too early to worry about this, but if A.I. chat bots pass the [Turing test](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test) and become capable of real-time audio and video calls, there will probably be less human connection in society. -If you're looking for some inspiration, two good films depicting human-bot relationships are [Her](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Her_%28film%29) and [Ex Machina](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_Machina_%28film%29). Those films both depict A.I. taking human form, which goes a bit outside the scope of synthetic media, but synthetic media by itself probably wouldn't make good film. +If you're looking for some inspiration, two good films depicting human-bot relationships are [Her](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Her_%28film%29) and [Ex Machina](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_Machina_%28film%29). Those films both depict A.I. taking human form, which goes a bit outside the scope of synthetic media, but synthetic media by itself probably wouldn't make good film. # Art and Self-Expression Synthetic media will also revolutionize art and self-expression. Imagine online gaming where your face, body, and mannerisms are superimposed onto your avatar. Imagine going to see a movie with you and your friends as stars of the show. Imagine more interactive art. -I don't think synthetic media used for self-expression is necessarily a net good though. Giving people new ways to express themselves is good, but not if they use it as a means of escaping the world like in the movie [Ready Player One](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ready_Player_One_%28film%29). We don't want to give people yet another way to be bought off by extreme capitalists and distracted from the problems happening in the real world. +I don't think synthetic media used for self-expression is necessarily a net good though. Giving people new ways to express themselves is good, but not if they use it as a means of escaping the world like in the movie [Ready Player One](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ready_Player_One_%28film%29). We don't want to give people yet another way to be bought off by extreme capitalists and distracted from the problems happening in the real world. # Conclusion Predicting the future is somewhat of a fool's errand. We'll only know for sure how synthetic media is going to transform society as time passes. But, I believe I've made some good predictions, and I hope I at least get more people thinking about it. Thanks again for reading. diff --git a/content/entry/inception-rejecting-discord-drawio-and-visual-studio.md b/content/entry/inception-rejecting-discord-drawio-and-visual-studio.md index d6b96f2..a316cd4 100644 --- a/content/entry/inception-rejecting-discord-drawio-and-visual-studio.md +++ b/content/entry/inception-rejecting-discord-drawio-and-visual-studio.md @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ In the spring of 2018, I took software engineering at [SIUe](https://www.siue.ed # Story ## Project I -The first project was for the purposes of getting everyone accustomed to using Git and Redmine and working in a team as well as doing some documentation. We were put in groups of three to four and given the task of writing a fairly simple program with a GUI and some basic functionality in C#. I remember being very anxious upon forming a group because I knew my group members would likely want to use [Slack](https://slack.com) or [Discord](https://discordapp.com/) or some other popular proprietary walled garden messaging platform. Luckily for the first project of the class, my three group members were not thrilled, but were willing to undergo the inconvenience of downloading and using [Riot.im](https://riot.im/) / [Matrix](https://matrix.org). +The first project was for the purposes of getting everyone accustomed to using Git and Redmine and working in a team as well as doing some documentation. We were put in groups of three to four and given the task of writing a fairly simple program with a GUI and some basic functionality in C#. I remember being very anxious upon forming a group because I knew my group members would likely want to use [Slack](https://slack.com) or [Discord](https://discord.com/) or some other popular proprietary walled garden messaging platform. Luckily for the first project of the class, my three group members were not thrilled, but were willing to undergo the inconvenience of downloading and using [Riot.im](https://web.archive.org/web/20200328100026if_/https://about.riot.im/) / [Matrix](https://matrix.org). ### Communication It was awkward and uncomfortable to be the only person in the group refusing to use Discord when everyone else very quickly came to a consensus on it. Peer pressure is a real thing. But after explaining my reasons, I was able to win over the group after a few days and get everyone using Riot. I even got everyone to exchange their device keys over email so we could all have an encrypted group chat. The peace of mind of having an encrypted room and using free software instead of having our group messages data mined and sold as would have been the case with Discord cannot be overvalued for me. I didn't really win the group over by convincing them with the benefits of encryption and free software. I think they just wanted to get the project moving along and saw the easiest way forward was to adapt to me. So I got past the first hurdle. diff --git a/content/entry/integrated-activism.md b/content/entry/integrated-activism.md index f17e18a..288593e 100644 --- a/content/entry/integrated-activism.md +++ b/content/entry/integrated-activism.md @@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ And that is exactly the kind of problem I'm talking about. It's focusing on one ## Darknets What's interesting to me is how different communities react to social issues. Some communities seem to have less tunnel vision than others. In cryptocurrencies like Monero, there is a lot of not seeing the bigger picture and the full implications of what is being created. There is a lot of tunnel vision. In darknets, I see the opposite. Everyone knows darknets enable immoral behavior that people otherwise couldn't get away with as easily. -The difference between darknet communities and cryptocurrency communities as I see it is the darknet communities better acknowledge the downsides of their technologies. Several major darknets acknowledge the downsides directly on [their](https://support.torproject.org/abuse/) [websites](https://freenetproject.org/pages/help.html#what-about-child-porn-offensive-content-or-terrorism). Their collective response is basically "Yes this technology enables bad things, but it also enables good things, and the good things outweigh the bad things". Official websites for cryptocurrencies aren't as forthcoming about the downsides of their technology. This is bad because we need an honest conversation about the good and the bad of technologies. Simply viewing everything through the lens of "freedom" or "privacy" is harmful, in the long run. There are other social issues to consider. +The difference between darknet communities and cryptocurrency communities as I see it is the darknet communities better acknowledge the downsides of their technologies. Several major darknets acknowledge the downsides directly on [their](https://support.torproject.org/abuse/) [websites](https://www.hyphanet.org/pages/help.html#what-about-child-porn-offensive-content-or-terrorism). Their collective response is basically "Yes this technology enables bad things, but it also enables good things, and the good things outweigh the bad things". Official websites for cryptocurrencies aren't as forthcoming about the downsides of their technology. This is bad because we need an honest conversation about the good and the bad of technologies. Simply viewing everything through the lens of "freedom" or "privacy" is harmful, in the long run. There are other social issues to consider. # Dealing With Conflicting Social Causes There's a lot going wrong in the world and, as an activist, there are infinite social issues worth fighting for. Some of them conflict with each other. So the question becomes how to deal with conflicting social issues. Because the alternative is just ignoring them. It's just having tunnel vision. diff --git a/content/entry/ipv6-adoption.md b/content/entry/ipv6-adoption.md index c435d09..9fcaf2c 100644 --- a/content/entry/ipv6-adoption.md +++ b/content/entry/ipv6-adoption.md @@ -7,25 +7,25 @@ draft: false I try to make my posts accessible in the sense that I don't want to assume the reader has prior knowledge about a topic. So I'm going to explain a bit about IPv4 and IPv6 before I talk about how you can help with IPv6 adoption. If you're already familiar with IPv4 and IPv6 feel free to skip. # IPv4 -[IPv4](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4) stands for Internet Protocol Version 4. I'm not going to get into the OSI model and computer networking layers. It's enough to know that IPv4 is a protocol that defines how data is sent over the internet. IPv4 has a logical addressing system which allows packets to be routed from one computer to another. It's how your computer and the computer hosting this website can talk to each another. IPv4 specifies 32 bits per address which is about 4.3 billion logical addresses. +[IPv4](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4) stands for Internet Protocol Version 4. I'm not going to get into the OSI model and computer networking layers. It's enough to know that IPv4 is a protocol that defines how data is sent over the internet. IPv4 has a logical addressing system which allows packets to be routed from one computer to another. It's how your computer and the computer hosting this website can talk to each another. IPv4 specifies 32 bits per address which is about 4.3 billion logical addresses. This was fine when the internet was small, but now the internet is massive and has more than 4.3 billion devices connected to it. This creates a problem since there are more devices than ways to address them. There are nuances like special addresses and addresses that are reserved but remain unused, but those aren't that important for our purposes. The problem is how can we route traffic across the internet since we've run out of internet addresses to hand out? ## NAT -Welcome to [NAT](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_address_translation). NAT stands for Network Address Translation. The main reason NAT exists is to solve the IPv4 problem of not having enough logical addresses for every device. NAT translates private IP addresses on an internal network to public IP addresses that can talk to other computers on the real internet. This allows several connected devices to share the same IP address, conserving logical addresses so IPv4 can still work. I won't go into detail on how this happens because it's not relevant, but it does have overhead. NAT is basically an ugly hack for the problem of not enough IPv4 addresses for each internet connected device. +Welcome to [NAT](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_address_translation). NAT stands for Network Address Translation. The main reason NAT exists is to solve the IPv4 problem of not having enough logical addresses for every device. NAT translates private IP addresses on an internal network to public IP addresses that can talk to other computers on the real internet. This allows several connected devices to share the same IP address, conserving logical addresses so IPv4 can still work. I won't go into detail on how this happens because it's not relevant, but it does have overhead. NAT is basically an ugly hack for the problem of not enough IPv4 addresses for each internet connected device. # IPv6 -[IPv6](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6) supersedes IPv4 using 128-bit addresses (340 undecillion IP addresses). It's the obvious elegant solution to the problem of not having enough internet addresses: use a protocol that has more addresses. It doesn't require NAT because each connected device can have its own IP address on the real public internet. Since the IPv6 address space is so huge, it's highly unlikely that IPv6 will ever be superseded for lack of internet addresses. +[IPv6](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6) supersedes IPv4 using 128-bit addresses (340 undecillion IP addresses). It's the obvious elegant solution to the problem of not having enough internet addresses: use a protocol that has more addresses. It doesn't require NAT because each connected device can have its own IP address on the real public internet. Since the IPv6 address space is so huge, it's highly unlikely that IPv6 will ever be superseded for lack of internet addresses. -It also has other practical advantages to IPv4. As the name implies, it's a newer protocol drafted in 1998 whereas IPv4 was first deployed in 1982. IPv6 packets are easier for routers to process since the IPv6 packet is simpler than the IPv4 packet. This is consistent with the original vision of the internet where most processing happens at endpoints, not routers. [IPsec](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPsec) is mandatory whereas in IPv4 it was retrofitted. Network operators don't have to do port forwarding on the router or make firewall changes. Multicast addressing is simpler. IPv6 limits the size of [routing tables](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Routing_table). [Mobile IPv6](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_IPv6) is as efficient as regular IPv6. I could go on but the point is it's much better than IPv4 in every way. +It also has other practical advantages to IPv4. As the name implies, it's a newer protocol drafted in 1998 whereas IPv4 was first deployed in 1982. IPv6 packets are easier for routers to process since the IPv6 packet is simpler than the IPv4 packet. This is consistent with the original vision of the internet where most processing happens at endpoints, not routers. [IPsec](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPsec) is mandatory whereas in IPv4 it was retrofitted. Network operators don't have to do port forwarding on the router or make firewall changes. Multicast addressing is simpler. IPv6 limits the size of [routing tables](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Routing_table). [Mobile IPv6](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_IPv6) is as efficient as regular IPv6. I could go on but the point is it's much better than IPv4 in every way. # IPv6 Adoption ISPs and tech giants are slowly increasing IPv6 support. Ideally, everyone would use IPv6 and IPv4 would cease to exist. IPv4 has no practical advantages. It was superseded by IPv6 over 2 decades ago and the switch still hasn't completely happened yet. What's the problem? If IPv6 is better then why is adoption taking so long? The barrier to IPv6 adoption isn't so much at endpoints. By 2011 all major operating systems had support for IPv6. The problem is there often isn't a strong financial incentive for IPv6 adoption. -If you're an average internet user, you don't even know what IPv4 or IPv6 is. Unless your ISP enabled IPv6 for you then you probably don't have it. You can access all the internet resources you want without it anyway. Even if your ISP enabled it and your modem/router supports it, still many end-user devices and applications don't work well with it. If they do support IPv6, they also support IPv4 because IPv6 always runs alongside IPv4 with [dual stack](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_Stack). If you host any internet resource then all your users support IPv4. So why bother with IPv6? +If you're an average internet user, you don't even know what IPv4 or IPv6 is. Unless your ISP enabled IPv6 for you then you probably don't have it. You can access all the internet resources you want without it anyway. Even if your ISP enabled it and your modem/router supports it, still many end-user devices and applications don't work well with it. If they do support IPv6, they also support IPv4 because IPv6 always runs alongside IPv4 with [dual stack](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_Stack). If you host any internet resource then all your users support IPv4. So why bother with IPv6? ## Chicken and Egg Problem -IPv6 is still a clearly technically superior protocol. But IPv6 adoption is a classic [chicken and egg](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_or_the_egg) problem. End-users don't adopt IPv6 because industry hasn't, so there's no practical advantages to it. Industry doesn't adopt IPv6 because end-users haven't, so there's no money in it. The problem with IPv6 adoption is creating the social inertia without immediate economic benefit. The easiest way to do that for most people is to call up your ISP and ask them to help you enable IPv6 for your home network. If you find that some internet services don't work with IPv6 then you can complain to those services about their IPv6 support. This creates social pressure from the end-user side to help speed up IPv6 adoption. +IPv6 is still a clearly technically superior protocol. But IPv6 adoption is a classic [chicken and egg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_or_the_egg) problem. End-users don't adopt IPv6 because industry hasn't, so there's no practical advantages to it. Industry doesn't adopt IPv6 because end-users haven't, so there's no money in it. The problem with IPv6 adoption is creating the social inertia without immediate economic benefit. The easiest way to do that for most people is to call up your ISP and ask them to help you enable IPv6 for your home network. If you find that some internet services don't work with IPv6 then you can complain to those services about their IPv6 support. This creates social pressure from the end-user side to help speed up IPv6 adoption. Whether you're a network administrator, provider of internet services or software developer, I encourage you to support IPv6 whether or not it will have any immediate benefit. You'll be helping the internet take its next step. You are the other side of the coin when it comes to IPv6 adoption. It's not a major selling point, but some users will appreciate it. We have to get over this chicken and egg problem of adoption. We can do that by going through a little extra trouble to help move the internet along. It has been 8 years since world IPv6 launch day and still the numbers for IPv6 adoption could be a lot higher than they are. Let's make it happen. diff --git a/content/entry/is-autism-a-disability-or-neurodivergence.md b/content/entry/is-autism-a-disability-or-neurodivergence.md index e949068..4b5e147 100644 --- a/content/entry/is-autism-a-disability-or-neurodivergence.md +++ b/content/entry/is-autism-a-disability-or-neurodivergence.md @@ -4,17 +4,17 @@ date: 2023-06-10T00:00:00 tags: ['autism'] draft: false --- -The text I'll reference throughout this entry to help answer the question posed in the title of this entry is [Neurotypical Spectrum Disorder](https://realtalktherapypdx.com/neurotypical-spectrum-disorder/), written by Autism advocate and licensed pastoral therapist [Matt Lowry](https://www.mattlowrylpp.com). The linked version contains a small addition by licensed marriage and family therapist Stephanie Winn. It's written in the style of a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5th Edition (DSM-5) diagnosis. It classifies being neurotypical as a disorder, listing the disadvantages and differences of being neurotypical relative to autism. +The text I'll reference throughout this entry to help answer the question posed in the title of this entry is [Neurotypical Spectrum Disorder](https://web.archive.org/web/20230608092605if_/https://realtalktherapypdx.com/neurotypical-spectrum-disorder/), written by Autism advocate and licensed pastoral therapist [Matt Lowry](https://www.mattlowrylpp.com). The linked version contains a small addition by licensed marriage and family therapist Stephanie Winn. It's written in the style of a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5th Edition (DSM-5) diagnosis. It classifies being neurotypical as a disorder, listing the disadvantages and differences of being neurotypical relative to autism. I'd like to start by addressing the apparent deficits in autistic social communication. -The DSM-5 says that autistic people have "Persistent deficits in social communication and social interaction across multiple contexts". However, at least in autistic people who are verbal, a "substantial number of studies in recent years" consistently support the [double empathy problem](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_empathy_problem), the hypothesis that "This lack of understanding may stem from bidirectional differences in communication style, social-cognitive characteristics, and experiences between autistic and non-autistic individuals, but not necessarily an inherent deficiency." +The DSM-5 says that autistic people have "Persistent deficits in social communication and social interaction across multiple contexts". However, at least in autistic people who are verbal, a "substantial number of studies in recent years" consistently support the [double empathy problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_empathy_problem), the hypothesis that "This lack of understanding may stem from bidirectional differences in communication style, social-cognitive characteristics, and experiences between autistic and non-autistic individuals, but not necessarily an inherent deficiency." The DSM-5 criteria for autism doesn't reflect this at all. It essentially places all the blame on autistic people for failing to communicate with neurotypicals. -The Neurotypical Spectrum Disorder text mentions multiple ways that neurotypical socialization might be considered abnormal and pathologized as a "disorder" by a hypothetical majority autistic society. It can be read as a critique of the old theory of [Mind Blindness](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind-blindness) which posits that autistic people lack theory of mind. +The Neurotypical Spectrum Disorder text mentions multiple ways that neurotypical socialization might be considered abnormal and pathologized as a "disorder" by a hypothetical majority autistic society. It can be read as a critique of the old theory of [Mind Blindness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind-blindness) which posits that autistic people lack theory of mind. -Neurotypical Spectrum Disorder seems to support the [Neurodiversity](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodiversity)-based view of autism, which asserts that: +Neurotypical Spectrum Disorder seems to support the [Neurodiversity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodiversity)-based view of autism, which asserts that: > "...there is intrinsic diversity in human brain function and cognition, and that certain things currently classified as neurodevelopmental disorders are differences and disabilities but are not necessarily pathological." @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ and that > "...disability partly arises from societal barriers, rather than attributing disability purely to inherent deficits." -The diversity model sits in contrast to the dominant [Medical Model of Disability](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_model_of_disability), which asserts that: +The diversity model sits in contrast to the dominant [Medical Model of Disability](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_model_of_disability), which asserts that: > "...disability may reduce the individual's quality of life and aims to diminish or correct this disability with medical intervention." diff --git a/content/entry/is-beastiality-immoral.md b/content/entry/is-beastiality-immoral.md index f0649ad..78b87e3 100644 --- a/content/entry/is-beastiality-immoral.md +++ b/content/entry/is-beastiality-immoral.md @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ Can a non-human animal rape a human? Actually yes, it is possible and it does ha ## Diseases Now there is one big issue I glossed over, on both the non-human animal side and the human side, and that's diseases. -Animals can transfer dangerous diseases to humans such as [rabies](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabies). Humans can also transfer diseases to animals. I want to make it clear that I don't have any specialized knowledge on this topic. I'm not a veterinarian or a doctor, so I could be completely wrong on this, but diseases are my main concern with beastiality. +Animals can transfer dangerous diseases to humans such as [rabies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabies). Humans can also transfer diseases to animals. I want to make it clear that I don't have any specialized knowledge on this topic. I'm not a veterinarian or a doctor, so I could be completely wrong on this, but diseases are my main concern with beastiality. Seeing the havoc Covid-19 continues to cause, I think we have good reasons to be worried about new infectious diseases hopping across species. My lack knowledge in the area of diseases and the fact that it's not well-researched precludes me from forming a definite opinion. I don't know how severe the risk of disease transmission is, so I won't make a final moral judgment about beastiality. diff --git a/content/entry/its-not-necessarily-irrational-to-believe-things-you-cant-justify-to-others.md b/content/entry/its-not-necessarily-irrational-to-believe-things-you-cant-justify-to-others.md index b50c8e0..e2dd3a1 100644 --- a/content/entry/its-not-necessarily-irrational-to-believe-things-you-cant-justify-to-others.md +++ b/content/entry/its-not-necessarily-irrational-to-believe-things-you-cant-justify-to-others.md @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ draft: false --- There's a certain mistake seasoned debaters often make when interacting with lay people and the mistake is that just because the unprepared lay person cannot presently argue a point, the seasoned debater concludes they hold that belief without justification. I'll explain why this conclusion isn't necessarily correct. -Remember the "Change My Mind" guy, [Steven Crowder](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Crowder)? If you're not familiar with him, he's an American-Canadian conservative political commentator and the subject of a popular meme format. He used to set up a table on college campuses to debate college students. I don't know if he still does it. I don't follow him. Anyways he goes into these debates where he picks the topic, one which he's knowledgeable about and has lots of points in his favor already in working memory, and he goes up against unprepared college students. +Remember the "Change My Mind" guy, [Steven Crowder](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Crowder)? If you're not familiar with him, he's an American-Canadian conservative political commentator and the subject of a popular meme format. He used to set up a table on college campuses to debate college students. I don't know if he still does it. I don't follow him. Anyways he goes into these debates where he picks the topic, one which he's knowledgeable about and has lots of points in his favor already in working memory, and he goes up against unprepared college students. I don't consider what Steven does unfair in the slightest, because the college students voluntarily go and debate him, so it's up to them to be ready for the heat. It's not like he screens students before he debates them to make himself look good. But I fear that some people may get the impression that he's correct just because he can look smart in front of unprepared college students. diff --git a/content/entry/join-extinction-rebellion-now.md b/content/entry/join-extinction-rebellion-now.md index 0f0fc24..b268076 100644 --- a/content/entry/join-extinction-rebellion-now.md +++ b/content/entry/join-extinction-rebellion-now.md @@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ The only option left is disruptive non-violent direct action to force government > "Extinction Rebellion is a decentralised, international and politically non-partisan movement using non-violent direct action and civil disobedience to persuade governments to act justly on the Climate and Ecological Emergency." -You can find a list of Extinction Rebellion's principles and demands on [one of their websites](https://rebellion.global "Extinction Rebellion"). There's also a [Wikipedia page](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Extinction_Rebellion_actions "Timeline of Extinction Rebellion actions") listing past actions performed using the name of Extinction Rebellion. +You can find a list of Extinction Rebellion's principles and demands on [one of their websites](https://rebellion.global "Extinction Rebellion"). There's also a [Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Extinction_Rebellion_actions "Timeline of Extinction Rebellion actions") listing past actions performed using the name of Extinction Rebellion. Given the severity of the climate crisis and what will happen if we do nothing, I support any action that garners more rebels for Extinction Rebellion, including blocking roads and shutting down airports. The only valid criticism of such actions, in my mind, is that they might turn some people off from the movement. However, I think a case can be made that those who are turned off by even the most milquetoast disruption are probably disinclined to help the movement anyways. diff --git a/content/entry/journal-update-017.md b/content/entry/journal-update-017.md index bff7a81..531156d 100644 --- a/content/entry/journal-update-017.md +++ b/content/entry/journal-update-017.md @@ -6,8 +6,8 @@ draft: false --- # What's New * IPv6 support is back! I don't plan on removing it again. This site needs to be present on the modern internet. -* Migrate from Gitea to [Cgit](https://git.nicksphere.ch) + Gitolite3. Gitea is much more than I need. Cgit is lightweight and it loads faster. -* Change top-level domain from .com to .ch. [Operation Not in Your Sites.](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_In_Our_Sites) See the [War on Sharing](https://stallman.org/articles/end-war-on-sharing.html). Nicksphere.com will redirect for about a year until it expires. So readers have a year to update their bookmarks/links. +* Migrate from Gitea to Cgit + Gitolite3. Gitea is much more than I need. Cgit is lightweight and it loads faster. +* Change top-level domain from .com to .ch. [Operation Not in Your Sites.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_In_Our_Sites) See the [War on Sharing](https://stallman.org/articles/end-war-on-sharing.html). Nicksphere.com will redirect for about a year until it expires. So readers have a year to update their bookmarks/links. * New [self-hosted email](mailto:nick@nicksphere.ch). Posteo is great and I've no complaints about it. I still recommend Posteo to others. I just wanted more control over my email and it seemed silly not to self-host where I could. My PGP key has also been updated to reflect my new email. * Remove corrections page. I have no motivation to write corrections. I don't think anybody would read them anyway and it's probably best to just make new entries to self-correct. * Remove hosted services on the [about page](/about/). My new VPS doesn't have the resources for them. I still have the old VPS and domain name rented out for a year in advance. If anybody reading this needs a hosted service for a use case, just let me know. Otherwise I'll dedicate those resources elsewhere. diff --git a/content/entry/journal-update-018.md b/content/entry/journal-update-018.md index 4fa4fd5..0b96565 100644 --- a/content/entry/journal-update-018.md +++ b/content/entry/journal-update-018.md @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ tags: ['journal updates'] draft: false --- # What's New -* Replaced my GPG key with Age for email encryption and Signify for signing commits. [GPG is ancient, bad software](/2022/01/03/goodbye-pgp). +* Replaced my GPG key with Age for email encryption and Signify for signing commits. [GPG is ancient, bad software](/2022/01/03/goodbye-pgp/). * Stopped accepting cryptocurrency donations. Proof-of-work cryptocurrencies waste obscene amounts of energy. Existing cryptocurrencies don't scale well. Their main use is crime and speculation on crime. The market is full of scams and false promises. No one really knows how to value them. They are potentially a systemic risk to the economy. So I do not wish to be involved any more. It's not like this journal costs much to run anyways. * Entry summaries have been removed. I believe the title alone should be sufficient to communicate an entry's subject matter. * Pagination and read time have been removed to simplify the journal layout. These features may be added back later after the scripts rewrite if I decide they further journal design goals. The goal of the design of this journal is to be minimally distracting and respect reader attention. diff --git a/content/entry/journal-update-019.md b/content/entry/journal-update-019.md index cbb9914..6079864 100644 --- a/content/entry/journal-update-019.md +++ b/content/entry/journal-update-019.md @@ -5,11 +5,11 @@ tags: ['journal updates'] draft: false --- # What's New -* Mirrored this journal on archive.org. The archive.org link can be found on the [about page](https://nicksphere.ch/about/). Since I don't have immediate, direct control over this mirror, it's non-trivial for an adversary to remove the archive.org mirror even if I'm compromised. +* Mirrored this journal on archive.org. The archive.org link can be found on the [about page](https://nicholasjohnson.ch/about/). Since I don't have immediate, direct control over this mirror, it's non-trivial for an adversary to remove the archive.org mirror even if I'm compromised. * Rewrote nicksphere-gmi to separate presentation from business logic. There are still efficiency improvements to be made, but the code is already much cleaner and more maintainable. It's now possible to easily make the website look very different from the capsule. This may be desirable since Gemini is more limited. * Added back the read time for entries. How much time an entry takes to read could be an important factor in deciding to read it or not. Also I want this journal to be respectful of the reader's time and attention. * Limited the atom feed to 20 entries. It does not need to contain every entry. -* Replaced the commit-signatures repository with [git-signify](https://git.nicksphere.ch/git-signify/). Git-signify is a hack which embeds Signify signatures into Git repositories. It's better to have the signature information embedded directly into the repository itself so it's more self-contained. +* Replaced the commit-signatures repository with [git-signify](https://git.nicholasjohnson.ch/git-signify/). Git-signify is a hack which embeds Signify signatures into Git repositories. It's better to have the signature information embedded directly into the repository itself so it's more self-contained. If all you want to do is verify commits, you don't need git-signify. You can run the commands below instead. With Git and Signify installed, run: diff --git a/content/entry/journal-update-020.md b/content/entry/journal-update-020.md index 10f8ab4..d9e96ae 100644 --- a/content/entry/journal-update-020.md +++ b/content/entry/journal-update-020.md @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ tags: ['journal updates'] draft: false --- # What's New -Over the past week, I rewrote my journal generator (yes, again). I created a [Hugo theme](https://git.nicksphere.ch/hugo-theme-nicksphere/), so Hugo now does all the heavy lifting. The new program simply called "[nicksphere](https://git.nicksphere.ch/nicksphere/)" generates the website, the Gemini capsule, and the Atom feeds for both all in less than a second. Any plans I had for my custom generator [nicksphere-gmi](https://archive.softwareheritage.org/swh:1:snp:fb9bef300f9b939382f5656232d95377c8630a10;origin=https://git.nicholasjohnson.ch/nicksphere-gmi) have been scrapped. +Over the past week, I rewrote my journal generator (yes, again). I created a [Hugo theme](https://git.nicholasjohnson.ch/hugo-theme-journal/), so Hugo now does all the heavy lifting. The new program simply called "[nicksphere](https://git.nicholasjohnson.ch/journal/)" generates the website, the Gemini capsule, and the Atom feeds for both all in less than a second. Any plans I had for my custom generator [nicksphere-gmi](https://archive.softwareheritage.org/swh:1:snp:fb9bef300f9b939382f5656232d95377c8630a10;origin=https://git.nicholasjohnson.ch/nicksphere-gmi) have been scrapped. Now that Hugo is handling the generation process, I no longer need to make my generator multithreaded, multilingual, or documented. My generator wasn't bad, but obviously it's nothing compared to a popular, established site generator like Hugo. diff --git a/content/entry/journal-update-021.md b/content/entry/journal-update-021.md index 0fec1a4..a48e31f 100644 --- a/content/entry/journal-update-021.md +++ b/content/entry/journal-update-021.md @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ tags: ['journal updates'] draft: false --- ## What's New -As was planned since [my last journal entry](/2022/05/01/journal-update-020/) back in May, I polished up the [hugo-theme-nicksphere](https://git.nicksphere.ch/hugo-theme-nicksphere) repository. +As was planned since [my last journal entry](/2022/05/01/journal-update-020/) back in May, I polished up the [hugo-theme-nicksphere](https://git.nicholasjohnson.ch/hugo-theme-journal) repository. Among the improvements are: * Anonymous links (noreferrer). @@ -18,15 +18,15 @@ Among the improvements are: * Added emojis. * Added useful metadata to each entry. -I also made some improvements to the [nicksphere repository](https://git.nicksphere.ch/nicksphere): +I also made some improvements to the [nicksphere repository](https://git.nicholasjohnson.ch/journal): * Improved [glossary linkability](/glossary/). * Simplified relative links. * Made text on non-entry pages less long-winded. And finally, some other improvements were made independent of any repository: * Added nicksphere.ch to the [HSTS preload list](https://hstspreload.org/). -* Updated the [CGit instance](https://git.nicksphere.ch) and improved code readability. -* Mirrored all my Git repositories on [Sourcehut](https://sr.ht/~gitnick/) for redundancy. +* Updated the [CGit instance](https://git.nicholasjohnson.ch) and improved code readability. +* Mirrored all my Git repositories on Sourcehut for redundancy. * Made the Tor onions faster. * Fixed the HTTP headers for nicksphere.ch. diff --git a/content/entry/journal-update-022.md b/content/entry/journal-update-022.md index aa6b6bb..8b978c0 100644 --- a/content/entry/journal-update-022.md +++ b/content/entry/journal-update-022.md @@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ I decided to drop I2P support for the time being. It was broken anyways for who In the journal repository, I've started signing Git tags rather than commits. Git-annex has been removed for cleaner code and better accessibility on Sourcehut. The ugly Python code has been entirely removed and replaced with two Hugo configuration files, meaning Hugo properly generates my journal now all on its own. I switched from emojis to using emoji codes for better code accessibility. -Finally, I archived [my old repos on Sourcehut](https://sr.ht/~nicholasjohnson/archive/). I didn't want them completely gone since they're linked to in some of my old entries and I try hard to avoid link rot, but I also didn't want them so front and center since they're poorly written. +Finally, I archived my old repos on Sourcehut. I didn't want them completely gone since they're linked to in some of my old entries and I try hard to avoid link rot, but I also didn't want them so front and center since they're poorly written. ## Future Plans For the Hugo theme for this journal, you can find my plans in [this TODO file](https://git.nicholasjohnson.ch/hugo-theme-journal/tree/TODO?id=833d19b542e6d6106ac4979e7a6319bec1969ed7a8f085afe944872bcefddfa7). I'm going to start versioning the theme. Once I implement the features in the TODO file, as long as nothing else occurs to me, I'll make the first official release of the theme with version 1.0.0. diff --git a/content/entry/journal-update-024.md b/content/entry/journal-update-024.md index 4e6751e..c762fef 100644 --- a/content/entry/journal-update-024.md +++ b/content/entry/journal-update-024.md @@ -11,17 +11,17 @@ Six months have passed since [my last journal update](/2023/02/25/journal-update * [Implemented inline image support for HTML.](https://git.nicholasjohnson.ch/hugo-theme-journal/commit/?id=5a66837521d1d66a6df1cfbe9d9a89efc1eeb4f15834e941835350a8494b4012 "Journal Theme Git Commit: Add inline image support for HTML") * [Added multilingual support.](https://git.nicholasjohnson.ch/hugo-theme-journal/diff/?id=178711418fc11bf05321127aa09c8c718d1695963e2b8023d7e8fbe8cbb1ee44&id2=5ab2048f8e69d21902f379bb281fa947d31e7f0399556ab96f18841d9005e250 "Journal Theme Git Commit: Add multilingual support") * [Added support for custom CSS stylesheets.](https://git.nicholasjohnson.ch/hugo-theme-journal/commit/?id=b50a7eb7fa8232e66402eb0ca097d3c2423a4aaa934458906be3390d0966aa99 "Journal Theme Git Commit: Add custom CSS stylesheet support") -* [Wrote comprehensive documentation.](https://git.nicholasjohnson.ch/hugo-theme-journal/tree/GEMTEXT-COMPATIBILITY.md "Journal Theme Documentation") +* [Wrote comprehensive documentation.](https://git.nicholasjohnson.ch/hugo-theme-journal/tree/GEMTEXT-COMPATIBILITY.md?h=v1.0.2 "Journal Theme Documentation") * Made major improvements in template efficiency, speed, and correctness. There are still small improvements to be made and probably minor bugs to fix, but no new features are planned at the moment. So I'm happy to announce that I made a [v1.0.0 release](https://git.nicholasjohnson.ch/hugo-theme-journal/tag/?h=v1.0.0 "Hugo Journal Theme v1.0.0 Release"), which means that the theme is considered stable enough to use and no breaking changes are planned. I've also made some changes to [the journal itself](https://git.nicholasjohnson.ch/journal "Journal Repository"). Here they are in no particular order: -* Started publishing my [DKIM private keys](/old-dkim-privates.txt "My DKIM Private Keys"). +* Started publishing my [DKIM private keys](/about/ "About Page"). * Replaced [outdated/unmaintained/upstreamed repos](https://git.nicholasjohnson.ch/journal/diff/?id=28dc72ee06fab33f4c07ecd0c840d27f420ef05c4c478793dbb130f6f5ecda8e&id2=fc23b52eefdb23fa5c1b572c10f3472eaa4a63154ab9a26fae8165a5e7cb39a6 "Journal Git Commit: Replace outdated/unmaintained/upstreamed repos with archived links") from [my cgit instance](https://git.nicholasjohnson.ch "My Cgit Instance") with archived links. * Added the '[computing](/tags/computing/ "Journal tag: 'computing'")' tag for computing-related journal entries. -* [Replaced files subdomain with archived links.](http://git.nicholasjohnson.ch/journal/diff/?id=369824d3344a2cacc12a440039090c155d30665b159985367be39e866687a485&id2=0511dfa99267b9a4b36faadd9aedaf4baa3b916707621e03c03e22d959bef1b8 "Journal Git Commit: Replace files subdomain with archived links") +* [Replaced files subdomain with archived links.](https://git.nicholasjohnson.ch/journal/diff/?id=369824d3344a2cacc12a440039090c155d30665b159985367be39e866687a485&id2=0511dfa99267b9a4b36faadd9aedaf4baa3b916707621e03c03e22d959bef1b8 "Journal Git Commit: Replace files subdomain with archived links") * [Removed Sourcehut links.](https://git.nicholasjohnson.ch/journal/commit/?id=e777ada55bb8e7494dc6bc7a5ec788c8a99fab984eddc17d7249445e5a4c90b8 "Journal Git Commit: Remove sourcehut links") archive.org is a sufficient backup and less to maintain. * [Removed glossary.](https://git.nicholasjohnson.ch/journal/commit/?id=4d03aab04da01bfefcba8e9519b2ab97773c4fcb83361322ac98a8559fcc2ad2 "Journal Git Commit: Remove glossary") It was making my journal seem more like propaganda. diff --git a/content/entry/language-shouldnt-be-exclusive.md b/content/entry/language-shouldnt-be-exclusive.md index c90d0c7..f8a8450 100644 --- a/content/entry/language-shouldnt-be-exclusive.md +++ b/content/entry/language-shouldnt-be-exclusive.md @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ title: "Language Shouldn't Be Exclusive" date: 2022-03-27T00:00:00 draft: false --- -A couple months ago, [Joe Rogan](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Rogan), hugely popular internet podcaster, Ultimate Fighting Championship commentator, comedian, actor, and former television presenter apologized for using the word nigger on his podcast. Apparently someone made a compilation of him saying the word several times in different episodes. It got circulated, which prompted the apology. +A couple months ago, [Joe Rogan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Rogan), hugely popular internet podcaster, Ultimate Fighting Championship commentator, comedian, actor, and former television presenter apologized for using the word nigger on his podcast. Apparently someone made a compilation of him saying the word several times in different episodes. It got circulated, which prompted the apology. To be fair to Joe's critics, Joe did compare a neighborhood of black people to the Planet of the Apes movie he was going to see. Obviously that was a dumb thing to say, but Joe Rogan is not some staunch racist like the compilation tries to make him out to be. The fact that someone dug through years of his old podcast episodes to create a compilation of him using the word nigger, mostly in a neutral context, and the fact that others shared it around as evidence of him being racist, just highlights the dishonesty and vindictiveness of leftist cancel culture. diff --git a/content/entry/legalize-all-drugs.md b/content/entry/legalize-all-drugs.md index 564a17a..b1018ab 100644 --- a/content/entry/legalize-all-drugs.md +++ b/content/entry/legalize-all-drugs.md @@ -4,9 +4,9 @@ date: 2020-11-08T00:00:00 draft: false --- # History Lesson -A century ago, alcohol prohibition in the United States began with the [18th amendment](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) prohibiting the production, importation and sale of alcoholic beverages and ended in 1933 with the [21st amendment](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-first_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution). The goal of prohibition was to reduce alcohol consumption. While prohibition succeeded in reducing alcohol consumption somewhat, it resulted in many unintended consequences including public health problems, an increase in organized crime, and corruption of law enforcement. +A century ago, alcohol prohibition in the United States began with the [18th amendment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) prohibiting the production, importation and sale of alcoholic beverages and ended in 1933 with the [21st amendment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-first_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution). The goal of prohibition was to reduce alcohol consumption. While prohibition succeeded in reducing alcohol consumption somewhat, it resulted in many unintended consequences including public health problems, an increase in organized crime, and corruption of law enforcement. -The war on "drugs" only played a small part of law enforcement efforts on the whole until Ronald Reagan was inaugurated in 1981. Reagan expanded the drug war with a focus on criminal penalties instead of treatment. His policies resulted in a massive increase in incarcerations of nonviolent drug users. His wife Nancy Reagan started the [Just Say No](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Say_No) campaign to teach schoolchildren not to use drugs. It was about as effective at reducing drug use as abstinence-based sex education is at reducing sex. The most popular Just Say No program, [DARE](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Abuse_Resistance_Education), showed zero effect on drug use according to [20 controlled studies](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-just-say-no-doesnt-work). Perhaps that's because DARE spreads lies and gives children a contorted picture of the war on drugs? In 1986, congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act changing [federal supervised release](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_supervised_release) programs increasing focus on punishment rather than rehabilitation, prohibiting [analogs of controlled substances](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_substance_analog) and requiring [mandatory minimum sentences](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_sentencing) for nonviolent drug users. The sentencing discrepancy between crack and powder cocaine resulted in an uneven increase in incarceration rates for black people. Doesn't that sound familiar? +The war on "drugs" only played a small part of law enforcement efforts on the whole until Ronald Reagan was inaugurated in 1981. Reagan expanded the drug war with a focus on criminal penalties instead of treatment. His policies resulted in a massive increase in incarcerations of nonviolent drug users. His wife Nancy Reagan started the [Just Say No](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Say_No) campaign to teach schoolchildren not to use drugs. It was about as effective at reducing drug use as abstinence-based sex education is at reducing sex. The most popular Just Say No program, [DARE](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Abuse_Resistance_Education), showed zero effect on drug use according to [20 controlled studies](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-just-say-no-doesnt-work/). Perhaps that's because DARE spreads lies and gives children a contorted picture of the war on drugs? In 1986, congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act changing [federal supervised release](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_supervised_release) programs increasing focus on punishment rather than rehabilitation, prohibiting [analogs of controlled substances](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_substance_analog) and requiring [mandatory minimum sentences](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_sentencing) for nonviolent drug users. The sentencing discrepancy between crack and powder cocaine resulted in an uneven increase in incarceration rates for black people. Doesn't that sound familiar? In 2020, a whole century since the beginning of prohibition era, there are signs that we are finally learning what history has to teach us: The unintended consequences of drug prohibition are worse than the problem it's meant to solve. As of today, medical cannabis use is legalized in 35 states. The recreational use of cannabis is legalized in 15 states. 16 states have decriminalized cannabis use. Up to 40 states might allow some form of [marijuana legalization](https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/20/marijuana-legalization-federal-laws-100688) by the end of 2020. Just a few days ago Oregon became the first state to legalize magic mushrooms for medical use and decriminalize "street drugs". People found in possession of street drugs will face a ticket and a 100 dollar fine rather than a felony. They will optionally be offered treatment. Despite recent progress, the war on "drugs" is still being waged almost 50 years later and drugs are cheaper and easier to acquire than ever. And that's where we're at today. @@ -34,14 +34,14 @@ If you believe that quote, then the war on drugs is the definition of insanity. Criminalization also burdens the healthcare system dealing with consequences of unsafe, contaminated drug use. Enforcement against drug paraphernalia causes sharing of needles which spreads disease. This wouldn't be as big of a problem if drugs were legalized since they would be regulated and tested for purity. Places that rely on tourism for economic activity are negatively affected when they are seen as dangerous due to drug cartel activity. Money that is spent on unregulated, illegal drugs can't be spent on regulated, taxable and legal parts of the economy. Minorities and low income groups that are already economically vulnerable are more likely to be arrested for drugs, further decreasing future job prospects. Smaller economies are heavily distorted by the drug war. I could go on forever, but you can see that the drug war makes no sense from an economic standpoint. ## Reducing Corruption -Wherever there is an organized illicit drug industry, there is also going to be police corruption. Mexico knows this all too well. In December 2019, [Genaro García Luna](https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/former-mexican-secretary-public-security-arrested-drug-trafficking-conspiracy-and), Mexico's former minister in charge of the federal police for 6 years, was arrested for allegedly taking millions from the Sinaloa cartel in return for safe passage of the cartel's drug shipments and information on other rival cartels. Just last month [General Salvador Cienfuegos Zepeda](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/16/us/mexico-general-cienfuegos-dea.html), Mexico's former army chief for 6 years, was arrested on drug trafficking and money laundering charges. The CIA in the US was allegedly involved in [cocaine trafficking](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_involvement_in_Contra_cocaine_trafficking) in which several investigations ensued. +Wherever there is an organized illicit drug industry, there is also going to be police corruption. Mexico knows this all too well. In December 2019, [Genaro García Luna](https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/former-mexican-secretary-public-security-arrested-drug-trafficking-conspiracy-and), Mexico's former minister in charge of the federal police for 6 years, was arrested for allegedly taking millions from the Sinaloa cartel in return for safe passage of the cartel's drug shipments and information on other rival cartels. Just last month [General Salvador Cienfuegos Zepeda](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/16/us/mexico-general-cienfuegos-dea.html), Mexico's former army chief for 6 years, was arrested on drug trafficking and money laundering charges. The CIA in the US was allegedly involved in [cocaine trafficking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_involvement_in_Contra_cocaine_trafficking) in which several investigations ensued. The bottom line is dealing with the cartels is mutually beneficial for those in power, so long as they don't get caught. Those in government and the police have all the wrong economic incentives when it comes to the drug war. In some government positions in countries with rampant corruption, it's probably an unwritten job requirement to work with the cartels. We'll probably never know which positions those are for sure though. Corruption happens in the shadows and it's always difficult to produce any concrete evidence. Legalizing drugs would eliminate the cartel's source of profit, which means politicians would no longer have any financial incentive to work with them. It follows that drug-related government and police corruption would decrease. ## Improved Police-Community Relations The war on "drugs" is responsible for police militarization more than anything else. Peaceful protesters and rioters face chemical irritants, armored vehicles and riot gear because the war on "drugs" has ensured police have military-style gear. Police militarization causes officers to view themselves as a confrontational force instead of community-oriented. In the eyes of the citizenry, this makes police look like an occupying force rather than public servants. -I'm not dumping all the blame on cops either. The job of police officers is to enforce the law. When the law is unjust, the police still have to enforce it. It's not fair on them because it makes them look bad. Ending the war on "drugs" would do so much for police-community relations. Children wouldn't have to watch their parents hauled off to jail for choosing to engage in a victimless activity. Families wouldn't be torn apart. Drug-related police corruption would end, as I talked about in the above section. Police departments could shift their resources toward stopping murderers and rapists, people causing real harm to society. Without ending the war on "drugs", public confidence in policing will continue to erode. In the year 2020 where we have [nationwide demonstrations against police brutality](https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/06/12/nationwide-protests-over-police-brutality-continue-cities-across-us-cut-and), the Justice Department declaring NYC, Portland and Seattle "[Anarchist Jurisdictions](https://theintercept.com/2020/09/22/anarchist-jurisdictions-portland-new-york-seattle)", and [police abandoning precincts](https://nypost.com/2020/05/29/minneapolis-police-abandon-precinct-after-protesters-set-it-on-fire), police definitely shouldn't be perpetuating a failed drug war that has lasted half a century and will only further diminish public trust in the police. +I'm not dumping all the blame on cops either. The job of police officers is to enforce the law. When the law is unjust, the police still have to enforce it. It's not fair on them because it makes them look bad. Ending the war on "drugs" would do so much for police-community relations. Children wouldn't have to watch their parents hauled off to jail for choosing to engage in a victimless activity. Families wouldn't be torn apart. Drug-related police corruption would end, as I talked about in the above section. Police departments could shift their resources toward stopping murderers and rapists, people causing real harm to society. Without ending the war on "drugs", public confidence in policing will continue to erode. In the year 2020 where we have [nationwide demonstrations against police brutality](https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/06/12/nationwide-protests-over-police-brutality-continue-cities-across-us-cut-and), the Justice Department declaring NYC, Portland and Seattle "[Anarchist Jurisdictions](https://theintercept.com/2020/09/22/anarchist-jurisdictions-portland-new-york-seattle/)", and [police abandoning precincts](https://nypost.com/2020/05/29/minneapolis-police-abandon-precinct-after-protesters-set-it-on-fire/), police definitely shouldn't be perpetuating a failed drug war that has lasted half a century and will only further diminish public trust in the police. ## Why not just Decriminalize? In the late 1980's and early 1990's, 1 out of every 10 citizens in Portugal was addicted to heroin. To combat this, Portugal decriminalized all drug use. And it worked. Incarceration rates went down, infectious disease cases of HIV went down, and fatal overdoses went down. Decriminalization wasn't the only thing that changed though. It was accompanied by a culture shift in the public attitude toward drugs and drug addiction. When your country isn't busy locking people up over drugs, it can focus on helpful things like treatment, housing, and employment to help people recover. [Several other countries have ended their war on drugs](https://www.inspiremalibu.com/blog/drug-addiction/10-countries-that-ended-their-war-on-drugs). So why not just decriminalize drugs? Why the need to legalize? @@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ If you want to deter drug use, then there are better approaches than not fully l Let's move on to regulation. Regulation of drugs is important for ensuring drug quality, fair pricing, safety and education. But it's also probably a good idea not to regulate drugs so heavily that a sizable black market continues to exist. I'm not going to focus on regulation other than to say deciding on the regulations should be an evidence-based process. Lawmakers have almost 50 years of evidence on how not to treat drugs in society, so maybe they can learn from past mistakes and other countries that have decriminalized drugs and come up with regulations as drugs are legalized. # Drug Education -As for education, let's talk about some of the things schools shouldn't do. First and foremost, school drug education programs should stop lying to children about drugs. Schools should stop teaching children that every hard drug user is an addict. Schools should stop teaching abstinence as the only practical way of protecting oneself from harmful drugs. And they should stop using green-tinted goggles to mimic the effects of marijuana. Yes, [they actually did that](https://stonerthings.com/do-weed-goggles-work). +As for education, let's talk about some of the things schools shouldn't do. First and foremost, school drug education programs should stop lying to children about drugs. Schools should stop teaching children that every hard drug user is an addict. Schools should stop teaching abstinence as the only practical way of protecting oneself from harmful drugs. And they should stop using green-tinted goggles to mimic the effects of marijuana. Yes, [they actually did that](https://web.archive.org/web/20220816213426if_/https://stonerthings.com/do-weed-goggles-work/). So what should schools do? They should tell the truth. They should teach that the war on "drugs" has been one of the greatest moral failures of our time, a colossal waste of money, time, resources and human life that could have been better spent on literally anything else. Education programs should provide a fair-minded, evidence-based view of the advantages and disadvantages of drug use per each drug. Drug education programs need to instruct young adults which drugs are worth doing, which are not, how often and in what setting, once they are of age. Drug education should come before most young adults are offered drugs. Program instructors could be social workers instead of police officers because drug addiction is not a criminal issue. It's a health issue. As we end the war on drugs, social workers should take responsibility for dealing with drug-related issues. Social workers can be trained based on prior drug research and hear testimony from non-addicted healthy drug users and addicts alike so they can get an accurate sense of the positive and negative effects of different drugs. This would put them in a good position to educate youth about drugs. @@ -63,4 +63,4 @@ Now that I've covered a few points on education, how will we convert our current Legalization should also be accompanied by a culture shift. Once drugs are legalized, drug users won't necessarily be criminals. That will go a long way in making it easier for society not to demonize them. People that use drugs are not "bad people". It's nowhere near that simple. There are as many reasons people use drugs as there are drugs. There are people that use drugs in a healthy, responsible way and people that don't. As I said before, there needs to be more resources for drug users in order to promote responsible use. And it's hard to provide resources for that in a society where drugs are heavily criminalized and stigmatized. In a society where drug use is criminalized and stigmatized, drug users have to hide their drug use from family, friends and strangers for fear of legal and social repercussions. This culture of secrecy causes needless psychological suffering for people that use drugs for the wrong reasons. The social stigma around drug use causes users not to seek out help when they desperately need it. That includes addiction treatment, healthcare and psychiatric help. In a society where drugs are legalized and not stigmatized, none of that would be an issue. Drug users could be more open about their habits and get the resources they need to be responsible without worrying about being shamed or arrested. -The war on "drugs" seems to be coming to an end, albeit slowly. It's not over yet though. If not for the drug war, [Breonna Taylor](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Breonna_Taylor) would still be with us. How many more people are going to have to spend years behind bars and forever be labeled felons for engaging in a victimless activity? How many more honest, otherwise law-abiding citizens are going to die for a war that should never have been waged to begin with? When is the needless violence perpetuated by the war on "drugs" going to finally end? Eventually, there will come a day when the very last person has their life ruined by the war on human beings. I hope that day comes sooner rather than later. +The war on "drugs" seems to be coming to an end, albeit slowly. It's not over yet though. If not for the drug war, [Breonna Taylor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Breonna_Taylor) would still be with us. How many more people are going to have to spend years behind bars and forever be labeled felons for engaging in a victimless activity? How many more honest, otherwise law-abiding citizens are going to die for a war that should never have been waged to begin with? When is the needless violence perpetuated by the war on "drugs" going to finally end? Eventually, there will come a day when the very last person has their life ruined by the war on human beings. I hope that day comes sooner rather than later. diff --git a/content/entry/making-sense-of-metaethics.md b/content/entry/making-sense-of-metaethics.md index d1e86f5..401f9ef 100644 --- a/content/entry/making-sense-of-metaethics.md +++ b/content/entry/making-sense-of-metaethics.md @@ -18,14 +18,14 @@ So far so obvious. Now let's move into the most controversial section of this en ## Interpreting Moral Language Moral language like "should", "ought", "good", "evil", "right", and "wrong" should be interpreted as signalling either alignment or misalignment between values and actions. So if I say "You shouldn't play the lottery." what I mean is that you playing the lottery runs contrary to my values somehow. One plausible reason is that I care about your well being. I know your well being will probably be worse if you have less money and that playing the lottery will probably cause you to lose money. -There are other ways to interpret moral language which I do give some credence. [Emotivism](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotivism) suggests that moral statements express feelings. [Prescriptivism](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_prescriptivism) proposes viewing moral statements as imperatives. +There are other ways to interpret moral language which I do give some credence. [Emotivism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotivism) suggests that moral statements express feelings. [Prescriptivism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_prescriptivism) proposes viewing moral statements as imperatives. I agree that moral language can also express emotions and imperatives. My interpretation is fully compatible with that. But the problem with interpreting moral statements entirely as expressions of emotion or entirely as imperatives is that **people use moral statements as statements of fact**. My claim is that the facts moral statements refer to are facts about how certain actions affect one's values. ## Refuting Hume's Guillotine -At this point, I'd like to address some likely criticism, namely [Hume's Guillotine](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem). For those who don't know, Hume's Guillotine is the idea that you can't derive an "ought" from an "is". In other words, no description of how the world is tells you how it should be. It's a strict separation of facts and values. +At this point, I'd like to address some likely criticism, namely [Hume's Guillotine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem). For those who don't know, Hume's Guillotine is the idea that you can't derive an "ought" from an "is". In other words, no description of how the world is tells you how it should be. It's a strict separation of facts and values. -Under my interpretation of moral language, [values are facts](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism). There's no distinction. As long as I value my health, I should exercise. That's a fact. If anyone disagrees, I'd be happy to reference the science that shows exercise improves health. "But science can't prove that it's Good to be healthy." I value my health. No further justification is necessary. +Under my interpretation of moral language, [values are facts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism). There's no distinction. As long as I value my health, I should exercise. That's a fact. If anyone disagrees, I'd be happy to reference the science that shows exercise improves health. "But science can't prove that it's Good to be healthy." I value my health. No further justification is necessary. Hume says "You can't get an ought from an is." I say "The is *is* the ought." **Values are facts about what we care about and moral statements are facts about the effects of different actions on those values.** How else could moral statements possibly be interpreted while also lining up with how they're actually used? @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ I won't bother going into more detail on that since a very good book has already ## Well Being In The Moral Landscape, Sam starts with well being as his ethical foundation. So let's talk about how that works in my moral semantics. -First, I'll start with the observation that [any level of intelligence is compatible with almost any intrinsic value/goal](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogonality_thesis). Humans though, as products of evolution by natural selection, share anthropomorphic goals. Generally speaking, we want to promote well being for ourselves and others. +First, I'll start with the observation that [any level of intelligence is compatible with almost any intrinsic value/goal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogonality_thesis). Humans though, as products of evolution by natural selection, share anthropomorphic goals. Generally speaking, we want to promote well being for ourselves and others. As a matter of convenience, we make the (usually correct) assumption that whoever we're dealing with has similar intrinsic values to us and thus we can attempt to reason with them. In the case of psychopaths, this may not be true. But they're rare enough that it doesn't matter. So I take no issue with Sam's starting with well being as the entry point for thinking about ethical questions. diff --git a/content/entry/manufacturing-agreement.md b/content/entry/manufacturing-agreement.md index 30bbc58..f7ec502 100644 --- a/content/entry/manufacturing-agreement.md +++ b/content/entry/manufacturing-agreement.md @@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ I don't know of another example that is as extreme as China's WeShat. It's defin I was unable to complete my education out of refusal to agree to big tech's ToS and PPs. The sad truth of the matter is, in much of the world, it's totally impractical to get a job and go to school without signing your soul away to big tech. But avoiding the ToS and PPs won't only leave you economically disadvantaged, it'll leave you socially isolated too. ### Social Activities -It's a basic human need to socialize with others. We are social animals. None of us is an island. But the most popular social media apps require you to agree to let them harvest your data. It's not so much that you can't avoid any particular app's ToS and PP. It's that all the apps that anyone actually uses have a ToS and PP requiring you to give up your data. The dreaded [network effect](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect) works for big tech and against everybody else. +It's a basic human need to socialize with others. We are social animals. None of us is an island. But the most popular social media apps require you to agree to let them harvest your data. It's not so much that you can't avoid any particular app's ToS and PP. It's that all the apps that anyone actually uses have a ToS and PP requiring you to give up your data. The dreaded [network effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect) works for big tech and against everybody else. Tech CEOs smugly respond "You don't have to agree to the ToS and PP. Just don't use our app.", but throwing the ToS and PP in user's faces is disingenuous. Maybe you don't have to agree to their social network's ToS and PP, but you practically have to agree to some social networking app's ToS and PP. Saying no to all big social networks, for some people, is just social suicide. Yet all the biggest social medias track users and do other nasty things that nobody should have to agree to. @@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ First, agreement to the ToS and PP of the social media services is manufactured. Next, the services are created to be maximally addictive. Social media companies even hire psychologists to help make their platforms as addictive as possible, worse even than tobacco. So once you're on them, they're hijacking your brain to stay. You're hooked. Now the brainwashing can commence. ### Step 3 -Apply Chomsky's idea that the information you see is filtered by what the stakeholders want you to see. But with social media, it's even worse. When Chomsky first published his book Manufacturing Consent in 1988, it wasn't possible for the media to manipulate people in an individually targeted way. Today, all you have to do is throw some money at Cambridge Analytica and they'll manipulate an entire election for you through Facecrook by using algorithms to [individually target users](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Analytica_data_scandal#Donald_Trump_campaign). +Apply Chomsky's idea that the information you see is filtered by what the stakeholders want you to see. But with social media, it's even worse. When Chomsky first published his book Manufacturing Consent in 1988, it wasn't possible for the media to manipulate people in an individually targeted way. Today, all you have to do is throw some money at Cambridge Analytica and they'll manipulate an entire election for you through Facecrook by using algorithms to [individually target users](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Analytica_data_scandal#Donald_Trump_campaign). Now consider that [half of Americans get their news from social media at least sometimes](https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2021/01/12/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-in-2020/), according to Pew research. At this point, it's beginning to sound very dark. So the big question is "What can we as mere consumers do about it?". I have a few pieces of advice to finish off this post. diff --git a/content/entry/merchants-should-stop-accepting-cryptocurrency.md b/content/entry/merchants-should-stop-accepting-cryptocurrency.md index 22ccb94..4104b10 100644 --- a/content/entry/merchants-should-stop-accepting-cryptocurrency.md +++ b/content/entry/merchants-should-stop-accepting-cryptocurrency.md @@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ By accepting digital tulips as payment and advertising it, you're warding off sa ## Privacy If it's customer privacy you're worried about, you should know almost all digital tulip schemes have a fully transparent blockchain. Despite the false advertising, this effectively makes the transactions less private than if your customers simply used a regular credit card. With a transparent blockchain, anyone with an internet connection can view every transaction. There are firms whose business model is to deanonymize public blockchains. Even Monero, a supposedly private blockchain, suffers from [statistical deanonymization vulnerabilities](https://ccs.getmonero.org/proposals/Rucknium-OSPEAD-Fortifying-Monero-Against-Statistical-Attack.html). -Consumer privacy is important. Customers can purchase an anonymous prepaid card in store or you can accept cash by mail, but both options are pretty inconvenient for consumers. Hopefully in the future something like [GNU Taler](https://taler.net) will fill the need for a convenient privacy-friendly digital payment system. Clearly, environmentally catastrophic digital ponzi schemes cannot be the final answer. +Consumer privacy is important. Customers can purchase an anonymous prepaid card in store or you can accept cash by mail, but both options are pretty inconvenient for consumers. Hopefully in the future something like [GNU Taler](https://taler.net/en/) will fill the need for a convenient privacy-friendly digital payment system. Clearly, environmentally catastrophic digital ponzi schemes cannot be the final answer. ## Respectability After digital tulips finally crash and burn and thousands of people lose their life savings, you'll be able to say you steered clear of the whole mess. In the future, that might even be something to brag about, that one's business didn't get involved in digital tulips. @@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ After digital tulips finally crash and burn and thousands of people lose their l ## Legitimacy By accepting digital tulips as a merchant, you legitimize them as a form of payment in the minds of consumers, further perpetuating the ponzi. This is why I made the decision not to accept digital tulips as a donation method even though there's no risk on my side of the transaction. -For a time, I considered accepting Ethereum only after its [proof of stake upgrade](https://ethereum.org/en/upgrades/merge/) since it would no longer be harming the environment so much. Then I decided even that was too much involvement with digital tulips. Consumers may first buy Bitcoin, then convert it to Ethereum for the purposes of making transactions. This would nullify the environmental benefits of Ethereum's upgrade. Better to stay out of the ponzi entirely. +For a time, I considered accepting Ethereum only after its [proof of stake upgrade](https://ethereum.org/en/roadmap/merge/) since it would no longer be harming the environment so much. Then I decided even that was too much involvement with digital tulips. Consumers may first buy Bitcoin, then convert it to Ethereum for the purposes of making transactions. This would nullify the environmental benefits of Ethereum's upgrade. Better to stay out of the ponzi entirely. ## Conclusion I hope business owners will make the same decision I have and reject digital tulips as a form of payment. diff --git a/content/entry/metaethics.md b/content/entry/metaethics.md index d5f71da..e40f2d9 100644 --- a/content/entry/metaethics.md +++ b/content/entry/metaethics.md @@ -11,19 +11,19 @@ There are at least 2 desirable properties for our moral semantics: 1. It should allow us to convince rational agents of our moral judgments. 2. It should minimize the number of assumptions we have to make. -Theories such as [emotivism](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotivism) assert moral sentences just express emotions. When I say "Murder is wrong", I don't mean "I dislike murder". Neither does anyone I have ever met. We want more out of a moral theory than expressing emotions. We want to be able to convince others of our judgments. Emotivism isn't what we're after. What about [universal prescriptivism](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_prescriptivism)? It holds that moral judgments such as "Murder is wrong" should be interpreted as "Don't murder". But just commanding someone to do something isn't necessarily convincing because it doesn't employ logical reasoning. It's unlikely to convince anyone that doesn't already believe they shouldn't be murdering. So again, it fails our first requirement of being able to convince others. Let's move on to some other theories. +Theories such as [emotivism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotivism) assert moral sentences just express emotions. When I say "Murder is wrong", I don't mean "I dislike murder". Neither does anyone I have ever met. We want more out of a moral theory than expressing emotions. We want to be able to convince others of our judgments. Emotivism isn't what we're after. What about [universal prescriptivism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_prescriptivism)? It holds that moral judgments such as "Murder is wrong" should be interpreted as "Don't murder". But just commanding someone to do something isn't necessarily convincing because it doesn't employ logical reasoning. It's unlikely to convince anyone that doesn't already believe they shouldn't be murdering. So again, it fails our first requirement of being able to convince others. Let's move on to some other theories. ## Hume's Guillotine -[Ethical naturalism](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_naturalism) says that moral propositions are objective properties of the cosmos. This means that we can look at features of reality and "see" what is right and wrong in the same way that we can look into a microscope and deduce the germ theory of disease. This idea of moral semantics is self-evidently absurd. Making no extra assumptions, nothing about the way the world is tells us the way it should be. I cannot deduce "Murder is wrong" from empirical facts like "The sky is blue" or any other facts about the physical or metaphysical cosmos. This strict divide between facts and moral judgments is known as [Hume's Guillotine](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem). +[Ethical naturalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_naturalism) says that moral propositions are objective properties of the cosmos. This means that we can look at features of reality and "see" what is right and wrong in the same way that we can look into a microscope and deduce the germ theory of disease. This idea of moral semantics is self-evidently absurd. Making no extra assumptions, nothing about the way the world is tells us the way it should be. I cannot deduce "Murder is wrong" from empirical facts like "The sky is blue" or any other facts about the physical or metaphysical cosmos. This strict divide between facts and moral judgments is known as [Hume's Guillotine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem). -[Ethical non-naturalism](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_non-naturalism) tries to bypass Hume's Guillotine by saying that these moral judgments are irreducible. Nothing about the way the cosmos is tells us how it should be, but how things should be is an objective irreducible (possibly intuitive) property of the cosmos itself. If someone asks me "Why shouldn't I murder?", the only correct response according to ethical non-naturalism is philosophical jargon like "It is an irreducible, intrinsic property of the universe that murder is wrong". If another ethical non-naturalist comes along saying murder is ethical, all I can do is repeat how my belief is an intrinsic property of the universe, so the other person must be mistaken. It would be like watching two [presuppositionalists](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presuppositional_apologetics) argue in circles. I'd be comfortable going on record saying presuppositional apologetics has never convinced anyone that didn't already believe what it is they were presupposing. More like they already believed something and went looking for philosophical jargon to defend it. That's exactly what ethical non-naturalism does and also why it's not convincing. Ethical non-naturalism fails both of our criteria because it is unconvincing to third-parties and requires making assumptions. +[Ethical non-naturalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_non-naturalism) tries to bypass Hume's Guillotine by saying that these moral judgments are irreducible. Nothing about the way the cosmos is tells us how it should be, but how things should be is an objective irreducible (possibly intuitive) property of the cosmos itself. If someone asks me "Why shouldn't I murder?", the only correct response according to ethical non-naturalism is philosophical jargon like "It is an irreducible, intrinsic property of the universe that murder is wrong". If another ethical non-naturalist comes along saying murder is ethical, all I can do is repeat how my belief is an intrinsic property of the universe, so the other person must be mistaken. It would be like watching two [presuppositionalists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presuppositional_apologetics) argue in circles. I'd be comfortable going on record saying presuppositional apologetics has never convinced anyone that didn't already believe what it is they were presupposing. More like they already believed something and went looking for philosophical jargon to defend it. That's exactly what ethical non-naturalism does and also why it's not convincing. Ethical non-naturalism fails both of our criteria because it is unconvincing to third-parties and requires making assumptions. -So far, we haven't had any luck finding a moral semantics that satisfies both our requirements. What about [divine command theory](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_command_theory)? According to it, god's moral judgments are correct. There is no evidence that a god or gods exist, but let's pretend for a moment that a god does exist and that god makes moral judgments. According to divine command theory, god's judgments are true. This raises the [Euthyphro dilemma](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_problem#The_dilemma): Are god's moral judgments true just because god declares them, or are god's moral judgments true because god only declares true moral judgments? If the former is true, then god can declare "Murder is perfectly morally okay" and it would be true because god said so and morality would be arbitrary. If the latter is true, then god is just the messenger for moral judgments that are true independent of god's opinion. Therefore god would be arbitrary. [Ideal observer theory](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_observer_theory) suffers from the same dilemma. Even if we ignore all of that, both theories still fail our second criteria. The assumption is that god or the ideal observer's judgments are true. We want to avoid making strong assumptions, so these theories aren't good either for our criteria. +So far, we haven't had any luck finding a moral semantics that satisfies both our requirements. What about [divine command theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_command_theory)? According to it, god's moral judgments are correct. There is no evidence that a god or gods exist, but let's pretend for a moment that a god does exist and that god makes moral judgments. According to divine command theory, god's judgments are true. This raises the [Euthyphro dilemma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_problem#The_dilemma): Are god's moral judgments true just because god declares them, or are god's moral judgments true because god only declares true moral judgments? If the former is true, then god can declare "Murder is perfectly morally okay" and it would be true because god said so and morality would be arbitrary. If the latter is true, then god is just the messenger for moral judgments that are true independent of god's opinion. Therefore god would be arbitrary. [Ideal observer theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_observer_theory) suffers from the same dilemma. Even if we ignore all of that, both theories still fail our second criteria. The assumption is that god or the ideal observer's judgments are true. We want to avoid making strong assumptions, so these theories aren't good either for our criteria. ## Moral Progress -I want to define "moral progress" before I continue. Moral progress means just what is sounds like; that it is possible to go from a less ethical society or individual to a more ethical one. Certain moral theories don't allow us to do this. [Error theory](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_theory) says that all moral claims are false. This is an assumption and it doesn't allow us to convince rational agents of our moral judgments because all moral judgments are false. "Murder is wrong" and "Murder is good" are both false under this theory. So it's a non-starter. We can't do anything useful with this theory. We can't convince others, can't reason, can't make deductions, and never have any reason to change our minds. +I want to define "moral progress" before I continue. Moral progress means just what is sounds like; that it is possible to go from a less ethical society or individual to a more ethical one. Certain moral theories don't allow us to do this. [Error theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_theory) says that all moral claims are false. This is an assumption and it doesn't allow us to convince rational agents of our moral judgments because all moral judgments are false. "Murder is wrong" and "Murder is good" are both false under this theory. So it's a non-starter. We can't do anything useful with this theory. We can't convince others, can't reason, can't make deductions, and never have any reason to change our minds. -Moral progress is also impossible under [moral relativism](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism). It's difficult to draw a hard line between what constitutes a "culture" or a "group", but let's ignore that for now. Let's say we have a very clear idea of who belongs to which culture at what time. According to relativistic morality, what is good is defined as what the "group" accepts as good. This group could be a single individual or a society. Let's take the case of a single individual. If I am my own group, then whatever I believe is automatically correct because I believe it. It's "true for me" that murder is wrong. It may not be true for another person or group, but it is true for me. Morality is relative. +Moral progress is also impossible under [moral relativism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism). It's difficult to draw a hard line between what constitutes a "culture" or a "group", but let's ignore that for now. Let's say we have a very clear idea of who belongs to which culture at what time. According to relativistic morality, what is good is defined as what the "group" accepts as good. This group could be a single individual or a society. Let's take the case of a single individual. If I am my own group, then whatever I believe is automatically correct because I believe it. It's "true for me" that murder is wrong. It may not be true for another person or group, but it is true for me. Morality is relative. With this reasoning, I am never wrong. There is never a reason for me to change my mind about any moral judgment because I'm right by definition. I can't convince other individuals because whatever they believe is "true for them", so this theory fails our first criteria. With cultural relativism, the culture is the group, not the individual. So, it might be possible for an individual to be wrong if they disagree with their culture. This would mean that an abolitionist in a slave-owning culture would be morally wrong about slavery because the predominant culture is in favor of owning slaves. Also, if the culture decides slavery is wrong, then there are two interpretations that can be made of their previous support of owning slaves. The first interpretation is that the culture was wrong to think that slave-owning was just, and now they have the right belief. But according to cultural relativism, this would also be true in the reverse direction. Going from an abolitionist culture to a slave-owning one would also have to be considered moral progress, since the only metric by which moral judgments can be made is what the existing culture believes. The second interpretation is that the culture was never wrong. When the culture was in favor of slave owning, it was in fact good to own slaves for that culture. And when the culture was in favor of the abolition of slavery, then owning slaves was immoral for that culture. This would imply that moral judgments can change over time, but moral progress never really happens. Moral progress aside, convincing other cultures of your culture's moral judgments has no rational basis in cultural relativism. Furthermore, it assumes that the culture is always right, a very strong assumption that fails our second criteria. @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ Other moral semantics define morality in different ways. For example, some defin The big problem with objective morality is it must make at least one assumption about what ought to be in order to bypass Hume's Guillotine. With utilitarianism, I am assuming that maximizing well-being and minimizing suffering is what we're after. I have to assume that to deduce that murder is wrong. Otherwise I can point out that murder reduces well-being all day long, but it won't get me anywhere because good has nothing to do with well-being. So we are stuck with either not being able to reason about moral judgments with rational agents, or assuming that good has something to do with well-being. -I am levying the same criticism about popular moral philosophy that [Immanuel Kant](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant) did back in his day through my examples. Kant rightly realized that objective moral philosophy has the insurmountable problem that it must rely on a "heavily subjective" moral imperative to get started. The earlier example I gave of well-being does not apply to people who only care about their own well-being. [Utilitarianism](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarian) will never persuade moral action on behalf of those that only care about themselves. Therefore, objective morality can never surpass [hypothetical imperatives](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_imperative). A hypothetical imperative only applies to someone who wishes to achieve certain ends. If I want to pass a test, I'd better study. Another way to say this is I only need to study if I want to pass the test. If I don't care about passing, then I can study or not. It makes no difference. Kant saw this as inadequate and came up with [categorical imperatives](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative) instead. Categorical imperatives boil down to [maxims](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxim_%28philosophy%29) which also have to be assumed. So while Kant rightly criticized the objective morality of his day for making assumptions, he went on to create his own theory also based on assumptions. +I am levying the same criticism about popular moral philosophy that [Immanuel Kant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant) did back in his day through my examples. Kant rightly realized that objective moral philosophy has the insurmountable problem that it must rely on a "heavily subjective" moral imperative to get started. The earlier example I gave of well-being does not apply to people who only care about their own well-being. [Utilitarianism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarian) will never persuade moral action on behalf of those that only care about themselves. Therefore, objective morality can never surpass [hypothetical imperatives](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_imperative). A hypothetical imperative only applies to someone who wishes to achieve certain ends. If I want to pass a test, I'd better study. Another way to say this is I only need to study if I want to pass the test. If I don't care about passing, then I can study or not. It makes no difference. Kant saw this as inadequate and came up with [categorical imperatives](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative) instead. Categorical imperatives boil down to [maxims](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxim_%28philosophy%29) which also have to be assumed. So while Kant rightly criticized the objective morality of his day for making assumptions, he went on to create his own theory also based on assumptions. ## Hypothetical Imperatives In a way, with this post, I am doing what Kant originally set out to do. He pointed out the same problems I see with objective morality and attempted to fix them. That is, existing moral systems all either require making some strong assumption or they don't make any assumptions but are useless when it comes to convincing rational agents of our moral judgments. But in doing so, he just made his own assumptions in the form of categorical imperatives. I am not going to do that. Kant's categorical imperatives are unnecessary. Hypothetical imperatives are all that's needed. Kant would have been right if he had just stopped after his criticism of objective morality and not tried to create his own Kantian morality. I do not need to assume my way around Hume's Guillotine because I'm not going to make any assumptions. There's no need for morality to go beyond hypothetical imperatives. I shall explain further. @@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ We all have values. Values are things we care about. Some values are fundamental Why does any of that matter? It matters because we can make certain assumptions about others' values. We can assume others generally value staying alive because evolution has baked that into all of us. Whether that is an intrinsic value or instrumental isn't important. As long as others value their continued existence, we can convince them that they ought to care about certain other instrumental values as well like having enough food to eat, having shelter, acting in a non-violent manner, etc. If we know someone's values, we can reason with them about what other values they should have, if they are rational. People often aren't rational, meaning they often have instrumental values incompatible with their intrinsic values. This is a fancy way of saying they don't know what's good for them. People can also be irrational by not doing what they know is good for them. It is common knowledge that a healthy diet and exercise is important, but we don't always do that even though we all want to be healthy. While people aren't always rational, I still consider it an important requirement of a moral system to be able to use rational arguments to convince others. -Hypothetical imperatives don't make any assumptions because they are stated as conditionals. They also allow us to reason with other rational agents about moral judgments. The vast majority of the population values something like well-being for themselves and other conscious creatures. Therefore, I can deduce their other instrumental values if they are being rational. This allows us to collaborate on our values. It means we can tell someone "Murder is wrong" and they understand that to mean "Murder is in contradiction with one or more of my instrumental or intrinsic values". It doesn't do any good to tell a psychopath that murder is wrong because they don't value the well-being of others. This is a big problem in artificial intelligence. If a general artificial intelligence is created that is incompatible with our intrinsic human values, it could be extraordinarily dangerous. The [orthogonality thesis](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogonality_thesis) explains that any level of intelligence is compatible with any goal. This means a superintelligent AI smarter than we can imagine could value maximizing the number of peanuts in the universe above all else, including human life. It need not have human values which is what makes it so dangerous. It's not that it's bent on harming people. It's just so bent on maximizing peanuts that it grinds humans up for resources to create peanuts. It is neutral toward our well-being because it only cares about peanuts. +Hypothetical imperatives don't make any assumptions because they are stated as conditionals. They also allow us to reason with other rational agents about moral judgments. The vast majority of the population values something like well-being for themselves and other conscious creatures. Therefore, I can deduce their other instrumental values if they are being rational. This allows us to collaborate on our values. It means we can tell someone "Murder is wrong" and they understand that to mean "Murder is in contradiction with one or more of my instrumental or intrinsic values". It doesn't do any good to tell a psychopath that murder is wrong because they don't value the well-being of others. This is a big problem in artificial intelligence. If a general artificial intelligence is created that is incompatible with our intrinsic human values, it could be extraordinarily dangerous. The [orthogonality thesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogonality_thesis) explains that any level of intelligence is compatible with any goal. This means a superintelligent AI smarter than we can imagine could value maximizing the number of peanuts in the universe above all else, including human life. It need not have human values which is what makes it so dangerous. It's not that it's bent on harming people. It's just so bent on maximizing peanuts that it grinds humans up for resources to create peanuts. It is neutral toward our well-being because it only cares about peanuts. We aren't going to convince psychopaths or AI systems to change their behavior by presenting them with moral theories. Hypothetical imperatives can explain why this is. Both the psychopath and the AI system do not share the same moral imperatives as most of humanity, so convincing them rationally is a lost cause. We don't lose anything by using only hypothetical imperatives. With rational agents that share our values, we can make convincing rational arguments. With rational agents that don't share our values such as psychopaths or AI, we never had any hope of convincing them anyway. With irrational agents, we may be able to convince them, but not using rational argument. Therefore whatever we are doing to convince them can't be considered moral reasoning, so we need not worry about it. @@ -53,14 +53,14 @@ The second less extreme scenario I gave with Person A and Person B is far more c Some may disagree, but I tend to be pragmatic. Language should be useful for communication. That's where I get my first criteria for moral semantics. What good is moral language if we can't use it to make rational arguments to convince others about our moral judgments? This is why I view theories like error theory, emotivism, and ethical non-naturalism as non-starters. They are not useful for convincing anybody of moral judgments and only serve to nullify moral language. Hypothetical imperatives are the most convincing way to interpret moral language such that extra assumptions are not necessary. # Moral Ontology -Given that I am using hypothetical imperatives to interpret moral language, should moral statements be interpreted as universal or relative? When I say "Murder is wrong", how can that apply to others who do not value human well-being? They can't exactly translate that to "Murder contradicts my instrumental or intrinsic values" if it in fact doesn't. Does this mean everyone has their own morality and [it's all relative](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism)? Or should we treat [common intrinsic values as universal](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism) and even those that don't value the well-being of others are subject to that moral judgment? +Given that I am using hypothetical imperatives to interpret moral language, should moral statements be interpreted as universal or relative? When I say "Murder is wrong", how can that apply to others who do not value human well-being? They can't exactly translate that to "Murder contradicts my instrumental or intrinsic values" if it in fact doesn't. Does this mean everyone has their own morality and [it's all relative](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism)? Or should we treat [common intrinsic values as universal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism) and even those that don't value the well-being of others are subject to that moral judgment? As I said before, we are far enough away from utopia that even if most of us don't share the exact same intrinsic values, they converge on instrumental values. Therefore, as a matter of language, it is best for us to talk as if everyone shares the value of well-being for themselves and others. This doesn't mean we universalize well-being into a global intrinsic value for everyone. Being a pragmatist, I care about convincing others of my values. I don't think it's really an important question if values are universal or relative. My answer to this would be interpret it however you want. Pragmatically, it isn't going to affect your ability to convince anyone. I personally am going to talk in a universal way because it sounds more natural and gets the point across. I am going to say "Murder is wrong", not "Murder is wrong, for me". "Murder is wrong" applies to everyone that shares the intrinsic value of increasing well-being and decreasing suffering, which is almost all humanity. So, even though I know that not everyone has an intrinsic set of values that can deduce "Murder is wrong", I am going to speak as if it's a universal anyway because it's close enough that I'm not going to speak with exception. "Murder is wrong" is a good analogy. Murder is wrong, generally. But what about in wartime? What about in self-defense? It's less clear. But despite that, we don't say things like "Murder is wrong except during wartime and except in self-defense and except...". We don't speak this way because the list of exceptions goes on forever. For the same reason, I am going to say "Murder is wrong" without considering all the edge cases like an AI that only values maximizing peanuts. The short answer to the moral ontology of my metaethics is "I don't care". You can treat it as relative or universal. It makes no difference to the hypothetical imperatives. Either someone shares your values and you can go about using rational argument to convince them or they don't and you can't. Whether you want to say "Murder is wrong" is true for only people that value well-being or it's true for everyone is a question I don't think deserves an answer. It's a question that doesn't have any meaning. Semantically, I think it makes the most sense to speak in universals ("Murder is wrong", not "Murder is wrong, for me") and I've given my reasons why. With that, I'll move on to the last section which is moral epistemology. # Moral Epistemology -Now that we know how to interpret moral judgments, how can we actually support or defend moral judgments? Part of my motivation for writing this post is how much I enjoyed Sam Harris' book [The Moral Landscape](https://samharris.org/books/the-moral-landscape/). I highly recommend it. In it, he explains how scientific facts can inform moral values. What many people take issue with is that he doesn't really solve the is-ought problem. He just asserts that morality has something to do with the well-being of conscious creatures. I don't take too much issue with this since it is almost universally true. I just avoid taking that step and instead use hypothetical imperatives to avoid running into [the is-ought problem that is a popular critique of his book](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HLJGabZ6siFHoC6Nh/sam-harris-and-the-is-ought-gap). +Now that we know how to interpret moral judgments, how can we actually support or defend moral judgments? Part of my motivation for writing this post is how much I enjoyed Sam Harris' book [The Moral Landscape](https://www.samharris.org/books/the-moral-landscape). I highly recommend it. In it, he explains how scientific facts can inform moral values. What many people take issue with is that he doesn't really solve the is-ought problem. He just asserts that morality has something to do with the well-being of conscious creatures. I don't take too much issue with this since it is almost universally true. I just avoid taking that step and instead use hypothetical imperatives to avoid running into [the is-ought problem that is a popular critique of his book](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HLJGabZ6siFHoC6Nh/sam-harris-and-the-is-ought-gap). The bigger problem I see with Sam's morality is one I brought up already. Even for those who do value well-being, there may be minute differences in the end goal those values imply. Some that value well-being may want a perfect utopia. Others that also value well-being may think that goes too far, that there should always be at least some discomfort to spice things up. Sam himself has admitted before that he finds the idea of a "well-being utopia" uncomfortable. His common response to criticisms of this sort is that the idea of well-being is fluid and continually evolving. However, this still doesn't solve the problem that some people, likely many people, just have irreconcilable intrinsic values, even if they all value well-being. For that reason, I choose not to assume that well-being is what everyone is after. This allows my theory to account for wide variances in value structures, but I understand why Sam starts with well-being. @@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ Now that I've finished criticizing what I think Sam got wrong, I'll talk about w > "If our well-being depends upon the interaction between events in our brains and events in the world, and there are better and worse ways to secure it, then some cultures will tend to produce lives that are more worth living than others; some political persuasions will be more enlightened than others; and some world views will be mistaken in ways that cause needless human misery." -With this, we get a sense for how Sam thinks about how science can inform moral values (well-being). On this, I agree with him. He is pointing out that some ways of being produce more well-being than others. Some ways of living, some cultures, some political persuasions, some world views will tend to produce more well-being than others. And we can use science to discover which ways of doing things produces the most well-being for everyone, even given slight differences in the way individuals value well-being. If I go on for too long about science informing moral values, I will just be summarizing his book. Instead of that, I would recommend reading [The Moral Landscape](https://samharris.org/books/the-moral-landscape/) to find out more. If you're a busy person, you can listen to the audiobook instead. Reading is more active than listening and also allows you to go at your own pace, so I would just read it if you have time. +With this, we get a sense for how Sam thinks about how science can inform moral values (well-being). On this, I agree with him. He is pointing out that some ways of being produce more well-being than others. Some ways of living, some cultures, some political persuasions, some world views will tend to produce more well-being than others. And we can use science to discover which ways of doing things produces the most well-being for everyone, even given slight differences in the way individuals value well-being. If I go on for too long about science informing moral values, I will just be summarizing his book. Instead of that, I would recommend reading [The Moral Landscape](https://www.samharris.org/books/the-moral-landscape) to find out more. If you're a busy person, you can listen to the audiobook instead. Reading is more active than listening and also allows you to go at your own pace, so I would just read it if you have time. With the way Sam defines morality, the other value structures without well-being as an intrinsic value aren't really relevant. With my semantics, they are. So I want to make a quick observation. Science can inform all value structures, not only maximizing well-being and minimizing suffering. This includes non-human value structures such as maximizing peanuts. You can imagine an AI using the scientific method to find the optimal configuration of matter for producing peanuts. If maximizing peanuts is your only intrinsic value, then science can inform you on what you should be doing to best accomplish that because some methods are going to produce more peanuts than other methods. This goes back to the hypothetical imperative. If you value maximizing peanuts, then you should use peanut-production method A rather than method B. Other than that, I think Sam's book does a great job at explaining how science can inform well-being. diff --git a/content/entry/my-career-path.md b/content/entry/my-career-path.md index 0589fb8..fe63cea 100644 --- a/content/entry/my-career-path.md +++ b/content/entry/my-career-path.md @@ -18,10 +18,10 @@ After I started attending SIUe, I found a job working for the IT department ther ## Unraveling Career-wise, my life was going pretty smoothly. The moment that changed was when my coworker accidentally red-pilled me by mentioning a name: Richard Stallman. From there, I did some research, learned about free software, became privy to the ethics of computing, and the rest is history. You can read about the rest in the very first posts of my blog: -[Inception - Rejecting Discord, Draw.io and Visual Studio](/2020/03/30/inception-rejecting-discord-drawio-and-visual-studio) -[Rejecting Discord and Google Colab](/2020/03/30/rejecting-discord-and-google-colab) -[Rejecting Visual Studio](/2020/04/30/rejecting-visual-studio) -[The Tipping Point - Rejecting Windows, Zoom, Lockdown Browser and The Lockdown Monitor](/2020/03/30/the-tipping-point-rejecting-windows-zoom-lockdown-browser-and-the-lockdown-monitor) +[Inception - Rejecting Discord, Draw.io and Visual Studio](/2020/03/30/inception-rejecting-discord-drawio-and-visual-studio/) +[Rejecting Discord and Google Colab](/2020/03/30/rejecting-discord-and-google-colab/) +[Rejecting Visual Studio](/2020/04/30/rejecting-visual-studio/) +[The Tipping Point - Rejecting Windows, Zoom, Lockdown Browser and The Lockdown Monitor](/2020/03/30/the-tipping-point-rejecting-windows-zoom-lockdown-browser-and-the-lockdown-monitor/) In short, it was causing me a lot of stress trying to avoid proprietary software while getting my degree. When Covid hit, it was a major catalyst for proprietary software. Using proprietary software became mandatory for remote test-taking. It dawned on me that there would be no way for me to complete my computer science degree, or any degree for that matter, in freedom even after talking with professors and the department chair about the issue. @@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ I got the Colemak keyboard layout supported in osboot. OSboot is one of my favorite free software projects. You can see a list of all the mirrors here: -[OSboot Mirrors](https://osboot.org/download.html) +[OSboot Mirrors](https://web.archive.org/web/20210519033353if_/https://osboot.org/download.html) ### Gemini Ever since supporting the Gemini protocol on my blog, I've interacted with fellow geminauts on the geminispace. I've shared my blog around and read some of what others put on there. It has grown a lot since its inception. I'll probably do another post about Gemini since I really prefer it over the web. diff --git a/content/entry/my-first-psychedelic-mushroom-trip-in-san-jose-del-pacifico.md b/content/entry/my-first-psychedelic-mushroom-trip-in-san-jose-del-pacifico.md index 28651c1..c8c304c 100644 --- a/content/entry/my-first-psychedelic-mushroom-trip-in-san-jose-del-pacifico.md +++ b/content/entry/my-first-psychedelic-mushroom-trip-in-san-jose-del-pacifico.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ date: 2023-04-12T00:00:00 draft: false --- ## Why I'm Sharing This Story -In general, it's good to share your trip stories because it serves important social purposes beyond mere entertainment. Namely, undermining the failed war on drugs by educating people about what drugs really do, not what the [thug](/glossary/) in [D.A.R.E.](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Abuse_Resistance_Education) told them drugs do. +In general, it's good to share your trip stories because it serves important social purposes beyond mere entertainment. Namely, undermining the failed war on drugs by educating people about what drugs really do, not what the [thug](/glossary/) in [D.A.R.E.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Abuse_Resistance_Education) told them drugs do. Personally, I planned on writing about my magic mushroom experience on this journal before I tripped in San José del Pacífico. But, after the challenging trip, I became hesitant to write about it. Ultimately I decided I have to share it though. diff --git a/content/entry/networked-ev-charging-stations.md b/content/entry/networked-ev-charging-stations.md index f01cb9b..edc27ab 100644 --- a/content/entry/networked-ev-charging-stations.md +++ b/content/entry/networked-ev-charging-stations.md @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ The bad news is the worst is still yet to come. There's not a huge opposition to ## How to Fight Back If your school or workplace wants to install a networked charging station, tell them you oppose this decision and would instead be in favor of a more privacy-respecting option such as a non-networked station. If you own an EV yourself, tell them that you will refuse to use the networked charging station because you don't want to encourage proprietary surveillance infrastructure. You could also stick fliers on the networked charging stations calling for EV drivers not to use the networked stations, or at least to become informed about the problem and organize. [Chargepoint puts out their own propaganda trying to spin the surveillance off as a good thing](https://www.chargepoint.com/blog/7-reasons-why-non-networked-charging-non-starter/), a myth we must dispel. The fact is all of the items on their list are doable with non-networked charging stations running free software. If you want analytics or access controls, you could imagine a cryptographic system that uses secure private tokens to protect EV driver privacy while also making analytics possible without any sign up or extra hassle to the driver. Proprietary charging station phone apps could also be avoided and replaced with free software alternatives. -[Vulnerabilities in networked charging stations](https://web.archive.org/web/20201108115340id_/https://amatas.com/news/view/schneider-electric-s-vehicle-charging-station-could-be-hacked) have been found in the past. As everyone should know, any time there is a database containing personal data, it becomes the target of hackers. The only way to completely prevent data from being stolen or leaked in the long run is by not collecting the data in the first place. Luckily with EV charging stations, storing location data is completely unnecessary. With enough public pressure we can just do away with it entirely. We just have to show that privacy is the priority. +[Vulnerabilities in networked charging stations](https://web.archive.org/web/20201108115340if_/https://amatas.com/news/view/schneider-electric-s-vehicle-charging-station-could-be-hacked) have been found in the past. As everyone should know, any time there is a database containing personal data, it becomes the target of hackers. The only way to completely prevent data from being stolen or leaked in the long run is by not collecting the data in the first place. Luckily with EV charging stations, storing location data is completely unnecessary. With enough public pressure we can just do away with it entirely. We just have to show that privacy is the priority. # SIUe When I was attending SIUe, I emailed the parking services staff in October of 2019 about the privacy concerns I had about the new Chargepoint stations that were being installed and encouraged them to install a non-networked station instead. The reply explained that while they understood my concerns, Chargepoint is what all the public universities in Illinois are using and they determined that it would be in the best interest of their constituents to install it. I was not able to change their decision, but I got the parking services staff to at least think about the issue because a well thought-out critique demands a well thought-out response. I don't want to see the United States turning into a nightmarish big brother surveillance hellscape where privacy is impossible and the government has such strong surveillance capability on everyone that it's "turnkey tyranny", as Snowden would say. Networked charging stations are one step closer to that bleak reality. Don't doubt for a second that the government can access EV charging station location data from networked charging stations. They absolutely can. Collecting the locations on millions of law-abiding citizens is a capability no government or private entity should be allowed have. Of course companies and governments get the same location data through smartphones anyway, but that must end too. One injustice doesn't justify another. That just means we have more work to do. diff --git a/content/entry/newcombs-paradox-resolved.md b/content/entry/newcombs-paradox-resolved.md index 1c5d3b2..7140b9e 100644 --- a/content/entry/newcombs-paradox-resolved.md +++ b/content/entry/newcombs-paradox-resolved.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ date: 2020-11-28T00:00:00 draft: false --- # Background -I "solved" [Newcomb's Paradox](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcomb%27s_paradox) about 3 years ago if I remember right. I use solved in quotes because you don't really "solve" a paradox. Paradoxes only seem to be contradictory at first glance. But, upon further inspection, they lead you to a new understanding of the problem where the paradox disappears. In other words, paradoxes arise out of a flawed or incomplete perspective. Newcomb's paradox in particular arises out of a misunderstanding of [free will](/2020/06/19/free-will-is-incoherent-part-1). +I "solved" [Newcomb's Paradox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcomb%27s_paradox) about 3 years ago if I remember right. I use solved in quotes because you don't really "solve" a paradox. Paradoxes only seem to be contradictory at first glance. But, upon further inspection, they lead you to a new understanding of the problem where the paradox disappears. In other words, paradoxes arise out of a flawed or incomplete perspective. Newcomb's paradox in particular arises out of a misunderstanding of [free will](/2020/06/19/free-will-is-incoherent-part-1/). # Telescoping Method Before I give away the "solution" to Newcomb's Paradox, I want to talk about my method for solving philosophical problems in general. I call it the telescoping method. When I am confronted with a philosophical problem, the first thing I do is try to understand the essence of the problem. To do that, I look at which abstractions the problem uses. I break them down and down until the problem makes sense. Then, one by one, I build up the abstractions again so I can explain in words what the solution is. I've found it to be very effective for philosophy. I'll use Newcomb's Paradox to show how it works. @@ -21,11 +21,11 @@ Here's the problem from Wikipedia ([CC BY-SA 3.0](https://creativecommons.org/li > The player does not know what the predictor predicted or what box B contains while making the choice. ## The Paradox -Let's make it clear why this situation is a paradox before we attempt to resolve it. We are going to assume that the player is trying to maximize their profits. There are 2 strategies from [game theory](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory) that you can apply to Newcomb's Paradox. +Let's make it clear why this situation is a paradox before we attempt to resolve it. We are going to assume that the player is trying to maximize their profits. There are 2 strategies from [game theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory) that you can apply to Newcomb's Paradox. -The first is the [expected utility hypothesis](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_utility_hypothesis). It says you should take only box B. Its reasoning goes like this: Imagine you watched 1,000 philosophers play. Philosophers are split 50/50 on the issue, so about 500 would pick only box B, winning $1,000,000 and about 500 would pick both boxes, winning $1000. From a statistical standpoint, it's obvious you should pick box B. +The first is the [expected utility hypothesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_utility_hypothesis). It says you should take only box B. Its reasoning goes like this: Imagine you watched 1,000 philosophers play. Philosophers are split 50/50 on the issue, so about 500 would pick only box B, winning $1,000,000 and about 500 would pick both boxes, winning $1000. From a statistical standpoint, it's obvious you should pick box B. -The second is the [strategic dominance principle](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_dominance). It says you should take boxes A and B. Its reasoning goes like this: After the predictor has made its prediction and either put the $1,000,000 in box B or not, it can't change the amounts in the boxes. Therefore, choosing both boxes will always yield $1000 more than choosing only box B. You should take both boxes. +The second is the [strategic dominance principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_dominance). It says you should take boxes A and B. Its reasoning goes like this: After the predictor has made its prediction and either put the $1,000,000 in box B or not, it can't change the amounts in the boxes. Therefore, choosing both boxes will always yield $1000 more than choosing only box B. You should take both boxes. At first glance, both of these principles seem very compelling. It's paradoxical because they offer conflicting advice. How can we resolve this? @@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ If it's not the infallible predictor causing the paradox, could the essence of t Even if your sincere intention is to pick only box B before the predictor makes its prediction, yet you change your mind and choose both boxes in the after prediction stage, the predictor will still correctly predict your choice and you will only win $1000. ### Choice -We already examined the infallibility of the predictor and the player intent abstractions. They don't seem to cause the paradox. Perhaps the abstraction of choice is the problem? Newcomb's Paradox assumes it makes sense to talk about the player making a "choice" between 2 boxes and 1 box. But language to describe making a choice between several options is used in plenty of game theory problems. Even though I have shown that [free will is incoherent](/2020/06/19/free-will-is-incoherent-part-1), using what I call "the language of free will" doesn't seem to be an issue for other game theory problems. Why then would it be especially problematic in Newcomb's Paradox? Allow me to defer to some dialogue between Neo and The Oracle from [The Matrix](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Matrix): +We already examined the infallibility of the predictor and the player intent abstractions. They don't seem to cause the paradox. Perhaps the abstraction of choice is the problem? Newcomb's Paradox assumes it makes sense to talk about the player making a "choice" between 2 boxes and 1 box. But language to describe making a choice between several options is used in plenty of game theory problems. Even though I have shown that [free will is incoherent](/2020/06/19/free-will-is-incoherent-part-1/), using what I call "the language of free will" doesn't seem to be an issue for other game theory problems. Why then would it be especially problematic in Newcomb's Paradox? Allow me to defer to some dialogue between Neo and The Oracle from [The Matrix](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Matrix): > Oracle: Candy? > Neo: Do you already know if I'm going to take it? @@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ TLDR; choose only box B. Long answer: There is a very subtle contradiction in the definition of Newcomb's Paradox. Can you spot it? It says "The player does not know what the predictor predicted or what box B contains while making the choice". The hidden assumption there is that the "choice point" is after the predictor's prediction. This is impossible. The abstraction of choice collapses after the predictor has made the prediction. If we have to pick a point in time where it still makes any sense to talk about a "choice" being made, it would have to be before the predictor made the prediction. The strategic dominance principle is inherently tied to the idea of the player having a free choice after the predictor made the prediction. Therefore, it can't be the solution. -Meanwhile taking only box B is supported by mathematical expected value, which doesn't rely on free choice being available after the prediction. It just says "If you take only box B, you can expect $1,000,000. If you take both boxes, you can expect $1,000". There's no notion of free will there. It's a purely statistical argument. The strategic dominance principle only seems appealing because of the strong intuition of having a free choice after the predictor has made the prediction. While [retrocausality](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrocausality) doesn't actually occur in Newcomb's Paradox, it's not a bad mental model for thinking about the problem. Since the predictor is infallible, it has effective retrocausality. What the predictor did in the past is based on the box it already knows you're going to take. There's no real paradox, you just can't outwit the predictor even though your intuitions tell you that you "feel free". +Meanwhile taking only box B is supported by mathematical expected value, which doesn't rely on free choice being available after the prediction. It just says "If you take only box B, you can expect $1,000,000. If you take both boxes, you can expect $1,000". There's no notion of free will there. It's a purely statistical argument. The strategic dominance principle only seems appealing because of the strong intuition of having a free choice after the predictor has made the prediction. While [retrocausality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrocausality) doesn't actually occur in Newcomb's Paradox, it's not a bad mental model for thinking about the problem. Since the predictor is infallible, it has effective retrocausality. What the predictor did in the past is based on the box it already knows you're going to take. There's no real paradox, you just can't outwit the predictor even though your intuitions tell you that you "feel free". You might think it doesn't make sense to prescribe players the strategy of choosing box B only, since they have "already made the choice" whether or not to take only box B. But, consider that by the same token, we have "already made the choice" whether or not to prescribe the player the strategy to take box B. So, it is equally coherent for us to prescribe the player to take box B as it is for the player to actually take box B. Saying there's no point in prescribing the player a course of action is akin to saying you'll just stay in bed all day since you have no free will. The "choice" to do nothing is also not of your own free will. In other words, you're not escaping your lack of free will by doing nothing. We aren't escaping the lack of the player's free will by not prescribing them a best course of action as we don't have free will either. So, there's no reason not to tell the player to take only box B. diff --git a/content/entry/nobody-knows-how-many-bullshit-jobs-exist.md b/content/entry/nobody-knows-how-many-bullshit-jobs-exist.md index 81acd6b..b1440fc 100644 --- a/content/entry/nobody-knows-how-many-bullshit-jobs-exist.md +++ b/content/entry/nobody-knows-how-many-bullshit-jobs-exist.md @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ title: "Nobody Knows How Many Bullshit Jobs Exist" date: 2023-05-27T00:00:01 draft: false --- -Before I get into this, I need to define what bullshit jobs are exactly. To do that, I'll quote the person who popularized the idea, deceased American anthropologist [David Graeber](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Graeber): +Before I get into this, I need to define what bullshit jobs are exactly. To do that, I'll quote the person who popularized the idea, deceased American anthropologist [David Graeber](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Graeber): > "Bullshit jobs are jobs which even the person doing the job can’t really justify the existence of, but they have to pretend that there’s some reason for it to exist. That’s the bullshit element. A lot of people confuse bullshit jobs and shit jobs, but they’re not the same thing. > @@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ Before I get into this, I need to define what bullshit jobs are exactly. To do t Here are a few examples: movie executives, sign spinners, academic administrative staff, telemarketers, middle management, gas pumpers, door assistants, etc. -So my claim in this entry is that nobody knows how many [bullshit jobs](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs) exist. I'm not claiming that the number of bullshit jobs is unknowable, just that the methodologies that have been used to determine the number of bullshit jobs (polling) don't produce accurate results. +So my claim in this entry is that nobody knows how many [bullshit jobs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs) exist. I'm not claiming that the number of bullshit jobs is unknowable, just that the methodologies that have been used to determine the number of bullshit jobs (polling) don't produce accurate results. For instance, someone may respond to a poll saying their job is pointless just because it's a shit job. This may just be a problem with how the question is posed, but there are several other reasons that mere self-reporting might be unreliable in this particular case. Even if people do understand the question, it may be detrimental to their sense of meaning in life to admit to themselves that their job is pointless, so they lie on the poll. That seems likely to me. diff --git a/content/entry/on-blockchain.md b/content/entry/on-blockchain.md index 3c42864..0b56e28 100644 --- a/content/entry/on-blockchain.md +++ b/content/entry/on-blockchain.md @@ -15,18 +15,18 @@ I'm going to talk about blockchain in the context of cryptocurrencies. Hencefort For starters the multi-billion dollar cryptocurrency market may not exist without blockchain. Even non-blockchain based cryptocurrencies reference the blockchain based Bitcoin in their white papers. While there are functioning non-blockchain cryptocurrencies, they might never have been conceived without the initial inspiration from Bitcoin. Bitcoin is still the most valuable coin and it still uses blockchain. As I write this, it's nearing an all-time high of $30k USD per 1 BTC. ## Smart Contracts -Shortly after Bitcoin [Vitalik Buterin](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalik_Buterin)'s blockchain based [Ethereum](https://ethereum.org) cryptocurrency hit the scene featuring [smart contracts](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_contract). Smart contracts are programs that automatically run on top of a blockchain. They enable decentralized exchanges, [ERC20](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/ERC20) tokens, [CryptoKitties](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/CryptoKitties), decentralized cloud storage payment, governance, and digital contracts. These use cases are only possible because of the security assurance blockchain provides. +Shortly after Bitcoin [Vitalik Buterin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalik_Buterin)'s blockchain based [Ethereum](https://ethereum.org/en/) cryptocurrency hit the scene featuring [smart contracts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_contract). Smart contracts are programs that automatically run on top of a blockchain. They enable decentralized exchanges, [ERC20](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ERC20) tokens, [CryptoKitties](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CryptoKitties), decentralized cloud storage payment, governance, and digital contracts. These use cases are only possible because of the security assurance blockchain provides. ## Darknet Markets -Since cryptocurrencies enable anonymous irreversible transactions with no middlemen, they are used on [darknet markets](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darknet_market) which otherwise wouldn't exist. Some say darknet markets have done more to prevent drug-related violence than the DEA ever has. Those same markets also sell guns, stolen credit card details, and hackers for hire. It's hard to say one way or the other if they are an overall force for good. But darknet markets are only possible because of the anonymity of blockchain. +Since cryptocurrencies enable anonymous irreversible transactions with no middlemen, they are used on [darknet markets](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darknet_market) which otherwise wouldn't exist. Some say darknet markets have done more to prevent drug-related violence than the DEA ever has. Those same markets also sell guns, stolen credit card details, and hackers for hire. It's hard to say one way or the other if they are an overall force for good. But darknet markets are only possible because of the anonymity of blockchain. Blockchain is a powerful, transformational technology still relevant twelve years after the [Bitcoin white paper](https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf) was originally published. Love it or hate it, there's no denying its influence on cryptography, pop culture and finance. # Blockchain's Failures -You'll notice I still use blockchain to [accept donations](/about/) for this website. That's because I know of no better way to accept anonymous online donations. The moment I know of a better way I'll update my donation methods. If [GNU Taler](http://www.gnu.org/ghm/2020-january/taler.pdf) ever gains popularity, I will use it instead. In any case, I've given the devil his due, so now I'll move on to the problems with blockchain. And blockchain is fraught with problems. +You'll notice I still use blockchain to [accept donations](/about/) for this website. That's because I know of no better way to accept anonymous online donations. The moment I know of a better way I'll update my donation methods. If [GNU Taler](https://www.gnu.org/ghm/2020-january/taler.pdf) ever gains popularity, I will use it instead. In any case, I've given the devil his due, so now I'll move on to the problems with blockchain. And blockchain is fraught with problems. ## Blockchain Doesn't Scale -Blockchain's biggest problem can be summed up in one word: scalability. To make sense of blockchain's scalability problem, [CAP theorem](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAP_theorem) is a great place to start. +Blockchain's biggest problem can be summed up in one word: scalability. To make sense of blockchain's scalability problem, [CAP theorem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAP_theorem) is a great place to start. ### CAP Theorem CAP theorem says you can have no more than 2 out of the 3 qualities in a distributed data store: @@ -48,19 +48,19 @@ None of this is to say that cryptocurrencies can't scale. On the contrary a scal ## Blockchain is Slow A problem that arises out of blockchain's scalability problem is blockchain is slow. It takes time to finalize transactions. If transaction volume is very high, it can take an indefinite amount of time to finalize a transaction. It could be hours or days. Even the fastest blockchains are torturously slow given high enough transaction volume. If you're buying goods at the supermarket that's useless. The cashier isn't going to stand there for 20 minutes waiting for your transaction to confirm. And they aren't going to take the risk of letting you leave before it confirms since you could perform a [double-spend](https://bitcoinwiki.org/wiki/Double-spending) in the meantime. If you pay a high fee so your transaction confirms quickly, you just drive the fees up for everyone, making the currency unusable. -I can hear blockchain enthusiasts objecting saying blockchain can be fast because of "layer 2" solutions like the [Bitcoin lightning network](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_Network). A layer 2 solution means not all transactions need to be included in the blockchain. If 2 parties transact frequently, they can establish a "payment channel" on the blockchain, perform transactions with instant confirmation off-chain, then confirm the final amounts on-chain after the payment channel expires. Once you and your favorite coffee shop have a payment channel open speed is no longer an issue. +I can hear blockchain enthusiasts objecting saying blockchain can be fast because of "layer 2" solutions like the [Bitcoin lightning network](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_Network). A layer 2 solution means not all transactions need to be included in the blockchain. If 2 parties transact frequently, they can establish a "payment channel" on the blockchain, perform transactions with instant confirmation off-chain, then confirm the final amounts on-chain after the payment channel expires. Once you and your favorite coffee shop have a payment channel open speed is no longer an issue. My response to layer 2 solutions is that while they greatly improve transaction speed, they doesn't solve the fundamental problem. Instead of being limited by transactions per second blockchain becomes limited by payment channels per second. You still can't have infinite payment channels opened per second because that has to occur on-chain. In that case it's not transactions that are slow. It's opening/closing transaction channels that's slow. Layer 2 solutions will never scale infinitely when layer 1 is still subject to the CAP theorem. ## Blockchain Price is Volatile Another failure of blockchain that has nothing to do with scalability is price volatility. The price of Bitcoin for example changes dramatically. The market just can't decide how much Bitcoin or any other blockchain is worth. This makes blockchain a bad [store of value](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/storeofvalue.asp). -There are several economic theories about what gives something value. Like fiat currency, blockchain isn't backed by a commodity. It's backed by a combination of confidence, expectation, practical utility, [past value](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_theorem) and because geeks think it's neat. +There are several economic theories about what gives something value. Like fiat currency, blockchain isn't backed by a commodity. It's backed by a combination of confidence, expectation, practical utility, [past value](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_theorem) and because geeks think it's neat. Stablecoins are the exception to blockchain volatility. They keep the value of the coin constant. They are backed either by other blockchains, fiat currency reserves, or some commodity like gold bars. But all of these solutions are problematic. ### Other Blockchains -Backing blockchain with other blockchains is problematic since it pushes the problem of price volatility onto another cryptocurrency. It just passes the buck to someone else making for [bad coupling](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coupling_%28computer_programming%29). +Backing blockchain with other blockchains is problematic since it pushes the problem of price volatility onto another cryptocurrency. It just passes the buck to someone else making for [bad coupling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coupling_%28computer_programming%29). ### Fiat Currencies Backing blockchain with fiat currency is also problematic because fiat-backed stablecoins are dependent on their fiat counterparts which in turn depend on large financial institutions and governments, effectively linking the success of the cryptocurrency with the success of the fiat currency. For maximum decentralization of power and independence, cryptocurrencies shouldn't be dependent on fiat in that way. It also passes the buck of price volatility to the fiat currency. This is bad because some fiat currencies have been even more volatile than Bitcoin! @@ -74,12 +74,12 @@ Backing blockchain with digital commodities (not other cryptocurrencies) seems v Therefore price volatility isn't an inherent problem of blockchain since blockchain can be backed by digital commodities. Of course there are other reasons blockchain continues to be volatile pricewise besides lack of "inherent" value. But those are social problems related to blockchain. They don't necessarily have technical solutions. For that reason I don't consider price volatility an inherent problem of blockchain. It's only a long-term problem for blockchains that don't back their coin with a digital commodity, which just happens to be most of them right now. ## Blockchain Wastes Energy -Now onto another problem with blockchain that isn't an inherent problem but is serious enough to deserve a mention. Energy usage is a problem for the subset of blockchains that are based on [proof of work](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_work). Proof of work wastes tremendous amounts of energy. Whenever I bring this up, proponents of proof of work immediately counter by saying the work isn't wasted because it's used to secure the blockchain. But this argument is circular. The blockchain only needs to be secured by spending energy because that's how it was set up. There are alternatives for securing blockchain that don't require such massive energy consumption. One of those alternatives is [proof of stake](https://vitalik.ca/general/2020/11/06/pos2020.html). +Now onto another problem with blockchain that isn't an inherent problem but is serious enough to deserve a mention. Energy usage is a problem for the subset of blockchains that are based on [proof of work](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_work). Proof of work wastes tremendous amounts of energy. Whenever I bring this up, proponents of proof of work immediately counter by saying the work isn't wasted because it's used to secure the blockchain. But this argument is circular. The blockchain only needs to be secured by spending energy because that's how it was set up. There are alternatives for securing blockchain that don't require such massive energy consumption. One of those alternatives is [proof of stake](https://web.archive.org/web/20210101145757if_/https://vitalik.ca/general/2020/11/06/pos2020.html). Saying that proof of work doesn't waste energy when proof of stake uses almost no energy in comparison and gets the same job done is like cutting your lawn with scissors one blade of grass at a time and saying it's not a waste of time because it gets the grass cut meanwhile you have a working lawnmower in the garage. Given, proof of stake is newer than proof of work so we didn't always have a lawnmower. Scissors were the only option for a while. But it's 2021, we do have lawnmowers now and there's no excuse to continue using scissors to cut the grass. ## Blockchain Isn't Private -Every cryptocurrency that exists except [Monero](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monero_%28cryptocurrency%29) fails to provide users with privacy. The sender, receiver and amount transacted are all publicly visible to everyone. While there are no real names on the blockchain, online services link Bitcoin addresses with real people, deanonymizing Bitcoin. It also means Bitcoin isn't fungible. +Every cryptocurrency that exists except [Monero](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monero_%28cryptocurrency%29) fails to provide users with privacy. The sender, receiver and amount transacted are all publicly visible to everyone. While there are no real names on the blockchain, online services link Bitcoin addresses with real people, deanonymizing Bitcoin. It also means Bitcoin isn't fungible. Monero ensures that no one looking at the blockchain can see the sender, receiver or amount of a transaction by default. Monero still uses proof of work but there's [formally verified research](https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/1105.pdf) from 2018 showing that there's no contradiction with having both proof of stake and privacy. Privacy isn't an inherent problem of blockchain. It's just something most blockchains unfortunately aren't implementing. @@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ Monero ensures that no one looking at the blockchain can see the sender, receive The only problem inherent to blockchain is scalability. Speed is related to scalability so it can be considered as the same problem. But it's a fatal one. Blockchain cannot overcome its scalability problem. This is why blockchain is poorly suited for cryptocurrency. A new architecture is needed. ## What About DAGs? -Cryptocurrencies that use directed acyclic graphs (DAGS) like [Iota](https://www.iota.org/) and [Nano](https://nano.org) do not solve the scalability problems plaguing blockchain because DAGs also require every node to see every transaction. Therefore CAP theorem applies and the same scalability and speed problems arise. +Cryptocurrencies that use directed acyclic graphs (DAGS) like [Iota](https://www.iota.org/) and [Nano](https://nano.org/en) do not solve the scalability problems plaguing blockchain because DAGs also require every node to see every transaction. Therefore CAP theorem applies and the same scalability and speed problems arise. ## What About X Data Structure? If it qualifies as a distributed data store (i.e. every node has to see every transaction) the CAP theorem applies and it can't scale infinitely. @@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ If it qualifies as a distributed data store (i.e. every node has to see every tr # Why Infinite Scalability is Necessary Some readers might think I'm making too big a deal of scalability. After all, there are cryptocurrencies that have layer 2 scaling solutions allowing thousands of transactions per second. Isn't that good enough? Isn't it committing the [black or white fallacy](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white) to say that infinite scalability is necessary? -No. Finite scalability isn't sufficient for a very simple reason. As I said before there will eventually be an infinitely scalable cryptocurrency, a cryptocurrency capable of infinite transactions per second. And there's no reason to think that infinite scalability is in contradiction with any of the other desirable properties of cryptocurrency. Perhaps in the short term cryptocurrency projects that don't scale infinitely can compete with ones that do. They may temporarily have some edge. For instance the first infinitely scalable cryptocurrency might not be as private as Monero, so people will still use Monero. It might not support smart contracts like Ethereum, so people will still use Ethereum. The price might not be as stable as Tether, so people will still use Tether. But those are all problems that can eventually be solved. In the long term, cryptocurrencies that don't scale, no matter how high their maximum [TPS](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactions_per_second), won't be able to compete with ones that do scale infinitely. +No. Finite scalability isn't sufficient for a very simple reason. As I said before there will eventually be an infinitely scalable cryptocurrency, a cryptocurrency capable of infinite transactions per second. And there's no reason to think that infinite scalability is in contradiction with any of the other desirable properties of cryptocurrency. Perhaps in the short term cryptocurrency projects that don't scale infinitely can compete with ones that do. They may temporarily have some edge. For instance the first infinitely scalable cryptocurrency might not be as private as Monero, so people will still use Monero. It might not support smart contracts like Ethereum, so people will still use Ethereum. The price might not be as stable as Tether, so people will still use Tether. But those are all problems that can eventually be solved. In the long term, cryptocurrencies that don't scale, no matter how high their maximum [TPS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactions_per_second), won't be able to compete with ones that do scale infinitely. That's why infinite scalability is vital for the long-term success of a crypto project. @@ -119,10 +119,10 @@ You might say the same thing about Monero. It will never scale unless it abandon The cryptocurrency projects most worth investment, research and development are those with real prospects of infinite scalability since scalability has been the issue for a decade now. The other desirable qualities for a cryptocurrency are easier to add later but scalability is something that has to be designed for from the beginning. I'm not talking about temporary layer 2 scaling solutions that are only band-aids to the problem. Layer 2 solutions actually prove my point that in order to achieve infinite scalability it can't be an afterthought. Scalability has to be baked into the design from the very beginning. I would place [Safe Network](https://safenetwork.org) in this category. ## Useful Cryptocurrencies -Then there are projects in use today that work well and are likely to continue to be useful in the short-term (a few years), but they don't scale infinitely. They won't be viable long term. Investing time and effort into them isn't a waste since they serve a useful purpose now. [Monero](https://www.monero.how) is a perfect example. It offers privacy. [Ethereum](https://ethereum.org) offers smart contracts and proof of stake. [Nano](https://nano.org) offers feeless instant transactions and decent scalability. +Then there are projects in use today that work well and are likely to continue to be useful in the short-term (a few years), but they don't scale infinitely. They won't be viable long term. Investing time and effort into them isn't a waste since they serve a useful purpose now. [Monero](https://www.monero.how) is a perfect example. It offers privacy. [Ethereum](https://ethereum.org/en/) offers smart contracts and proof of stake. [Nano](https://nano.org/en) offers feeless instant transactions and decent scalability. ## Outdated Cryptocurrencies -And then you have projects that have been important in the past, but should probably be abandoned now. They have no unique properties that make them especially useful. They aren't making any major innovations. It's probably a waste of time to develop for them other than critical bug fixes. I'm looking at [Bitcoin](https://bitcoin.org), [Bitcoin Cash](https://www.bitcoincash.org), and [Litecoin](https://litecoin.com). +And then you have projects that have been important in the past, but should probably be abandoned now. They have no unique properties that make them especially useful. They aren't making any major innovations. It's probably a waste of time to develop for them other than critical bug fixes. I'm looking at [Bitcoin](https://bitcoin.org/en/), [Bitcoin Cash](https://bitcoincash.org/), and [Litecoin](https://litecoin.com/en/). ## Vaporware Finally there are the projects that are going absolutely nowhere. They are held up by marketing and the illusion of progress through smoke and mirrors. They trick gullible investors and sometimes themselves into thinking they are the next big thing. When you look closely at their white paper and fundamentals it becomes clear their solutions don't work in the real world. [Iota](https://www.iota.org) is in this category. It's centralized, yet it has been promising decentralization for years with no way to get there. When evaluating these kinds of projects, remember Hanlon's razor: @@ -132,6 +132,6 @@ Finally there are the projects that are going absolutely nowhere. They are held # Crypto Optimism After dishing out so much criticism of blockchain and the crypto space, I want to end on a positive note. I'm actually very optimistic about the crypto space. With so many different cryptocurrency projects, things can seem like a chaotic mess. But out of the ashes of a thousand failed projects and lost savings will rise a phoenix. That phoenix is the first decentralized, infinitely scalable, fast, value stable, energy efficient, private cryptocurrency. It might take a long time to get there, but the mere technical possibility has me confident we will see it come to fruition. It will accomplish what Bitcoin originally set out to do. -Blockchain will be seen as a prototype, a stepping stone that kicked off something greater. There will be other "stepping stones" along the way. But scalability and the abandonment of globally synced data structures has to be the first. The other issues with cryptocurrency have only been solved in the context of globally synced data structures that don't scale. Those solutions won't necessarily translate over to a scalable context. When infinite scalability is finally achieved, we will hit the next milestone toward [Satoshi Nakamoto](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satoshi_Nakamoto)'s original vision of a decentralized, digital, free (as in freedom) financial system available to everyone but owned by no one. +Blockchain will be seen as a prototype, a stepping stone that kicked off something greater. There will be other "stepping stones" along the way. But scalability and the abandonment of globally synced data structures has to be the first. The other issues with cryptocurrency have only been solved in the context of globally synced data structures that don't scale. Those solutions won't necessarily translate over to a scalable context. When infinite scalability is finally achieved, we will hit the next milestone toward [Satoshi Nakamoto](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satoshi_Nakamoto)'s original vision of a decentralized, digital, free (as in freedom) financial system available to everyone but owned by no one. That is something to get excited about. diff --git a/content/entry/on-compassion.md b/content/entry/on-compassion.md index bc25340..a334eb1 100644 --- a/content/entry/on-compassion.md +++ b/content/entry/on-compassion.md @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ Compassion for me simply means a concern for other conscious beings, whether tho Now people on the other hand are ascribed moral agency. People know right from wrong and it's thought that they have the free will to choose between the two. So someone that chooses to do wrong is considered undeserving of compassion and possibly deserving of suffering. -Now in normal conversation I don't feel the need to clarify words like "choice" with a lengthy explanation of how free will doesn't actually exist, because 99% of the time it doesn't matter. But "choice" is a leaky abstraction which causes problems in rare cases. I've written about this before in the context of [Newcomb's Paradox](/2020/11/28/newcombs-paradox-resolved). As it turns out, compassion is another one of those rare cases where it's important to be extremely clear about language like "choice". So I'm forced to talk about the subject of free will again. +Now in normal conversation I don't feel the need to clarify words like "choice" with a lengthy explanation of how free will doesn't actually exist, because 99% of the time it doesn't matter. But "choice" is a leaky abstraction which causes problems in rare cases. I've written about this before in the context of [Newcomb's Paradox](/2020/11/28/newcombs-paradox-resolved/). As it turns out, compassion is another one of those rare cases where it's important to be extremely clear about language like "choice". So I'm forced to talk about the subject of free will again. # The Sensible View of Compassion I've already debunked free will in [two](/2020/06/19/free-will-is-incoherent-part-1/) [separate](/2020/08/22/free-will-is-incoherent-part-2/) journal entries. You can go read those if you like. If not, I'm about to give a crash course anyways. If anything you're about to read in the next section confuses you or you find it hard to follow, I suggest going back to my two previous posts dedicated to free will for some background. With that, I'll continue. @@ -86,7 +86,7 @@ I know it sounds cliché, but real change comes from within. Trying to "force" y I should also note that awareness is a prerequisite of the letting go I'm talking about. It's not as simple as just letting go. Most people live life too dimly aware to even realize when they're trying to control things by force that can't be controlled. I don't count myself as exempt from this. Awareness can come from a practice like mindfulness meditation. Mindfulness can make you a more aware, more compassionate, less reactive person. ### The Social Expectation of Suffering -Then there's also the social aspect. So many people are suffering and dissatisfied with life that it has become a social expectation. When the average person comes across someone like Eckhart Tolle who isn't waiting for a reason to be happy, who is content doing nothing but [sitting on a park bench for years on end](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eckhart_Tolle), they [deny that level of inner peace is even possible and attribute it to mental illness](https://web.archive.org/web/20211017211346id_/https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Eckhart_Tolle). +Then there's also the social aspect. So many people are suffering and dissatisfied with life that it has become a social expectation. When the average person comes across someone like Eckhart Tolle who isn't waiting for a reason to be happy, who is content doing nothing but [sitting on a park bench for years on end](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eckhart_Tolle), they [deny that level of inner peace is even possible and attribute it to mental illness](https://web.archive.org/web/20211017211346if_/https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Eckhart_Tolle). I'm not saying that Tolle isn't mentally ill or is "fully enlightened". But to me it seems whoever wrote that article about him went out of their way to mischaracterize everything he said, or at least, not give him the benefit of the doubt. diff --git a/content/entry/on-cultural-appropriation.md b/content/entry/on-cultural-appropriation.md index cd6c0c6..dfe8729 100644 --- a/content/entry/on-cultural-appropriation.md +++ b/content/entry/on-cultural-appropriation.md @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ draft: false --- There seems to be moral confusion about why cultural appropriation is bad. I'd like to use this entry to clear that up. We'll start with the Wikipedia definition of cultural appropriation: -> "Cultural appropriation is the inappropriate or unacknowledged adoption of an element or elements of one culture or identity by members of another culture or identity" - [Wikipedia](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_appropriation), [CC BY-SA 3.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/) +> "Cultural appropriation is the inappropriate or unacknowledged adoption of an element or elements of one culture or identity by members of another culture or identity" - [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_appropriation), [CC BY-SA 3.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/) Let's spend some time on that definition. First of all, it uses the weasel word "[inappropriate](/glossary/)". This is not a straw man picking on a particular definition either. I've seen several online articles accusing people of cultural appropriation that use words like "inappropriate", "offensive", "distasteful", and "disrespectful". These words tell us absolutely nothing about why cultural appropriation is morally wrong. diff --git a/content/entry/on-malware.md b/content/entry/on-malware.md index 4c60727..9f5c5a6 100644 --- a/content/entry/on-malware.md +++ b/content/entry/on-malware.md @@ -7,14 +7,14 @@ draft: false # A Hypothetical Program Imagine a program that: -1. [Has a "universal back door" that allows the developer to make remote changes to users' systems without their knowledge or permission.](http://www.informationweek.com/microsoft-updates-windows-without-user-permission-apologizes/d/d-id/1059183) -2. [Forces upgrades on its users.](https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/manage-updates-in-windows-10-643e9ea7-3cf6-7da6-a25c-95d4f7f099fe) +1. [Has a "universal back door" that allows the developer to make remote changes to users' systems without their knowledge or permission.](https://www.informationweek.com/it-sectors/microsoft-updates-windows-without-user-permission-apologizes) +2. [Forces upgrades on its users.](https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/manage-updates-in-windows-643e9ea7-3cf6-7da6-a25c-95d4f7f099fe) 3. [Steals users' encryption keys.](https://theintercept.com/2015/12/28/recently-bought-a-windows-computer-microsoft-probably-has-your-encryption-key/) 4. [Forcibly removes software from its users' systems.](https://uk.pcmag.com/operating-systems/131798/microsoft-starts-automatically-removing-flash-from-windows) 5. [Pesters its users when they don't install the "preferred browser".](https://www.ghacks.net/2018/09/12/microsoft-intercepting-firefox-chrome-installation-on-windows-10/) -6. [Displays annoying ads on users' systems.](http://www.theverge.com/2017/3/17/14956540/microsoft-windows-10-ads-taskbar-file-explorer) -7. [Spies on users while they use it, with surveillance anti-features that cannot be disabled.](https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/10/dutch-privacy-regulator-says-that-windows-10-breaks-the-law) -8. [Forces users to be online just to write a text document.](https://products.office.com/en-us/microsoft-office-for-home-and-school-faq?legRedir=true&CorrelationId=c9c5b549-11ad-4f71-bf81-b7e069fdb372) +6. [Displays annoying ads on users' systems.](https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/17/14956540/microsoft-windows-10-ads-taskbar-file-explorer) +7. [Spies on users while they use it, with surveillance anti-features that cannot be disabled.](https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/10/dutch-privacy-regulator-says-that-windows-10-breaks-the-law/) +8. [Forces users to be online just to write a text document.](https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/microsoft-365-for-home-and-school-faq) 9. [Blocks users from downloading any apps other than the ones the developers approve of.](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/03/windows-10-s-microsoft-faster-pc-comparison) 10. [Purposely deletes ebooks that users have already bought.](https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47810367) @@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ The main difference with malware in free and proprietary software is when a free It is true that free software generally has far fewer anti-features due to its very nature of the source code being public. However free (as in freedom) software isn't immune to malware. The Spyware Watchdog Article Catalog lists free software programs that it considers spyware. Spyware is a subcategory of malware focused on user spying. The catalog is doing with spyware much the same thing I'm doing with the word malware; it is applying a broader definition of spyware to programs to see what happens. The results are quite interesting. See the link below for their spyware list. -[Spyware Watchdog](https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/index.html) +[Spyware Watchdog](https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/) Finally, one reason free software has less malware is reputation. Reputation is important to many programmers and adding anti-features to programs might mean no one will trust your work any more, so there's a strong incentive to not do that. This is true even if you're only pseudonymous like some i2p developers are. Your anonymous identity still has a reputation and it's best to preserve it. diff --git a/content/entry/on-nick-bostrom.md b/content/entry/on-nick-bostrom.md index a95cd66..85d370a 100644 --- a/content/entry/on-nick-bostrom.md +++ b/content/entry/on-nick-bostrom.md @@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ For those who don't know [Nick Bostrom](https://nickbostrom.com), I'll include a > > Bostrom’s academic work has been translated into more than 30 languages. He is a repeat main TED speaker and has been interviewed more than 1,000 times by various media. He has been on Foreign Policy’s Top 100 Global Thinkers list twice and was included in Prospect’s World Thinkers list, the youngest person in the top 15. As a graduate student he dabbled in stand-up comedy on the London circuit, but he has since reconnected with the heavy gloom of his Swedish roots." -Bostrom is obviously a very accomplished guy. I believe I first discovered him through his oft-misunderstood paper on the [Simulation Argument](https://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.pdf). I studied his simulation argument and its criticisms very closely. After many hours of researching criticisms and his responses to criticisms, I concluded that his argument is sound and even intuitive if you change your perspective to 4th-dimensional thinking. He adequately addressed some of the criticisms in his own responses and for those criticisms he didn't address, I was able to come up with my own responses. +Bostrom is obviously a very accomplished guy. I believe I first discovered him through his oft-misunderstood paper on the [Simulation Argument](https://simulation-argument.com/simulation.pdf). I studied his simulation argument and its criticisms very closely. After many hours of researching criticisms and his responses to criticisms, I concluded that his argument is sound and even intuitive if you change your perspective to 4th-dimensional thinking. He adequately addressed some of the criticisms in his own responses and for those criticisms he didn't address, I was able to come up with my own responses. In my opinion, publishing the simulation hypothesis alone should be enough to make a name in philosophy. But Bostrom, like me, is a polymath. He's contributed ideas to many other disciplines. Instead of listing them out, I'll include another snippet from his website: @@ -23,14 +23,14 @@ I'd love to see more people doing work on strategies for humanity's long-term fu I admit I haven't read all of his published papers, but I've read and understood a good number of them. There are many more I'd love to read just based on skimming them, but I don't currently have the time. I'll leave you with a few favorites from what I've read so far, in no particular order: -* [The Vulnerable World Hypothesis](http://www.nickbostrom.com/papers/vulnerable.pdf) -* [Where Are They? Why I hope the search for extraterrestrial life finds nothing](http://www.nickbostrom.com/extraterrestrial.pdf) -* [The Future of Humanity](http://www.nickbostrom.com/papers/future.html) -* [Astronomical Waste: The Opportunity Cost of Delayed Technological Development](http://www.nickbostrom.com/astronomical/waste.html) -* [Information Hazards: A Typology of Potential Harms from Knowledge](http://www.nickbostrom.com/information-hazards.pdf) -* [Why I Want to be a Posthuman When I Grow Up](http://www.nickbostrom.com/posthuman.pdf) -* [Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?](https://www.simulation-argument.com/) +* [The Vulnerable World Hypothesis](https://nickbostrom.com/papers/vulnerable.pdf) +* [Where Are They? Why I hope the search for extraterrestrial life finds nothing](https://nickbostrom.com/papers/where-are-they/) +* [The Future of Humanity](https://nickbostrom.com/papers/future) +* [Astronomical Waste: The Opportunity Cost of Delayed Technological Development](https://nickbostrom.com/papers/astronomical-waste/) +* [Information Hazards: A Typology of Potential Harms from Knowledge](https://nickbostrom.com/information-hazards.pdf) +* [Why I Want to be a Posthuman When I Grow Up](https://nickbostrom.com/posthuman.pdf) +* [Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?](https://simulation-argument.com/) * [Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0198739834) -* [The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant](http://www.nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon.html) -* [In Defense of Posthuman Dignity](http://www.nickbostrom.com/ethics/dignity.html) -* [Letter from Utopia](http://www.nickbostrom.com/utopia.html) +* [The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant](https://nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon) +* [In Defense of Posthuman Dignity](https://nickbostrom.com/ethics/dignity) +* [Letter from Utopia](https://nickbostrom.com/utopia) diff --git a/content/entry/on-spirituality.md b/content/entry/on-spirituality.md index c3a2e38..b5d409e 100644 --- a/content/entry/on-spirituality.md +++ b/content/entry/on-spirituality.md @@ -6,17 +6,17 @@ draft: false # Clarification > "The fundamental game of being is like the game of hide and go seek. We hide in the thoughts we don't know we're having. They become who we are. Then one day, something or someone wakes us up and we realize we were playing a game the entire time. This could take 10 seconds or 10 years depending on the person. But, the game goes on several times in a single human life, played out in a different way each time. Just imagine all the ways the game is being played across all of humanity. The game of being a good person and not an evil one. The game of seeking happiness. The game of seeking enlightenment..." > -> -- Me in [Ego Traps](/2020/08/02/ego-traps) +> -- Me in [Ego Traps](/2020/08/02/ego-traps/) Some of you just read that thinking something along the lines of "What on earth is he talking about? He's gone off the deep end". Skeptics would say I'm peddling [Deepak Chopra](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Deepak_Chopra) level [woo-woo](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Woo). And I can't blame them for thinking that. Take the first sentence "The fundamental game of being is like the game of hide and go seek". If you read that as a literal statement, it's unfalsifiable at best and meaningless at worst. The rest of that paragraph and parts of other posts tagged "spirituality" have the same problem. For that, I apologize. I never meant to peddle woo-woo. I am definitely no Deepak Chopra and I have no intentions of promoting pseudoscience or irrational thinking. -At the time I probably wasn't even sure how I wanted those posts to be interpreted. I was unsure of my writing because I was unsure of my thinking. You can see that in my protracted preface to [Doublethink](/2020/06/14/doublethink): +At the time I probably wasn't even sure how I wanted those posts to be interpreted. I was unsure of my writing because I was unsure of my thinking. You can see that in my protracted preface to [Doublethink](/2020/06/14/doublethink/): > As a quick note, what people post online is often taken as something they will forever agree with and are forever held to. This is unreasonable. There needs to be some equivalent of forgiveness if one posts something horrible online, but that's a topic for another post. I'm not saying people aren't responsible for what they post. But I am saying we should aspire to take the most charitable interpretation of what people post if we care about advancing the conversation. Obviously a person's character is a factor in how you interpret what they post. > -> On my blog, I want to retain the right to post not only ideas that I understand well. But I also want the freedom to talk about things I'm not sure about. That means I run the risk of being wrong. No one posting their ideas online openly should expect to be immune to criticism. Criticism comes with the territory. But I want to say I'm interested in sharing ideas. If it's clear to me you're only interested in taking my words out of context, twisting what I write or using cheap gotchas because I didn't state something perfectly, then I probably won't respond. If you want clarification about anything I discuss, visit my [about page](/about) for contact details. With that cleared up, let's move on to the meat of this post. +> On my blog, I want to retain the right to post not only ideas that I understand well. But I also want the freedom to talk about things I'm not sure about. That means I run the risk of being wrong. No one posting their ideas online openly should expect to be immune to criticism. Criticism comes with the territory. But I want to say I'm interested in sharing ideas. If it's clear to me you're only interested in taking my words out of context, twisting what I write or using cheap gotchas because I didn't state something perfectly, then I probably won't respond. If you want clarification about anything I discuss, visit my [about page](/about/) for contact details. With that cleared up, let's move on to the meat of this post. > -> -- Me in [Doublethink](/2020/06/14/doublethink) +> -- Me in [Doublethink](/2020/06/14/doublethink/) Anyone who has tried to express spiritual experiences and concepts can attest to the difficulty of conveying them to others without sounding like a [quack](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quackery). I don't have a good remedy for that. What I do have is an explanation for why it's so difficult. @@ -24,18 +24,18 @@ Anyone who has tried to express spiritual experiences and concepts can attest to There's a simple reason talking about spirituality is hard. It's because words never do justice to spiritual experience. Nothing I can say in the English language, or any other language, can convey the gravity of a truly spiritual experience. Spiritual orators therefore appropriately resort to analogy, myth and storytelling to allude to their spiritual experiences. # Spirituality and Skeptics -The problem skeptics readily point out is most spiritual orators are all too sympathetic to pseudoscience, religion and woo-woo. This leads them to conclude that spiritual experiences are just forms of mental illness and irrationality. What they don't realize is spiritual orators gravitate to pseudoscience, religion and woo-woo precisely because skeptics fail to connect to the character of spiritual experiences. That is to say if I want to talk about spirituality I have a much better chance at effectively imparting my experiences to a priest than a skeptic. To quote Sam Harris' blog post [What's the Point of Transcendence?](https://samharris.org/whats-the-point-of-transcendence/): +The problem skeptics readily point out is most spiritual orators are all too sympathetic to pseudoscience, religion and woo-woo. This leads them to conclude that spiritual experiences are just forms of mental illness and irrationality. What they don't realize is spiritual orators gravitate to pseudoscience, religion and woo-woo precisely because skeptics fail to connect to the character of spiritual experiences. That is to say if I want to talk about spirituality I have a much better chance at effectively imparting my experiences to a priest than a skeptic. To quote Sam Harris' blog post [What's the Point of Transcendence?](https://www.samharris.org/blog/whats-the-point-of-transcendence): > "...experiences of self-transcendence are generally only sought and interpreted in a religious or “spiritual” context—and these are precisely the phenomena that tend to increase a person’s faith. How many Christians, having felt self-transcending love for their neighbors in church or body-dissolving bliss in prayer, decide to ditch Christianity? Not many, I would guess. How many people who never have experiences of this kind (no matter how hard they try) become atheists? I don’t know, but there is no question that these states of mind act as a kind of filter: they get counted in support of ancient dogma by the faithful; and their absence seems to give my fellow atheists yet another reason to reject religion. > > Reading the comments on Jerry’s blog exposes the problem in full. There are several people there who have absolutely no idea what I’m talking about—and they take this to mean that I am not making sense. Of course, religious people often present the opposite problem: they tend to think they know exactly what I’m talking about, in so far as it can seem to support one religious doctrine or another. Both these orientations present impressive obstacles to understanding." -Harris has even had to [defend his use of the word spiritual](https://samharris.org/a-plea-for-spirituality/) and argue that [spiritual experiences actually happen](https://samharris.org/on-spiritual-truths/). Us spiritual skeptics have always been on the defense of spirituality against skeptics that seem to have never had a spiritual experience in their life. Or if they have had such an experience they somehow failed to see [the significance of it](https://samharris.org/whats-the-point-of-transcendence/). +Harris has even had to [defend his use of the word spiritual](https://www.samharris.org/blog/a-plea-for-spirituality) and argue that [spiritual experiences actually happen](https://www.samharris.org/blog/on-spiritual-truths). Us spiritual skeptics have always been on the defense of spirituality against skeptics that seem to have never had a spiritual experience in their life. Or if they have had such an experience they somehow failed to see [the significance of it](https://www.samharris.org/blog/whats-the-point-of-transcendence). # Going Forward I don't want to always be playing defense when sharing spiritual ideas. But I do want to avoid making unsubstantiated and vague claims about the nature of experience. So from this point forward posts tagged "spirituality" are not to be interpreted as [truth-apt](https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803105953845), even in the limited context of subjective experience. In other words I'm not making any truth claims. But I also want to clarify that I'm not writing mere "poetry" either. What I am trying to do is offer a body of text, which is artistic in nature, that corresponds to a real subjective experience had by myself or someone else. -If you read the experiments on [headless.org](https://headless.org/experiments/) that I have referred to in the past, my spiritual writing going forward will be similar to that writing style. It's the same sort of writing. However the reason I want to avoid making truth-apt claims is that we all have different subjective experiences. The final authority on your experience is you. If your subjective experience contradicts my writing, your subjective experience should take precedence. My inner world is almost certainly different than yours and I'm not trying to impose by saying you must relate to a specific myth or [poem](https://headless.org/poetry-home.htm) or [experiment](https://headless.org/experiments) that I find compelling. +If you read the experiments on [headless.org](https://headless.org/experiments) that I have referred to in the past, my spiritual writing going forward will be similar to that writing style. It's the same sort of writing. However the reason I want to avoid making truth-apt claims is that we all have different subjective experiences. The final authority on your experience is you. If your subjective experience contradicts my writing, your subjective experience should take precedence. My inner world is almost certainly different than yours and I'm not trying to impose by saying you must relate to a specific myth or [poem](https://headless.org/poetry-home.htm) or [experiment](https://headless.org/experiments) that I find compelling. The reason I share that myth or poem or experiment is because I found it compelling or at least I saw how others could find it compelling in their spiritual journey. Your experience may be completely different and that's absolutely fine. It's to be expected because we're dealing in subjectivity, not objectivity. diff --git a/content/entry/on-the-intellectual-dark-web.md b/content/entry/on-the-intellectual-dark-web.md index 5304826..0cbf9ba 100644 --- a/content/entry/on-the-intellectual-dark-web.md +++ b/content/entry/on-the-intellectual-dark-web.md @@ -26,8 +26,8 @@ The reason I bring this up is because politics has become so polarized that as s If you wanna talk politics with me, let's put the labels aside and stick to specific issues. Don't assume I hold all these beliefs I never espoused. Just treat me like an individual, like an independent, thinking person and I'll treat you with the same respect. Then, just maybe, we'll get somewhere. # The Intellectual Dark Web -Interestingly, there's a growing number of people that feel the way I do, who have lost patience with the blind, rank partisanship of all the major news networks on every issue, the uncivil shouting matches, and the lost art of civil discussion. They make up what's now called the "[intellectual dark web](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_dark_web)" (IDW). I include people like [Anthony Magnabosco](https://yewtu.be/channel/UCocP40a_UvRkUAPLD5ezLIQ?dark_mode=true) in the IDW, people who are having civil, fascinating discussions and showing others how to have them. +Interestingly, there's a growing number of people that feel the way I do, who have lost patience with the blind, rank partisanship of all the major news networks on every issue, the uncivil shouting matches, and the lost art of civil discussion. They make up what's now called the "[intellectual dark web](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_dark_web)" (IDW). I include people like [Anthony Magnabosco](https://yewtu.be/channel/UCocP40a_UvRkUAPLD5ezLIQ?dark_mode=true) in the IDW, people who are having civil, fascinating discussions and showing others how to have them. -When you finish reading this, maybe go watch a few of Anthony's Street Epistemology (SE) videos. I plan on making a follow up journal entry dedicated to SE, but I think introducing new techniques like SE into discussions is key. There are people in politics like [Andrew Yang](https://www.andrewyang.com/), who are promoting new ideas for moving forward. The most popular podcaster in the entire world who interviews people from all walks of life, [Joe Rogan](https://www.joerogan.com/), seems, to my eye, absolutely dedicated to having civil discussions. IDWers like [Sam Harris](https://samharris.org/) go on major news networks and almost never lose composure. People like Sam are the very definition of nonreactive and they're nigh-impossible to drag into shouting matches because they're just so damn reasonable. +When you finish reading this, maybe go watch a few of Anthony's Street Epistemology (SE) videos. I plan on making a follow up journal entry dedicated to SE, but I think introducing new techniques like SE into discussions is key. There are people in politics like [Andrew Yang](https://www.andrewyang.com/), who are promoting new ideas for moving forward. The most popular podcaster in the entire world who interviews people from all walks of life, [Joe Rogan](https://www.joerogan.com/), seems, to my eye, absolutely dedicated to having civil discussions. IDWers like [Sam Harris](https://www.samharris.org/) go on major news networks and almost never lose composure. People like Sam are the very definition of nonreactive and they're nigh-impossible to drag into shouting matches because they're just so damn reasonable. There's a reason podcasters like Joe Rogan are doing so well right now. It's not just that Joe makes an entertaining show. It's also that people are disenchanted with the highly directed, highly controlled, boring partisan conversations. The key distinguishing feature of "members" of the IDW is, whatever their political/ideological affiliations are, they're all committed to civil, honest discussion. I think we need more people out there like that right now. diff --git a/content/entry/on-transgender-athletes.md b/content/entry/on-transgender-athletes.md index 8dc427a..75c42a7 100644 --- a/content/entry/on-transgender-athletes.md +++ b/content/entry/on-transgender-athletes.md @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ title: "On Transgender Athletes" date: 2022-03-27T00:00:01 draft: false --- -Edit (06-12-2023): Trans sports is often used as a [wedge issue](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_issue "Wedge Issue") to divide working class people politically, so I just want to reemphasize how extremely low priority it is. Nobody should base their vote on microscopic issues like trans sports while we're battling grave problems like poverty and climate change. I only wrote about this issue because I found it intellectually interesting, but politicians who spend time harping on it don't have their priorities straight and probably aren't worth voting for. +Edit (06-12-2023): Trans sports is often used as a [wedge issue](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_issue "Wedge Issue") to divide working class people politically, so I just want to reemphasize how extremely low priority it is. Nobody should base their vote on microscopic issues like trans sports while we're battling grave problems like poverty and climate change. I only wrote about this issue because I found it intellectually interesting, but politicians who spend time harping on it don't have their priorities straight and probably aren't worth voting for. I don't really care about professional sports, so I have no personal stake in the trans athlete debate. I consider this issue really low priority. The percentage of professional trans athletes is very tiny and there are bigger problems in society. But I've heard a lot of confusion on the topic, so I'd like to chime in. @@ -13,14 +13,14 @@ The reason I say it's more relevant is that biological men and women have indisp I get it. We want to be inclusive of trans people, and I think we should be. But biological sex is what's relevant to performance in professional sports, not gender identification. So it should be made clear that the separation is one of biological sex, not gender. It's not anti-transgender to not want trans athletes competing with the gender they identify with. -We already separate people in professional sports based on biological differences, like [disability](https://www.specialolympics.org/). For instance, many extremely intelligent people are autistic. Imagine putting [rain man](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Peek) (if he were still alive) up against any neurotypical human in a memory contest. It doesn't matter who the neurotypical is. They're getting crushed every time. Imagine putting [Daniel Tammet](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Tammet), an autistic savant who learned conversational Icelandic within a week, up against other language learners. It wouldn't be fair. His autistic brain gives him a massive advantage. +We already separate people in professional sports based on biological differences, like [disability](https://www.specialolympics.org/). For instance, many extremely intelligent people are autistic. Imagine putting [rain man](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Peek) (if he were still alive) up against any neurotypical human in a memory contest. It doesn't matter who the neurotypical is. They're getting crushed every time. Imagine putting [Daniel Tammet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Tammet), an autistic savant who learned conversational Icelandic within a week, up against other language learners. It wouldn't be fair. His autistic brain gives him a massive advantage. And you might say "Aren't all these distinctions arbitrary? Neurotypical people's brains differ. Should less intelligent neurotypicals get their own league too?". And I think that hits on an important point. We choose how to divide people up and there's plenty of room for reasonable people to disagree about the divisions. -But biological sex is definitely a meaningful way of differentiating people in sports, and it's unambiguous. You either have XX chromosomes or XY chromosomes, and that can be used to determine [sex](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_sex-determination_system). Biological women who don't want to compete against trans women aren't being antitransgenderist. They just don't want to get crushed by trans women who, in many cases, have clear biological advantages over them. +But biological sex is definitely a meaningful way of differentiating people in sports, and it's unambiguous. You either have XX chromosomes or XY chromosomes, and that can be used to determine [sex](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_sex-determination_system). Biological women who don't want to compete against trans women aren't being antitransgenderist. They just don't want to get crushed by trans women who, in many cases, have clear biological advantages over them. Calling such people antitransgenderists muddles anti-transgenderism. There are people who actually hate transgender people. They give them dirty looks as they walk down the street. They name-call. They talk poorly of them behind their back. Most of these professional athletes, I assume, are not antitransgenderists. -When pro athletes like [Ronda Rousey](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronda_Rousey) are asked about transgender issues, they don't know what the hell to say. They're athletes. They've spent their lives training, not learning about every little social issue. Just because they're not updated on the most politically sensitive language doesn't make them anti-transgenderist. +When pro athletes like [Ronda Rousey](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronda_Rousey) are asked about transgender issues, they don't know what the hell to say. They're athletes. They've spent their lives training, not learning about every little social issue. Just because they're not updated on the most politically sensitive language doesn't make them anti-transgenderist. If you can't tell the difference between a pro athlete using politically insensitive language to advocate against trans women in women's sports and someone who yells "TRAP!" at a trans person passing by on the street, you are the problem. You are the reason we can't have civil discourse about these issues. And you are unprepared to solve problems in the real world. diff --git a/content/entry/organization-let-grow.md b/content/entry/organization-let-grow.md index 6c9d6cd..2b80ee0 100644 --- a/content/entry/organization-let-grow.md +++ b/content/entry/organization-let-grow.md @@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ We got pretty good at making paper guns. It was a blast. It was so much in fact I was the chief architect behind the "chaos" in the classroom and quite satisfied that the other children had taken to my game. I felt accomplished. But when I sat in the chair in the principal's office, I felt ashamed. I wasn't sure exactly what I had done wrong, but a bunch of authoritative-sounding adults decided it was wrong. I now realize that the adults were making a big deal out of what was actually normal childhood play. # The Swine Flu -On a different day, I was outside on the playground. Some other student had come up with a pandemic-like game similar to tag. It started with one "infected" person. That person tagged someone else who then became infected. So on and so forth until everyone was infected, and then we restarted. It was a fun twist on the game of tag and unlike tag, it had a definite ending. Given the timing, I think the disease was supposed to be [swine flu](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic) since that was happening at around the same time I was in grade school. +On a different day, I was outside on the playground. Some other student had come up with a pandemic-like game similar to tag. It started with one "infected" person. That person tagged someone else who then became infected. So on and so forth until everyone was infected, and then we restarted. It was a fun twist on the game of tag and unlike tag, it had a definite ending. Given the timing, I think the disease was supposed to be [swine flu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic) since that was happening at around the same time I was in grade school. The playground monitor who watched over us, a woman probably between the ages of thirty and fifty at the time, told us that the swine flu game was no longer allowed. I never learned why not. It didn't make sense to me as a kid. It was just a modified game of tag where we simulated a pandemic that was already of concern anyways. @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ Children are more resilient than they get credit for. They're not nearly as frag This is all in stark contrast to how our grandparents were raised. They weren't babied. They were allowed to be free and independent and have real childhoods without child protective services being called. In the span of a few decades, we've went from allowing children to play freely to coddling them to the point that they learn none of the skills they need to be functional adults. # Let Grow -A while back, I found an organization that's working to fight against these absolutely stupid trends robbing children and parents of the lives they deserve. It's called [Let Grow](https://letgrow.org). They have a lot of good information on their website, such as [recommended books](https://letgrow.org/our-books/) on the subject, [research](https://letgrow.org/resources/essential-reading-list/), advocacy to change the laws surrounding [child abuse and neglect](https://letgrow.org/legislative-toolkit/), and [educational resources for schools and communities](https://letgrow.org/program/educational-resources/). +A while back, I found an organization that's working to fight against these absolutely stupid trends robbing children and parents of the lives they deserve. It's called [Let Grow](https://letgrow.org). They have a lot of good information on their website, such as [recommended books](https://letgrow.org/books/) on the subject, [research](https://letgrow.org/facts-research/), advocacy to change the laws surrounding [child abuse and neglect](https://letgrow.org/legislative-toolkit/), and [educational resources for schools and communities](https://letgrow.org/program/educators/). I've read through some of Let Grow's stuff and I think their work is vital to solving this problem. I think the problem is real and quite serious. We have to give children their independence back. I'm not saying how children were raised in the old days was perfect. I don't want to idealize the old days, but in terms of childhood independence, it was better. So I just want to promote Let Grow and make everyone aware that there is a movement against this overprotective parenting. For more information about Let Grow, check out their website. @@ -48,4 +48,4 @@ Let Grow should be about children gaining more independence and parents and educ # Conclusion Based on what I've seen of Let Grow, they're doing a good job promoting childhood independence and I think they should stick to that. More childhood independence seems to be a very widely supported goal which shouldn't be diluted by taking public positions on the work ethic of millennials or the ethics of spanking. -If you have extra money, please [send a donation to Let Grow](https://letgrow.org/program/donate/) to help end helicopter parenting, restore childhood independence, and make parenting more bearable again. Thanks. +If you have extra money, please [send a donation to Let Grow](https://letgrow.org/donate/) to help end helicopter parenting, restore childhood independence, and make parenting more bearable again. Thanks. diff --git a/content/entry/oxen-security-fail.md b/content/entry/oxen-security-fail.md index a32abef..fc750fe 100644 --- a/content/entry/oxen-security-fail.md +++ b/content/entry/oxen-security-fail.md @@ -6,11 +6,11 @@ draft: false --- Lately I've been doing research on the Oxen Privacy Tech Foundation and their various projects. On 19 September while looking at Session, I noticed getsession.org was missing the [Strict-Transport-Security header](https://securityheaders.com/?q=https%3A%2F%2Fgetsession.org&followRedirects=on). So I decided to also check the security headers for [oxen.io](https://securityheaders.com/?q=https%3A%2F%2Foxen.io&followRedirects=on), [lokinet.org](https://securityheaders.com/?q=https%3A%2F%2Flokinet.org&followRedirects=on), and [optf.ngo](https://securityheaders.com/?q=https%3A%2F%2Foptf.ngo&followRedirects=on) and what do you know, they're also missing HTTP security headers. -The download links for each project are all vulnerable to network-level [man-in-the-middle attacks](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-in-the-middle_attack). They also load external resources with no CSP header. They're all missing X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options, Referrer-Policy, and a Permissions-Policy. This is the web security equivalent of leaving your front door open. +The download links for each project are all vulnerable to network-level [man-in-the-middle attacks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-in-the-middle_attack). They also load external resources with no CSP header. They're all missing X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options, Referrer-Policy, and a Permissions-Policy. This is the web security equivalent of leaving your front door open. When I noticed the lack of security headers on getsession.org, I emailed support@getsession.org informing them of the issue the same day. Over a week later, it's still not fixed and I have no response. How long has their website been insecure like this? I'm left wondering whether I should take OPTF and their work seriously. How can crypto projects focused primarily on privacy and security overlook basic web security? OPTF has some explaining to do. -Their sites may have other security vulnerabilities I'm unaware of. I'm no web pentester and I have no interest in pursuing it further. I may ask a pen tester friend of mine to look into it for me. I'm going to contact OPTF directly through their [contact form](https://optf.ngo/contact-us/) about what all I've already found. I'll update this entry later once they respond. +Their sites may have other security vulnerabilities I'm unaware of. I'm no web pentester and I have no interest in pursuing it further. I may ask a pen tester friend of mine to look into it for me. I'm going to contact OPTF directly through their [contact form](https://optf.ngo/contact-us) about what all I've already found. I'll update this entry later once they respond. # Update (2021-10-02): I received a response the same day I contacted the OPTF. They let me know my original email to Session went to spam which is why they didn't see it. It probably got filtered because I put "URGENT" in the subject line. The issue was resolved by the next day and the CTO (Kee Jefferys) thanked me for the feedback. diff --git a/content/entry/paying-close-attention-to-experience.md b/content/entry/paying-close-attention-to-experience.md index b479fdc..e2cf0dc 100644 --- a/content/entry/paying-close-attention-to-experience.md +++ b/content/entry/paying-close-attention-to-experience.md @@ -80,9 +80,9 @@ When people talk about "the final frontier", they're usually talking about place There's all sorts of unconscious mental machinery going on in the background that we're not normally aware of. A fish living in water its whole life doesn't know what water is. However, some humans are aware of the unconscious mental machinery, because they lack it. ## Unconscious Mental Machinery -Some people's [fusiform gyrus](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusiform_gyrus), the part of the brain responsible for facial recognition, is impaired. This causes [face blindness](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosopagnosia), or the inability to recognize facial features. It's hard for most of us to even imagine not having that ability because it's not something we notice. Nonetheless facial recognition is something we're all doing. +Some people's [fusiform gyrus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusiform_gyrus), the part of the brain responsible for facial recognition, is impaired. This causes [face blindness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosopagnosia), or the inability to recognize facial features. It's hard for most of us to even imagine not having that ability because it's not something we notice. Nonetheless facial recognition is something we're all doing. -People with [Autism](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism) lack the ability to identify others' emotions. Most humans have emotion recognition as a metaphorical built-in [API](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/API). If autistic people can identify others' emotions at all, they do it through very deliberate thinking. It happens at the level of conscious effort rather than through the metaphorical API. +People with [Autism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism) lack the ability to identify others' emotions. Most humans have emotion recognition as a metaphorical built-in [API](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/API). If autistic people can identify others' emotions at all, they do it through very deliberate thinking. It happens at the level of conscious effort rather than through the metaphorical API. Think about language. You effortlessly convert your thoughts into speech. And you easily understand others' speech. Neither of these are trivial tasks and yet you do them without even trying. These processes happen "underneath" conscious awareness. diff --git a/content/entry/podcast-the-key-to-trumps-appeal.md b/content/entry/podcast-the-key-to-trumps-appeal.md index afa1826..70bc615 100644 --- a/content/entry/podcast-the-key-to-trumps-appeal.md +++ b/content/entry/podcast-the-key-to-trumps-appeal.md @@ -3,9 +3,9 @@ title: "[Podcast] The Key to Trump's Appeal" date: 2021-01-07T00:00:00 draft: false --- -There are many things I don't agree with but I understand the motivation behind them. Religion is an example. I am not a religious person, but I can easily see the appeal of religion. Religion offers consolation for death anxiety. People need to feel like their lives have meaning. Religion offers purpose. People want to believe there's something more to life than everyday conscious experience because frankly, for lots of people, everyday experience just isn't good enough. Everyday experience is dissatisfaction, disappointment and [Dukkha](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dukkha). People need hope that "this" isn't all there is. Religion gives people that hope. Even if you're nonreligious, it's not hard to see why religion appeals to people. +There are many things I don't agree with but I understand the motivation behind them. Religion is an example. I am not a religious person, but I can easily see the appeal of religion. Religion offers consolation for death anxiety. People need to feel like their lives have meaning. Religion offers purpose. People want to believe there's something more to life than everyday conscious experience because frankly, for lots of people, everyday experience just isn't good enough. Everyday experience is dissatisfaction, disappointment and [Dukkha](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dukkha). People need hope that "this" isn't all there is. Religion gives people that hope. Even if you're nonreligious, it's not hard to see why religion appeals to people. -Donald Trump's appeal to half of Americans on the other hand is something that has puzzled me for years. It's not that he doesn't appeal to me. It's that I haven't been able to comprehend how he appeals to anyone, especially such a large fraction of American voters. I'm not alone in the confusion. [Sam Harris](https://samharris.org) has also admitted to struggling to understand Trump's appeal. +Donald Trump's appeal to half of Americans on the other hand is something that has puzzled me for years. It's not that he doesn't appeal to me. It's that I haven't been able to comprehend how he appeals to anyone, especially such a large fraction of American voters. I'm not alone in the confusion. [Sam Harris](https://www.samharris.org/) has also admitted to struggling to understand Trump's appeal. I've made many inquiries to Trump supporters about what they find appealing about him. I get a wide variety of answers but none of the answers given, even taken altogether, seem to account for his appeal. Conversations I've had with Trump supporters have made me disinclined to take their word for why they support him. Here's an example of how one such conversation typically goes: diff --git a/content/entry/podcast-why-trump-is-unfit-for-office.md b/content/entry/podcast-why-trump-is-unfit-for-office.md index 2f2651e..2c85725 100644 --- a/content/entry/podcast-why-trump-is-unfit-for-office.md +++ b/content/entry/podcast-why-trump-is-unfit-for-office.md @@ -3,6 +3,6 @@ title: "[Podcast] Why Trump is Unfit For Office" date: 2021-01-07T00:00:00 draft: false --- -In his [Making Sense](https://samharris.org/podcast) podcast [Sam Harris](https://samharris.org) talks about why Donald Trump is unfit for public office. For reference, these clips come from Making Sense episodes [#38](https://samharris.org/podcasts/the-end-of-faith-sessions-2/) and #45. They were recorded before the 2016 presidential election but the past 4 years have only shown how right Harris was in his judgment of Trump. I haven't seen anyone else speak with the same clarity and completeness about Trump as Harris, so that's why I picked these clips. +In his [Making Sense](https://www.samharris.org/podcasts) podcast [Sam Harris](https://www.samharris.org/) talks about why Donald Trump is unfit for public office. For reference, these clips come from Making Sense episodes [#38](https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/making-sense-episodes/the-end-of-faith-sessions-2) and #45. They were recorded before the 2016 presidential election but the past 4 years have only shown how right Harris was in his judgment of Trump. I haven't seen anyone else speak with the same clarity and completeness about Trump as Harris, so that's why I picked these clips. I had a very similar if not the same opinion of Trump 4 years ago. I immediately recognized him as a narcissistic unintelligent con man unfit for public office. If I had expressed my opinion at the time in writing it probably would have sounded much like these clips from the Making Sense podcast. Although much has happened since 2016, I still find these clips worth sharing. diff --git a/content/entry/predicting-the-near-term-consequences-of-ai.md b/content/entry/predicting-the-near-term-consequences-of-ai.md index aabab0a..79f04d1 100644 --- a/content/entry/predicting-the-near-term-consequences-of-ai.md +++ b/content/entry/predicting-the-near-term-consequences-of-ai.md @@ -37,20 +37,20 @@ There won't be any law saying "You must use AI." just as there's no law saying " Since this implicit coercion issue isn't discussed at all for smartphones, I expect it won't get any attention for AI either. Therefore if AI somehow doesn't end up harming privacy and undermining consent in the way I just described, it'll be a matter of luck rather than careful planning. ## Attention Engineering / Manipulation -AI-powered social media sites are partially responsible for [destroying people's ability to pay attention](/2022/12/06/book-stolen-focus-why-you-cant-pay-attention-and-how-to-think-deeply-again/) and making them depressed and angry. In case you've been living under a rock, it has now become normalised for everyone to be addicted to their smartphone, checking social media hundreds of times per day. For that reason, I call social media networks, "digital [Skinner boxes](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning_chamber)". +AI-powered social media sites are partially responsible for [destroying people's ability to pay attention](/2022/12/06/book-stolen-focus-why-you-cant-pay-attention-and-how-to-think-deeply-again/) and making them depressed and angry. In case you've been living under a rock, it has now become normalised for everyone to be addicted to their smartphone, checking social media hundreds of times per day. For that reason, I call social media networks, "digital [Skinner boxes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning_chamber)". [I don't carry a smartphone](/2021/12/26/why-i-dont-have-a-smartphone/) because I didn't want to be a part of that. Unfortunately, since everybody else has them, I'm often tempted to borrow other people's smartphones and get sucked in anyways. The pull of social media is very strong even for someone like me who goes out of their way to avoid it. If social media becomes any more addictive than it already is, and it almost certainly will since AI will only improve, then I think humanity is going to have an even bigger attention crisis on its hands. ## Autonomous Weapons -I won't go into too much detail about [AI-driven lethal autonomous weapons](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lethal_autonomous_weapon). Rather, I have a short video which captures my concern better than anything I could write here. It's called "[Slaughterbots](https://yewtu.be/embed/9CO6M2HsoIA?local=true)". If you haven't seen it, I would highly recommend it. +I won't go into too much detail about [AI-driven lethal autonomous weapons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lethal_autonomous_weapon). Rather, I have a short video which captures my concern better than anything I could write here. It's called "[Slaughterbots](https://yewtu.be/embed/9CO6M2HsoIA?local=true)". If you haven't seen it, I would highly recommend it. I haven't researched this area enough to make any solid predictions. All I can say is that I hope we don't end up in a situation like in the video where everyone has to stay indoors all the time, nowhere is safe, etc. ## Jobs -I predict that all major useful [proprietary software](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software) will be reverse engineered with AI assistance. Translation software will become good enough that no one will need to learn foreign languages unless they want to. As I mentioned in "[Automation, Bullshit Jobs, And Work](/2022/01/22/automation-bullshit-jobs-and-work/)", so much human labor will be automated that only two practical possibilities will remain: +I predict that all major useful [proprietary software](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software) will be reverse engineered with AI assistance. Translation software will become good enough that no one will need to learn foreign languages unless they want to. As I mentioned in "[Automation, Bullshit Jobs, And Work](/2022/01/22/automation-bullshit-jobs-and-work/)", so much human labor will be automated that only two practical possibilities will remain: -1. In countries that stubbornly maintain a poor social safety net, loads of [bullshit jobs](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs) will be created to prevent mass homelessness, starvation, and ultimately revolution. -2. Alternatively, a socialist program like [universal basic income](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income) will be implemented so that people don't have to work to survive and are free to do other things. +1. In countries that stubbornly maintain a poor social safety net, loads of [bullshit jobs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs) will be created to prevent mass homelessness, starvation, and ultimately revolution. +2. Alternatively, a socialist program like [universal basic income](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income) will be implemented so that people don't have to work to survive and are free to do other things. Perhaps some forms of automation could be banned to prevent mass unemployment, but I'm skeptical that would work since it might make one's country unable to compete in the global economy. I don't know enough about that to make any definitive claims though. @@ -69,9 +69,9 @@ I predict that AI will make the illegal practice of [parallel construction](/202 As for the court system, I predict that it'll be so easy to create synthetic media that photos, videos, audio, and other digital evidence will not be taken seriously any more. We will have to revert back to relying more on other forms of evidence such as impartial witnesses, contextual information, and DNA. ## Scientific Research -AI is already revolutionising scientific research. We can expect this trend to continue into the future. There are a few ideas floating around that try to make sure this new scientific understanding and technology helps mitigate [existential risk](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_catastrophic_risk#Defining_existential_risks) rather than increasing it. +AI is already revolutionising scientific research. We can expect this trend to continue into the future. There are a few ideas floating around that try to make sure this new scientific understanding and technology helps mitigate [existential risk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_catastrophic_risk#Defining_existential_risks) rather than increasing it. -Two ideas I'm in favor of are [differential technological development](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_technological_development) and [differential intellectual progress](https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/differential-intellectual-progress). The idea of the former is to develop existential-risk-reducing technologies rather than existential-risk-increasing technologies. The idea of the latter is that we should increase our philosophical sophistication and wisdom before proceeding with technological progress. +Two ideas I'm in favor of are [differential technological development](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_technological_development) and [differential intellectual progress](https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/differential-intellectual-progress). The idea of the former is to develop existential-risk-reducing technologies rather than existential-risk-increasing technologies. The idea of the latter is that we should increase our philosophical sophistication and wisdom before proceeding with technological progress. It helps to have global coordination to accomplish these goals. Humanity currently lacks global cooperation, so it's going to be challenging to get everyone to agree to differentially pursue technological development. Even if international treaties are signed, it's hard to be sure that governments aren't secretly pursuing the banned technology, especially if it would give them an edge. @@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ It helps to have global coordination to accomplish these goals. Humanity current With a higher rate of technological development than in the past, governments will have to adopt more agile decision-making frameworks or else they won't keep pace with technological progress and won't be able to effectively govern. Computer-illiterate elderly government officials that can't keep up with smartphones nor social media just aren't going to cut it in the age of rapidly-advancing AI. We need leadership that can understand new technology. ## Conclusion -There's so much more that I wish I could get to, but I don't have the time. For instance, I didn't even mention any propositions concerning digital minds. That may be a more long-term issue, but I would argue that it's relevant now because we will soon build AIs that constitute primitive digital minds. Fortunately people like [Nick Bostrom](https://nickbostrom.com/) and [Carl Shulman](https://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/team/carl-shulman/) have made some headway on digital minds in their paper "[Propositions Concerning Digital Minds and Society](https://nickbostrom.com/propositions.pdf)". +There's so much more that I wish I could get to, but I don't have the time. For instance, I didn't even mention any propositions concerning digital minds. That may be a more long-term issue, but I would argue that it's relevant now because we will soon build AIs that constitute primitive digital minds. Fortunately people like [Nick Bostrom](https://nickbostrom.com/) and [Carl Shulman](https://web.archive.org/web/20230418235430if_/https://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/team/carl-shulman/) have made some headway on digital minds in their paper "[Propositions Concerning Digital Minds and Society](https://nickbostrom.com/propositions.pdf)". Anyways, I thank you for reading my journal entries and considering these issues with me. I hope to write more about AI in the future. Sometimes I look at the work of the people like Nick Bostrom and think "Wow! I am so underqualified to write about this. Should I even bother?" but then I remind myself that: diff --git a/content/entry/private-online-shopping.md b/content/entry/private-online-shopping.md index f9ffbd1..bceaea2 100644 --- a/content/entry/private-online-shopping.md +++ b/content/entry/private-online-shopping.md @@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ The best way to avoid browser fingerprinting and leaking your IP address is inst If you can't access the site on the "standard" security setting in Tor Browser, then it probably blocks Tor exit nodes. Some sites do allow you to browse while using Tor, but won't let you purchase anything. You just have to find out which ones are Tor friendly and which aren't by trial and error. If a site isn't Tor-friendly, all is not lost. There is still hope with Proxychains. ### Mitigation - Use Proxychains -If you still insist on using that website for your purchase, you can configure [proxychains](http://proxychains.sf.net/) to hide the fact that you're using Tor while still getting the privacy benefits of the Tor Browser. Just search for the IP address and port number of an open proxy. +If you still insist on using that website for your purchase, you can configure [proxychains](https://proxychains.sourceforge.net/) to hide the fact that you're using Tor while still getting the privacy benefits of the Tor Browser. Just search for the IP address and port number of an open proxy. If you've properly configured Proxychains and Tor Browser is still not letting you visit the site, then most likely the site does some kind of anti-spam browser fingerprinting to determine if you're a real user and Tor browser is getting you flagged as a bot since it's resistant to fingerprinting. You could use a different browser proxied through Tor, but at this point I'd just look for the item on a different website. If the website requires browser fingerprinting, then you can't expect to buy anything anonymously. @@ -81,12 +81,12 @@ I wish I could say that's all because it feels like the overhead for making a pr * WePay * And more... -Any payment system that identifies you can't be used for privacy. Until something like [GNU Taler](https://taler.net) becomes popular, we're left with 1 option that offers real payment anonymity: cryptocurrency. +Any payment system that identifies you can't be used for privacy. Until something like [GNU Taler](https://taler.net/en/) becomes popular, we're left with 1 option that offers real payment anonymity: cryptocurrency. ### Mitigation - Monero Since most places require some form of ID verification to buy cryptocurrency and cryptocurrency ledgers allow transactions to be easily traced, no cryptocurrency is suited for an anonymous purchase, except for 1: [Monero](https://www.getmonero.org/) or XMR. It's so private that [the IRS is offering $625,000 to anyone who can crack it](https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2020/09/14/irs-will-pay-up-to-625000-if-you-can-crack-monero-other-privacy-coins/). You can acquire Monero through centralized or peer-to-peer exchanges. The great thing about Monero is you don't need to acquire it anonymously to make an anonymous purchase with it. Coins are untraceable and transactions are unlinkable. Feel free to acquire the Monero however is most convenient for you. Localmonero.co is a solid option that doesn't require any identification or proprietary JavaScript and it has a Tor onion service. Just remember to store the coins on the Monero wallet on your own machine, not on an exchange. Also I recommend proxying the Monero client through Tor to prevent transactions being linked to your IP address. -Unfortunately few online stores actually accept Monero. Bitcoin still reigns supreme. Luckily there are coin swap services online that accept Monero and pay out Bitcoin. [Kilos' KSwap](http://mlyusr6htlxsyc7t2f4z53wdxh3win7q3qpxcrbam6jf3dmua7tnzuyd.onion/coinswap) (WARNING: NSFW) is one example. It requires no sign up, no JavaScript and it's a Tor onion service. +Unfortunately few online stores actually accept Monero. Bitcoin still reigns supreme. Luckily there are coin swap services online that accept Monero and pay out Bitcoin. Kilos' KSwap is one example. It requires no sign up, no JavaScript and it's a Tor onion service. The hidden fees are of course embedded in the exchange rate. When you go to buy Monero, you're going to take a hit and when you pay to convert it to Bitcoin, you're going to take a hit. In the end, you may end up paying 20% more than you otherwise would have had you just bought the item with a debit card. That's not even including the costs involved in a mailbox service. But that's just the price of your privacy if you insist on buying online. There's no easy way around it. diff --git a/content/entry/psa-you-can-remove-your-property-from-street-view-services.md b/content/entry/psa-you-can-remove-your-property-from-street-view-services.md index 5e0d463..4ea26fc 100644 --- a/content/entry/psa-you-can-remove-your-property-from-street-view-services.md +++ b/content/entry/psa-you-can-remove-your-property-from-street-view-services.md @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ There are popular online street view services that offer detailed pictures of pe There are several valid reasons besides theft and stalking that one might want to have their property removed from street view services. -All the online guides for how to get your property removed require using the street view service. I can't recommend that method because they all require executing proprietary JavaScript. As an alternative method, you can call the service by phone and request them to remove or blur out your property. There's a [list of street view services listed by location on Wikipedia](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_street_view_services). You can use it to determine who you need to contact. +All the online guides for how to get your property removed require using the street view service. I can't recommend that method because they all require executing proprietary JavaScript. As an alternative method, you can call the service by phone and request them to remove or blur out your property. There's a [list of street view services listed by location on Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_street_view_services). You can use it to determine who you need to contact. While this won't stop the state from spying on you, ordinary remote stalkers will be thwarted. All you have to do is simply ask popular consumer street view companies to remove or blur out your property. diff --git a/content/entry/psychedelics-are-a-rite-of-passage.md b/content/entry/psychedelics-are-a-rite-of-passage.md index 0c69d5d..e888810 100644 --- a/content/entry/psychedelics-are-a-rite-of-passage.md +++ b/content/entry/psychedelics-are-a-rite-of-passage.md @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ draft: false Before I discuss psychedelics in this context, I feel obligated to issue a few disclaimers. # Psychedelics Are Not a Panacea -The first one is psychedelics will not solve the world's problems nor everyone's personal problems. Some people that take psychedelics do [huge damage to the world](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs). Some have psychotic breaks. Since the scientific/skeptic community largely dismisses spiritual experiences, some people are drawn to pseudospiritual [woo-woo](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Woo) for answers after using them. Psychedelics are clearly not a magic pill. +The first one is psychedelics will not solve the world's problems nor everyone's personal problems. Some people that take psychedelics do [huge damage to the world](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs). Some have psychotic breaks. Since the scientific/skeptic community largely dismisses spiritual experiences, some people are drawn to pseudospiritual [woo-woo](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Woo) for answers after using them. Psychedelics are clearly not a magic pill. Psychedelics are also not for everyone. They have serious downsides. People with a family history of mental illness or present mental illness should practice extreme caution when using psychedelics. Even mentally healthy people can lose their minds after taking psychedelics. All psychonauts should be aware of that. @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ Terence McKenna, American ethnobotanist and advocate for psychedelic drugs, once While I don't think sex is comparable to psychedelics, Terence did have a point. Healthy people who abstain from psychedelic drugs are missing out on an important life experience. -If someone doesn't want to take psychedelics because of lack of interest, I suspect they might not see the value anyways. Maybe those people aren't missing out. But when someone abstains from psychedelics because they drank the [D.A.R.E.](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Abuse_Resistance_Education#Reception) Kool-Aid and they think all illegal drugs are nothing but bad, I feel bad for them. They might be missing out on some of the most important experiences in their life thanks to ignorance and stupidity. +If someone doesn't want to take psychedelics because of lack of interest, I suspect they might not see the value anyways. Maybe those people aren't missing out. But when someone abstains from psychedelics because they drank the [D.A.R.E.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Abuse_Resistance_Education#Reception) Kool-Aid and they think all illegal drugs are nothing but bad, I feel bad for them. They might be missing out on some of the most important experiences in their life thanks to ignorance and stupidity. If I ever have offspring, which I don't plan on, I hope they never try heroin, methamphetamine, or give themselves brain damage with large quantities of cough syrup. But if they go to the grave without ever using psychedelic drugs, I will feel that they missed out on one of the most important experiences life has to offer. diff --git a/content/entry/raising-the-bar-on-privacy.md b/content/entry/raising-the-bar-on-privacy.md index 50913d8..b0eac5c 100644 --- a/content/entry/raising-the-bar-on-privacy.md +++ b/content/entry/raising-the-bar-on-privacy.md @@ -4,11 +4,11 @@ date: 2020-11-14T00:00:00 tags: ['computing'] draft: false --- -There's a common attitude many people have regarding privacy. I'm not talking about [nothing to hide](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide), although that is also a very common attitude. It has been refuted [ad nauseum](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_nauseam) by privacy advocates, so I won't do it again here. I'm talking about the feeling people have that the corporate/government surveillance state ([Big Brother](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_state)) will collect their data one way or another no matter what, so there's no point in even trying to avoid mass surveillance. Privacy is already dead. Mass surveillance and its [long-term negative side-effects](https://www.socialcooling.com/) are inevitable. That's the attitude of so many people and it's disappointing. So, I'm going to offer an alternative way to think about privacy and surveillance. +There's a common attitude many people have regarding privacy. I'm not talking about [nothing to hide](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide), although that is also a very common attitude. It has been refuted [ad nauseum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_nauseam) by privacy advocates, so I won't do it again here. I'm talking about the feeling people have that the corporate/government surveillance state ([Big Brother](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_state)) will collect their data one way or another no matter what, so there's no point in even trying to avoid mass surveillance. Privacy is already dead. Mass surveillance and its [long-term negative side-effects](https://www.socialcooling.com/) are inevitable. That's the attitude of so many people and it's disappointing. So, I'm going to offer an alternative way to think about privacy and surveillance. -First, let's be clear. Privacy is not just a personal preference. It's not just a social necessity either. It's a biological necessity as basic as breathing. It allows us all to be human. It is the right to be imperfect. Therefore, it must be protected. There is no point in asking if it's too late to stop mass surveillance because there's no alternative to curtailing it. It must be stopped. [Democracy can only withstand so much surveillance](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/surveillance-vs-democracy.en.html). Mass surveillance in its current form and true democracy cannot coexist indefinitely. [Surveillance tools combined with AI](https://github.com/daviddao/awful-ai) will only get more powerful as time passes. To put it frankly, we are either going to reign in mass surveillance or democracy will perish. We have to reject the defeatist excuse that we've already lost to mass surveillance and so we shouldn't even try to restore privacy. That's just a [self-fulfilling prophecy](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy). +First, let's be clear. Privacy is not just a personal preference. It's not just a social necessity either. It's a biological necessity as basic as breathing. It allows us all to be human. It is the right to be imperfect. Therefore, it must be protected. There is no point in asking if it's too late to stop mass surveillance because there's no alternative to curtailing it. It must be stopped. [Democracy can only withstand so much surveillance](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/surveillance-vs-democracy.en.html). Mass surveillance in its current form and true democracy cannot coexist indefinitely. [Surveillance tools combined with AI](https://github.com/daviddao/awful-ai) will only get more powerful as time passes. To put it frankly, we are either going to reign in mass surveillance or democracy will perish. We have to reject the defeatist excuse that we've already lost to mass surveillance and so we shouldn't even try to restore privacy. That's just a [self-fulfilling prophecy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy). -The alternative, yet realistic way of thinking (as opposed to defeatism) that I want to introduce is what I call "raising the bar on privacy". It's a very simple idea. Maybe Big Brother can still get our data even if we take steps to increase our privacy. Even if the defeatist is right that our data can or will be collected anyway, that doesn't mean we shouldn't make it as difficult as possible. Let's not hand over our data on a silver platter at least, right? If enough of us take steps to increase our privacy, we will make it more difficult and more expensive for Big Brother to collect our data. We collectively "raise the bar on privacy". Even if we can't fully insulate our own lives from Big Brother, if we can force Big Brother to resort to the more powerful means of surveillance (think [0-day exploits](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-day_%28computing%29)), [targeted surveillance](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targeted_surveillance), [hardware/firmware backdoors](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_backdoor)) more often instead of the low-hanging fruit of collecting our data from big tech companies, then our society will gain several benefits: +The alternative, yet realistic way of thinking (as opposed to defeatism) that I want to introduce is what I call "raising the bar on privacy". It's a very simple idea. Maybe Big Brother can still get our data even if we take steps to increase our privacy. Even if the defeatist is right that our data can or will be collected anyway, that doesn't mean we shouldn't make it as difficult as possible. Let's not hand over our data on a silver platter at least, right? If enough of us take steps to increase our privacy, we will make it more difficult and more expensive for Big Brother to collect our data. We collectively "raise the bar on privacy". Even if we can't fully insulate our own lives from Big Brother, if we can force Big Brother to resort to the more powerful means of surveillance (think [0-day exploits](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-day_%28computing%29)), [targeted surveillance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targeted_surveillance), [hardware/firmware backdoors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_backdoor)) more often instead of the low-hanging fruit of collecting our data from big tech companies, then our society will gain several benefits: 1. As privacy-friendly tools gain popularity, people that use them won't become especially "interesting" to Big Brother anymore. 2. The desire for privacy won't be viewed as a cause for suspicion of wrongdoing, but instead as a basic biological need that everyone is entitled to. @@ -17,4 +17,4 @@ The alternative, yet realistic way of thinking (as opposed to defeatism) that I 5. [Free software](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html) will become more widespread since it's a necessary precondition for digital privacy. 6. [Proprietary software](https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/proprietary.html) will become less widespread since people will use free software in its place. -To sum up this post in a way that makes sense to security-minded people: our minimum acceptable lower bound for a [threat model](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threat_model) should be avoiding mass surveillance so that we raise the bar on privacy. +To sum up this post in a way that makes sense to security-minded people: our minimum acceptable lower bound for a [threat model](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threat_model) should be avoiding mass surveillance so that we raise the bar on privacy. diff --git a/content/entry/re-atomic-habits.md b/content/entry/re-atomic-habits.md index f9f5e87..e7a8a1b 100644 --- a/content/entry/re-atomic-habits.md +++ b/content/entry/re-atomic-habits.md @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ One big idea that was mentioned in the book but not expanded on is that we need To take just a single example: you as an individual cannot stop stores from promoting the tempting junk food to you that they're economically incentivized to promote over more healthy options that you wish you bought instead. To implement that change would require collective action, whether it be by voting, boycott, or whatever else. -It often happens to be the case that getting people to develop certain bad habits (such as overconsumption) is highly profitable, creating a [race to the bottom](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_to_the_bottom "Race to the bottom") for human well being. The economic incentives are such that refusing to promote profitable bad habits in the population could cause one's business to be outcompeted by an amoral competitor. +It often happens to be the case that getting people to develop certain bad habits (such as overconsumption) is highly profitable, creating a [race to the bottom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_to_the_bottom "Race to the bottom") for human well being. The economic incentives are such that refusing to promote profitable bad habits in the population could cause one's business to be outcompeted by an amoral competitor. It's difficult to organize collectively against these economic incentives because the rich write the laws. Barring comprehensive changes in existing economic or political systems, I predict that it will continue to get more difficult to maintain good habits and avoid bad ones, [regardless of any individual efforts made](/2023/09/10/individual-vs-collective-advice/ "Individual vs Collective Advice"). diff --git a/content/entry/re-bullshit-js.md b/content/entry/re-bullshit-js.md index a09c5da..35e1e51 100644 --- a/content/entry/re-bullshit-js.md +++ b/content/entry/re-bullshit-js.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ date: 2023-07-04T00:00:00 tags: ['computing'] draft: false --- -People in [advertising](/2023/06/30/fuck-advertising/ "Fuck Advertising"), marketing, [SEO](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_engine_optimization), and other bullshit industries have littered the web with phrases that sound significant but don't actually communicate anything. +People in [advertising](/2023/06/30/fuck-advertising/ "Fuck Advertising"), marketing, [SEO](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_engine_optimization), and other bullshit industries have littered the web with phrases that sound significant but don't actually communicate anything. A while back I discovered this amusing JavaScript program called [bullshit.js](https://github.com/mourner/bullshit.js) which you can run in the browser to replace some of that marketing BS with the word "bullshit". diff --git a/content/entry/re-dkim-show-your-privates.md b/content/entry/re-dkim-show-your-privates.md index ef9a2ee..36a9e6a 100644 --- a/content/entry/re-dkim-show-your-privates.md +++ b/content/entry/re-dkim-show-your-privates.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ date: 2023-03-15T00:00:00 tags: ['computing'] draft: false --- -I recently read Ryan Castellucci's blog post, "[DKIM: Show Your Privates](https://rya.nc/dkim-privates.html)". The problem Ryan points out is that DKIM, which signs outgoing emails as a way to to reduce spam, has a negative unintended consequence: it's harder to deny that you sent an email if it gets leaked. As Ryan points out, saner messaging protocols like [OTR](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-the-Record_Messaging) and the [Double Ratchet Algorithm](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Ratchet_Algorithm) do implement cryptographic deniability of messages. +I recently read Ryan Castellucci's blog post, "[DKIM: Show Your Privates](https://rya.nc/dkim-privates.html)". The problem Ryan points out is that DKIM, which signs outgoing emails as a way to to reduce spam, has a negative unintended consequence: it's harder to deny that you sent an email if it gets leaked. As Ryan points out, saner messaging protocols like [OTR](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-the-Record_Messaging) and the [Double Ratchet Algorithm](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Ratchet_Algorithm) do implement cryptographic deniability of messages. There is a way to mitigate the loss of cryptographic deniability in email. You simply rotate DKIM keys, invalidating the old one and publishing its private part. The point of publishing the private part is that any leaked emails which were signed with that key could be forged. Thus, one can deny past emails signed with that key. diff --git a/content/entry/re-dont-look-up.md b/content/entry/re-dont-look-up.md index 95b5c6a..3a7da0e 100644 --- a/content/entry/re-dont-look-up.md +++ b/content/entry/re-dont-look-up.md @@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ Movies like "Don't Look Up" hold up a mirror to our species, and that doesn't ji I believe these negative reviews can also be explained by the fact that people use mindless consumption, gaming, media, movies, etc. to distract themselves and this movie invades their distraction space, forcing them to self-reflect instead. -I'm not asking people to worry about these issues on a daily basis or get depressed over them although I do think that's more useful than avoidance and denial because [it can motivate action](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greta_Thunberg#Early_life "Climate Activist Greta Thunberg struggled with depression for four years before her school strike campaign"). I understand not everyone is in a position to make a difference though. I'm just asking people to be honest with themselves. If you're not able/motivated to do anything about societal issues, just say so. It's understandable. +I'm not asking people to worry about these issues on a daily basis or get depressed over them although I do think that's more useful than avoidance and denial because [it can motivate action](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greta_Thunberg#Early_life "Climate Activist Greta Thunberg struggled with depression for four years before her school strike campaign"). I understand not everyone is in a position to make a difference though. I'm just asking people to be honest with themselves. If you're not able/motivated to do anything about societal issues, just say so. It's understandable. But please, don't lie to yourself and others, saying that making any effort is futile before you yourself have even tried. Don't make intellectually impoverished arguments about why there's no need for you to do anything. Don't deny that it's happening. Don't quip about it or make jokes as a thinly veiled coping mechanism. Just be a damn human being, admit we're in a sad situation, and have some empathy for your fellow humans who do choose to live in reality and face the facts. diff --git a/content/entry/re-dr-pordan-jeterson-answering-the-toughest-question-of-all.md b/content/entry/re-dr-pordan-jeterson-answering-the-toughest-question-of-all.md index 0a2b0b4..434eac2 100644 --- a/content/entry/re-dr-pordan-jeterson-answering-the-toughest-question-of-all.md +++ b/content/entry/re-dr-pordan-jeterson-answering-the-toughest-question-of-all.md @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ title: "Re: Dr. Pordan Jeterson: Answering the Toughest Question of All" date: 2023-09-06T00:00:00 draft: false --- -A few months ago a Youtuber that goes by the alias DarkMatter2525 made a video titled '[Dr. Pordan Jeterson: Answering the Toughest Question of All](https://yewtu.be/embed/RGCKIOBBK7Y?local=true)' showing the confusing way public intellectual [Jordan Peterson](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Peterson) communicates. +A few months ago a Youtuber that goes by the alias DarkMatter2525 made a video titled '[Dr. Pordan Jeterson: Answering the Toughest Question of All](https://yewtu.be/embed/RGCKIOBBK7Y?local=true)' showing the confusing way public intellectual [Jordan Peterson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Peterson) communicates. Peterson has a fairly large and dedicated following. I found a few of his psychology lectures online. They were alright. He's obviously very passionate and able to communicate clearly at least some of the time. I'm not going to criticize his opinions in this entry because I have no idea what he actually thinks. What I think he deserves the most criticism for is his way of using language. @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ What's particularly frustrating about Peterson is that the noises he makes on co It's not just the fact that he isn't plainspoken or that he's long-winded. Plenty of philosophers manage to be intelligible despite being verbose and roundabout on occasion. It's that he strings together these highfalutin phrases that cannot be understood without clarification, but his attempts to clarify are equally vague. I think one of the best examples of what I'm talking about here is [this video](https://yewtu.be/embed/9ZZDmxCBUQo?local=true "Jordan B. Peterson Smashes the World Record for Word Salad"). -I don't know Peterson's motives, but I don't believe he creates word salads on purpose. He seems to genuinely think he's making sense when he just isn't. He reminds me of [Deepak Chopra](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepak_Chopra) with the way he seems to hypnotize an audience with fanciful language that sounds deep and is grammatically correct, but incomprehensible. +I don't know Peterson's motives, but I don't believe he creates word salads on purpose. He seems to genuinely think he's making sense when he just isn't. He reminds me of [Deepak Chopra](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepak_Chopra) with the way he seems to hypnotize an audience with fanciful language that sounds deep and is grammatically correct, but incomprehensible. Again, I am not inside Jordan Peterson's head. I've never met the guy. But, based on what I've seen of him online, he seems like a person who has been hypnotized by myth and legend to the point where he can't distinguish stories from reality. diff --git a/content/entry/re-ive-stopped-using-mobile-phones-in-my-life.md b/content/entry/re-ive-stopped-using-mobile-phones-in-my-life.md index e762869..385bbc2 100644 --- a/content/entry/re-ive-stopped-using-mobile-phones-in-my-life.md +++ b/content/entry/re-ive-stopped-using-mobile-phones-in-my-life.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ date: 2023-10-06T00:00:00 tags: ['computing'] draft: false --- -There aren't many people who intentionally go phoneless in today's society, especially not young people [like myself](/2021/12/26/why-i-dont-have-a-smartphone/ "Why I Don't Have a Smartphone"). But there are some who resist the social expectation to carry a proprietary surveillance device at all times. Since we are few, it's important to spread the word about our efforts. So today, I comment on Jakub Bidžan's blog post written in January of this year, "[I've stopped using mobile phones in my life.](https://bidzan.net/articles/phoneless-life.html)" +There aren't many people who intentionally go phoneless in today's society, especially not young people [like myself](/2021/12/26/why-i-dont-have-a-smartphone/ "Why I Don't Have a Smartphone"). But there are some who resist the social expectation to carry a proprietary surveillance device at all times. Since we are few, it's important to spread the word about our efforts. So today, I comment on Jakub Bidžan's blog post written in January of this year, "[I've stopped using mobile phones in my life.](https://web.archive.org/web/20230930013138if_/https://bidzan.net/articles/phoneless-life.html)" Before I start, I must admit that I haven't been completely or continuously phoneless since I wrote my entry about why I don't use a smartphone, but I've resisted using one enough to feel qualified to comment on Jakub's blog post. So I'll start by introducing him. @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ As Jakub points out, they are also used to "coom to porn". Having a smartphone m > "Installing an operating systems of your choice them is a leap of faith and making them acceptably privacy-respecting is a herculean task. I actually wanted to install a newer version of lineage OS on my phone but I managed to soft-brick it. Now, A soft brick is fixable, but I think the right decision was to not waste time with these stupid devices and just not use them" -If you have an iPhone, forget about changing the OS. Unless you buy an Android phone that is well-supported by custom roms, trying to flash one can be a "herculean task". You may find yourself following instructions you found on [XDA Forums](https://forum.xda-developers.com/) that direct you to download unsigned firmware from expired Google drive links uploaded by god knows who. Then, after hours of trying, the custom rom still won't work and your computer is now infected with malware. +If you have an iPhone, forget about changing the OS. Unless you buy an Android phone that is well-supported by custom roms, trying to flash one can be a "herculean task". You may find yourself following instructions you found on [XDA Forums](https://xdaforums.com/) that direct you to download unsigned firmware from expired Google drive links uploaded by god knows who. Then, after hours of trying, the custom rom still won't work and your computer is now infected with malware. Desktop or laptop computers on the other hand generally don't present so many obstacles to installing a privacy-respecting OS. diff --git a/content/entry/re-on-transgender-athletes.md b/content/entry/re-on-transgender-athletes.md index 66e4e8a..b6dc0ba 100644 --- a/content/entry/re-on-transgender-athletes.md +++ b/content/entry/re-on-transgender-athletes.md @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ title: "Re: On Transgender Athletes" date: 2023-11-26T00:00:00Z draft: false --- -Edit (06-12-2023): Trans sports is often used as a [wedge issue](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_issue "Wedge Issue") to divide working class people politically, so I just want to reemphasize how extremely low priority it is. Nobody should base their vote on microscopic issues like trans sports while we're battling grave problems like poverty and climate change. I only wrote about this issue because I found it intellectually interesting, but politicians who spend time harping on it don't have their priorities straight and probably aren't worth voting for. +Edit (06-12-2023): Trans sports is often used as a [wedge issue](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_issue "Wedge Issue") to divide working class people politically, so I just want to reemphasize how extremely low priority it is. Nobody should base their vote on microscopic issues like trans sports while we're battling grave problems like poverty and climate change. I only wrote about this issue because I found it intellectually interesting, but politicians who spend time harping on it don't have their priorities straight and probably aren't worth voting for. Since writing [my entry about transgender athletes](/2022/03/27/on-transgender-athletes/ "On Transgender Athletes"), I've researched and learned a bit more about transgenderism. So I'm going to respond to, clarify, and correct my previous entry with this one. @@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ Since writing [my entry about transgender athletes](/2022/03/27/on-transgender-a This sentence sets the theme which is echoed throughout the entire entry. To be more specific about it, I meant that biological sex is more relevant than gender when it comes to the leagues in sports. -Right off the bat, some people might object to my use of the term "biological sex" since I later implied that it's binary. They might point out that trans people who have had surgery and/or used hormones and [intersex individuals](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex "Intersex") might not fit neatly within the binary notions of biological male or female. Like with every other way we can classify people with labels, there will always be exceptions, people who don't really fit any label. What do we do about them? +Right off the bat, some people might object to my use of the term "biological sex" since I later implied that it's binary. They might point out that trans people who have had surgery and/or used hormones and [intersex individuals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex "Intersex") might not fit neatly within the binary notions of biological male or female. Like with every other way we can classify people with labels, there will always be exceptions, people who don't really fit any label. What do we do about them? Should they be excluded from sports for not fitting into our boxes? That's the one thing I'm certain we shouldn't do. @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ Here, I failed to mention hormones, which can lessen or even eliminate the relev For any reasonable binary definition of biological sex, I'm not sure if there are *hundreds* of differences between biological men and women. It probably depends on how you count those differences, but I was just trying to get across the point that we are significantly different in ways that are relevant to professional sports. I don't see how anyone could possibly deny that. Even if you define biological sex as a spectrum, you still have to divide people up by *some* relevant biological differences to get useful leagues. -> "...biological sex is definitely a meaningful way of differentiating people in sports, and it's unambiguous. You either have XX chromosomes or XY chromosomes, and that can be used to determine [sex](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_sex-determination_system)." +> "...biological sex is definitely a meaningful way of differentiating people in sports, and it's unambiguous. You either have XX chromosomes or XY chromosomes, and that can be used to determine [sex](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_sex-determination_system)." It's true that looking at chromosomes is a useful method for identifying biological sex, but it's actually not as unambiguous nor relevant for sports as I implied here. As I said, one can have XX chromosomes but go through male puberty, making the chromosomes perhaps less relevant depending on the circumstance. diff --git a/content/entry/re-pascals-mugging.md b/content/entry/re-pascals-mugging.md index 9ff6e4e..4d25ce8 100644 --- a/content/entry/re-pascals-mugging.md +++ b/content/entry/re-pascals-mugging.md @@ -3,13 +3,13 @@ title: "Re: Pascal's Mugging" date: 2023-06-21T00:00:00 draft: false --- -For those who are unfamiliar with Pascal's Mugging, here's an excerpt from [Wikipedia](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_mugging "Pascal's Mugging"): +For those who are unfamiliar with Pascal's Mugging, here's an excerpt from [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_mugging "Pascal's Mugging"): > "In Bostrom's description, Blaise Pascal is accosted by a mugger who has forgotten their weapon. However, the mugger proposes a deal: the philosopher gives them his wallet, and in exchange the mugger will return twice the amount of money tomorrow. Pascal declines, pointing out that it is unlikely the deal will be honoured. The mugger then continues naming higher rewards, pointing out that even if it is just one chance in 1000 that they will be honourable, it would make sense for Pascal to make a deal for a 2000 times return. Pascal responds that the probability of that high return is even lower than one in 1000. The mugger argues back that for any low but strictly greater than 0 probability of being able to pay back a large amount of money (or pure utility) there exists a finite amount that makes it rational to take the bet. In one example, the mugger succeeds by promising Pascal 1,000 quadrillion happy days of life. Convinced by the argument, Pascal gives the mugger the wallet." -The justification for the possibility of the mugger giving Pascal 1,000 quadrillion happy days of life is basically that "anything's possible", however unlikely it may be. For the sake of the argument, I'll grant that premise. There's always this general possibility that there's something we don't understand that goes beyond where reasoning, evidence, and science can take us. Maybe we're in a simulation. Maybe I'm a [Boltzmann brain](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain). Maybe an [evil demon](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_demon "Evil Demon") is tricking me about everything. I'm fine with that part of the thought experiment. +The justification for the possibility of the mugger giving Pascal 1,000 quadrillion happy days of life is basically that "anything's possible", however unlikely it may be. For the sake of the argument, I'll grant that premise. There's always this general possibility that there's something we don't understand that goes beyond where reasoning, evidence, and science can take us. Maybe we're in a simulation. Maybe I'm a [Boltzmann brain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain). Maybe an [evil demon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_demon "Evil Demon") is tricking me about everything. I'm fine with that part of the thought experiment. -The problem I see with Nick Bostrom's version of Pascal's mugging is that it suggests a [false dichotomy](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma "False Dichotomy"): either Pascal just loses his wallet or he gets 1,000 quadrillion happy days of life. Clearly, these are not the only two possibilities given the justification of "anything is possible". +The problem I see with Nick Bostrom's version of Pascal's mugging is that it suggests a [false dichotomy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma "False Dichotomy"): either Pascal just loses his wallet or he gets 1,000 quadrillion happy days of life. Clearly, these are not the only two possibilities given the justification of "anything is possible". Since there's no evidence that the mugger actually has the ability to grant happy days, I would assign the 1,000 quadrillion happy days outcome the same probability as an outcome where Pascal suffers for 1,000 quadrillion miserable days after giving the mugger his wallet. And I could also justify the possibility of the misery outcome using the same "anything's possible" justification. In fact, any outcome the mugger suggests with massive reward for giving up the wallet can be countered by suggesting an equally unlikely counterfactual which is just as bad as the good outcome is good, thus cancelling any expected gains from Pascal giving up his wallet. @@ -33,6 +33,6 @@ Whatever the true reason is, I don't see Pascal's Mugging nor my thought experim Others have suggested that, to resolve the apparent paradox of Pascal's Mugging, we should bound utility functions, penalize prior probabilities, or "abandon quantitative decision procedures in the presence of extremely large risks". I'm fine with these measures, but only insofar as they reflect the way human values behave quantitatively and not for any other justification. -To conclude, I want to say something about the importance of Pascal's Mugging, [The Trolley Problem](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem), and moral thought experiments in general. +To conclude, I want to say something about the importance of Pascal's Mugging, [The Trolley Problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem), and moral thought experiments in general. -They can seem very theoretical, but they're actually very practical in that they help us figure out what we value by asking us to imagine extreme scenarios. The question of what our values are is relevant because, if we don't destroy ourselves, we'll eventually create [artificial general intelligence](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intelligence "Artificial General Intelligence") and we really need it to be [aligned](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_alignment "AI Alignment") with those values. +They can seem very theoretical, but they're actually very practical in that they help us figure out what we value by asking us to imagine extreme scenarios. The question of what our values are is relevant because, if we don't destroy ourselves, we'll eventually create [artificial general intelligence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intelligence "Artificial General Intelligence") and we really need it to be [aligned](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_alignment "AI Alignment") with those values. diff --git a/content/entry/re-phone-numbers-must-die.md b/content/entry/re-phone-numbers-must-die.md index bea3ba2..9398707 100644 --- a/content/entry/re-phone-numbers-must-die.md +++ b/content/entry/re-phone-numbers-must-die.md @@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ Here, Hugo is shifting from criticizing phone numbers to the global circuit-swit The second part of the criticism complains that the reason the telephone network remains alive is so that the oligopolistic telecoms can continue to greedily extract money from customers. There's no technical reason that the telephone network shouldn't be gone by now. We would all do just fine without it and without E.164 numbers. Some internet-based replacement for E.164 numbers could easily be realized. -While I completely agree with Hugo's technical criticisms, I would point out that while the internet is superior to the telephone network, it also faces the same problem of oligopolistic control enforced by the network effect. Like the telephone network, the internet is largely controlled by only a few entities. The reason for this centralization is because [the network stack is broken and outdated](/2023/02/14/article-the-internet-is-broken/ "[Article] The Internet is Broken"). We've known for decades about ways to improve it and create [a more secure, decentralized internet](https://www.gnunet.org "GNUnet"), but it's hard because, just like with the telephone network, there are vested interests who stand to lose power and money if the technology improves. +While I completely agree with Hugo's technical criticisms, I would point out that while the internet is superior to the telephone network, it also faces the same problem of oligopolistic control enforced by the network effect. Like the telephone network, the internet is largely controlled by only a few entities. The reason for this centralization is because [the network stack is broken and outdated](/2023/02/14/article-the-internet-is-broken/ "[Article] The Internet is Broken"). We've known for decades about ways to improve it and create [a more secure, decentralized internet](https://www.gnunet.org/en/ "GNUnet"), but it's hard because, just like with the telephone network, there are vested interests who stand to lose power and money if the technology improves. > "The E.164 namespace is not secure, not only because carriers are prone to randomly reassign disused numbers. Not too many months ago were articles posted on HN about how a targeted attacker managed to obtain control of a organization's staff member's highly used E.164 number, probably just via social engineering. Since many accounts systems entertain the demonstrably false idea that E.164 numbers represent a more secure point of contact than other identifiers, such as an e. mail address, this creates a significant vulnerability, especially where users are forced to offer E.164 numbers unto this end." diff --git a/content/entry/re-video-dont-talk-to-the-police.md b/content/entry/re-video-dont-talk-to-the-police.md index 251dbad..6d1bfc0 100644 --- a/content/entry/re-video-dont-talk-to-the-police.md +++ b/content/entry/re-video-dont-talk-to-the-police.md @@ -19,6 +19,6 @@ When you're dealing with cops like this who escalate situations, trick you, thre It's easy for privileged white guys like Duane and I to tell people "Always comply with what the police tell you. Never resist. If they violate your rights, fight it in court later." and I think that's generally good advice. I certainly wouldn't advise anyone to deviate from that as a policy, but if you don't believe there are circumstances that call for deviating, I think you're just naïve. -Most of us have probably heard of the tragic death of [Eric Garner](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Eric_Garner "The Killing of Eric Garner"), a man the police choked to death over (allegedly) selling untaxed cigarettes. Garner stated *11 times* that he couldn't breathe, but the officer kept his knee on Garner's neck anyways. What was Garner supposed to do in that situation? Just let the police murder him? +Most of us have probably heard of the tragic death of [Eric Garner](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Eric_Garner "The Killing of Eric Garner"), a man the police choked to death over (allegedly) selling untaxed cigarettes. Garner stated *11 times* that he couldn't breathe, but the officer kept his knee on Garner's neck anyways. What was Garner supposed to do in that situation? Just let the police murder him? I think the best course of action when interacting with police is almost always to comply, assert your rights whenever possible, and rarely to resist. Ultimately though it depends on context and individual circumstances and one has to use their best judgment. diff --git a/content/entry/re-why-even-let-users-set-their-own-passwords.md b/content/entry/re-why-even-let-users-set-their-own-passwords.md index 06e53fb..39c8da9 100644 --- a/content/entry/re-why-even-let-users-set-their-own-passwords.md +++ b/content/entry/re-why-even-let-users-set-their-own-passwords.md @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ Second, these email tokens actually give the attacker several more avenues to ga * Guessing the user's email account password * Completing the user's email account recovery process -* [Phishing](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phishing "Phishing") the user's email +* [Phishing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phishing "Phishing") the user's email * Compromising the user's email server * Phishing the user's email server administrator * Compromising the user's email server's cloud hosting provider @@ -60,11 +60,11 @@ I agree. I also think it would be a good idea to include a notice telling the us Based on my IT experience, I completely agree. The average user would simply ignore the advice to use a password manager and do whatever they wanted anyway. But they already do the same with passwords they set themselves. While websites have a duty to take every reasonable step to secure user accounts, in the end, they can't stop users from shooting themselves in the foot if they insist on doing so. So they may as well make things as secure as possible on their end by generating secure user passwords rather than allowing them to set poor ones. -On the server side, generating secure user passwords would have another benefit that Hugo didn't mention: One could store user passwords run through a single iteration of a cheap, fast [hash function](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash_function "Hash Function") rather than using a relatively expensive [key derivation function](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_derivation_function "Key Derivation Function") that needs its iteration count constantly updated and requires storing a [salt](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_%28cryptography%29 "Cryptographic Salt"). [Rainbow tables](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_table "Rainbow Table") and password cracking software would be so useless that no sane attacker would even attempt it. +On the server side, generating secure user passwords would have another benefit that Hugo didn't mention: One could store user passwords run through a single iteration of a cheap, fast [hash function](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash_function "Hash Function") rather than using a relatively expensive [key derivation function](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_derivation_function "Key Derivation Function") that needs its iteration count constantly updated and requires storing a [salt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_%28cryptography%29 "Cryptographic Salt"). [Rainbow tables](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_table "Rainbow Table") and password cracking software would be so useless that no sane attacker would even attempt it. > "... With TOTP, knowledge of the secret is proven without sending it to the website. With a site-generated password, knowledge of the secret is proven by sending that secret to the website. This is a slight security benefit to TOTP. It doesn't seem to provide any useful security against a compromised or impersonating website (an impersonating website can just forward the TOTP challenge value to the real website and use it to login as the user), so its main benefit seems to be to avoid having the device the user is logging in as be able to glean the secret, in the event that device is compromised. This is a potential upside, though since on successful login the compromised client device has access to anything gated by that login anyway, the benefit seems dubious." -While I'd prefer to use [TOTP](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-based_One-time_Password "Time-Based One-Time Password") codes instead of a password for online services, I agree that the security gain would be dubious when compared to secure, server-generated passwords. +While I'd prefer to use [TOTP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-based_One-time_Password "Time-Based One-Time Password") codes instead of a password for online services, I agree that the security gain would be dubious when compared to secure, server-generated passwords. > "Since I don't lose my secrets I'm happy to assume responsibility for the possibility of permanently locking myself out in exchange for higher account security and disabling email as the “master key to all accounts”." @@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ I think the reason websites' login systems often seem confused about what they'r * Make certain that tech-illiterate users never get locked out of their accounts * Secure user accounts and associated data against attackers -You can try to strike a balance between these two options with [risk-based authentication](/2023/08/10/re-against-risk-based-authentication-or-why-i-wouldnt-trust-google-cloud/ "Re: Against risk-based authentication (or, why I wouldn't trust Google Cloud)"), but you'll just end up with indeterminate login criteria which locks out tech-illiterate users and/or collecting sensitive user data which [you cannot secure in the long run](/2021/01/18/consumer-data-protection-is-a-distraction/ "Consumer Data Protection is a Distraction"). Supporting [Web Authentication](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebAuthn) is a good idea, but the tech-illiterate user will get locked out when their [FIDO](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIDO_Alliance) device breaks or gets lost or they buy a new computer with a different [TPM](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Platform_Module). +You can try to strike a balance between these two options with [risk-based authentication](/2023/08/10/re-against-risk-based-authentication-or-why-i-wouldnt-trust-google-cloud/ "Re: Against risk-based authentication (or, why I wouldn't trust Google Cloud)"), but you'll just end up with indeterminate login criteria which locks out tech-illiterate users and/or collecting sensitive user data which [you cannot secure in the long run](/2021/01/18/consumer-data-protection-is-a-distraction/ "Consumer Data Protection is a Distraction"). Supporting [Web Authentication](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebAuthn) is a good idea, but the tech-illiterate user will get locked out when their [FIDO](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIDO_Alliance) device breaks or gets lost or they buy a new computer with a different [TPM](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Platform_Module). In conclusion, I'm highly skeptical that there's any way of creating a secure online login system that also ensures tech-illiterate users never get locked out. Designing a login system around the assumption that the user can't even safeguard a password or hardware key is a total non-starter for account security and teaches users that it's okay not to know what they're doing because online services cater to the clueless. diff --git a/content/entry/re-why-i-dont-trust-police-and-neither-should-you.md b/content/entry/re-why-i-dont-trust-police-and-neither-should-you.md index 66d02ab..cc8ff37 100644 --- a/content/entry/re-why-i-dont-trust-police-and-neither-should-you.md +++ b/content/entry/re-why-i-dont-trust-police-and-neither-should-you.md @@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ Everybody should acknowledge that policing is a necessary and difficult job. It' > * Police lying on the witness stand is so rampant it has a name: "[testilying](https://truthout.org/articles/lying-is-a-fundamental-part-of-american-police-culture/)" > * [Police can and will lie to you](https://www.snyderlawyer.com/blog/ways-police-can-lie-to-you/), especially if you're ignorant of the law. But if you lie to them, you'll be arrested. > * [Police officers launder evidence through illegal government surveillance](https://archive.org/details/ParallelReconstruction) to fight the failed war on drugs. -> * Local police departments use [powerful surveillance technology](https://www.eff.org/issues/street-level-surveillance) to [invade your privacy without a warrant](https://www.eff.org/issues/street-level-surveillance). +> * Local police departments use [powerful surveillance technology](https://sls.eff.org/) to [invade your privacy without a warrant](https://sls.eff.org/). > * [Police departments partner with scAmazon's corporate mass surveillance network to circumvent your 4th amendment rights.](https://www.cancelring.com/) Some police carry this attitude that they can do no wrong because all they do is in the service of a greater good. If they lie as a witness, they're just doing what's necessary to put away the bad guy. If they trick and manipulate suspects, they're just trying to keep everybody safe. If they launder evidence or circumvent 4th amendment protections via mass surveillance, they're just doing what's necessary to find the dangerous criminals. @@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ Police apologists will say "But it's not their fault that they don't get enough > * Police have spent 40 years blowing trillions of dollars ruining people's lives over drugs and causing the prison population to explode. All the while [drug use rates have remained constant](https://www.aclu.org/issues/smart-justice/sentencing-reform/war-drugs). > * [Police infringe upon citizens' freedom to explore their own consciousness through psychedelics.](https://web.archive.org/web/20220118020130if_/https://legalizepsychedelics.com/) -> * Police have been lying to children about drugs since the early 80's. The D.A.R.E. program even [encourages children to snitch on their parents](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Abuse_Resistance_Education#Use_of_children_as_informants). +> * Police have been lying to children about drugs since the early 80's. The D.A.R.E. program even [encourages children to snitch on their parents](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Abuse_Resistance_Education#Use_of_children_as_informants). > * [Police steal more from the innocent than do thieves.](https://yewtu.be/embed/ZWvh8Ttd9eA?local=true) Law enforcement apologists counter with "Police don't make the laws. They have to enforce the laws or else they get fired." @@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ All drug enforcement agents should be looking for a different line of work, but ### The Fake War on Police -> * Instead of listening to protesters calling for police reform, [police instead promote the myth that there's a "war on police"](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarization_of_police#Allegations_of_a_%22war_on_police%22). +> * Instead of listening to protesters calling for police reform, [police instead promote the myth that there's a "war on police"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarization_of_police#Allegations_of_a_%22war_on_police%22). There are communities which, due to negative past experiences with the police, will hate them no matter what and never trust police again. Then there are progressives like me who believe in policing, think that not having police is unworkable, but are unsatisfied with how policing is carried out and want major reform. @@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ Callous people are less likely to give the benefit of the doubt, to forgive, to ### Promoting Undemocratic Interests -> * [Police can search your home without your knowledge or consent if they suspect terrorism. You can be put on a terror watch list for almost anything and it's nearly impossible to clear your name.](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarization_of_police#United_States) +> * [Police can search your home without your knowledge or consent if they suspect terrorism. You can be put on a terror watch list for almost anything and it's nearly impossible to clear your name.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarization_of_police#United_States) Another problem with trust in police is that they target people whose interests are misaligned with those of the oligarchy, under the auspices of "national security". Powerful rich folks are held to a completely different standard than the poor and, thanks to money in politics, the rich write the laws. Because the law is not applied fairly to everyone and the rich write the laws to benefit themselves, people justifiably lose respect, confidence, and trust in those who enforce said laws: the police. @@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ Another problem with trust in police is that they target people whose interests Now that I've covered everything I still agree with, let's talk about the points I feel need correction: -> * [Police plant evidence.](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Kathryn_Johnston) +> * [Police plant evidence.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Kathryn_Johnston) The way I wrote this makes it seem like police planting evidence is a regular thing, and while there are confirmed cases of it happening, nobody really knows how common it is. The handful of confirmed cases each year don't justify a mistrust of police, so I would retract this statement. @@ -113,7 +113,7 @@ This is another point I would retract simply because these studies took place to ### Irrelevance -> * [America has a long history of racist policing.](https://www.aclu.org/news/criminal-law-reform/what-100-years-of-history-tells-us-about-racism-in-policing/) +> * [America has a long history of racist policing.](https://www.aclu.org/news/criminal-law-reform/what-100-years-of-history-tells-us-about-racism-in-policing) Finally, the fact that police were racist historically doesn't by itself prove that there's systemic racism in modern policing nor is it a reason not to trust the police today. I'm not saying that policing doesn't currently suffer from systemic racism, just that I should have clearly stated that point if I was going to make it rather than implying it using historical events. So I would retract this as well. diff --git a/content/entry/rejecting-discord-and-google-colab.md b/content/entry/rejecting-discord-and-google-colab.md index d793672..622f8a0 100644 --- a/content/entry/rejecting-discord-and-google-colab.md +++ b/content/entry/rejecting-discord-and-google-colab.md @@ -5,10 +5,10 @@ tags: ['computing', 'siue'] draft: false --- # Background -This semester I took Deep Learning at [SIUe](https://siue.edu). Deep learning is a senior level CS elective course. I'll call the professor, "Professor X" to preserve anonymity. +This semester I took Deep Learning at [SIUe](https://www.siue.edu/). Deep learning is a senior level CS elective course. I'll call the professor, "Professor X" to preserve anonymity. # Story -In Deep Learning class, after the lectures, we had to get into groups for our class project. The class project consisted of designing and implementing our own neural network which would do some novel task. It didn't take me long to get into a group. The issue as always was finding a communication platform that we could all use that was free software. Since most students opt for proprietary walled gardens instead such as [Discord](https://discordapp.com/), I had a lot of difficulty because I wasn't willing to use Discord. Our whole group of four agreed on using Discord except for me. Email wouldn't be viable. It's not great for real time communication and file sharing. Even after I explained that I don't use proprietary software, the group still did not want to budge as I expected. So the admin of the Discord "channel" and I got together and set up a [Matrix bridge](https://matrix.org/bridges/). I was surprised at how easy this was. Because Matrix has a [Matrix-Discord bridge](https://github.com/Half-Shot/matrix-appservice-discord) available and there is a public bot called [t2bot](https://t2bot.io/), I was able to use Riot.im client instead of Discord. Riot.im is free software and Matrix is an open protocol which is more acceptable than the proprietary walled garden of Discord. The bot allowed me to create a Matrix room which bridged Discord and the Matrix network. It took less than ten minutes to set up. Now that I got the hang of using it, I'm able to get it working in less than five minutes. There are a few quirks but overall it works fantastically and it's completely free. I recommend [donating](https://t2bot.io/donations/) if you use the bot since there is no charge for using it. It's a great tool for avoiding proprietary Discord and Slack. +In Deep Learning class, after the lectures, we had to get into groups for our class project. The class project consisted of designing and implementing our own neural network which would do some novel task. It didn't take me long to get into a group. The issue as always was finding a communication platform that we could all use that was free software. Since most students opt for proprietary walled gardens instead such as [Discord](https://discord.com/), I had a lot of difficulty because I wasn't willing to use Discord. Our whole group of four agreed on using Discord except for me. Email wouldn't be viable. It's not great for real time communication and file sharing. Even after I explained that I don't use proprietary software, the group still did not want to budge as I expected. So the admin of the Discord "channel" and I got together and set up a [Matrix bridge](https://matrix.org/ecosystem/bridges/). I was surprised at how easy this was. Because Matrix has a [Matrix-Discord bridge](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-appservice-discord) available and there is a public bot called [t2bot](https://t2bot.io/), I was able to use Riot.im client instead of Discord. Riot.im is free software and Matrix is an open protocol which is more acceptable than the proprietary walled garden of Discord. The bot allowed me to create a Matrix room which bridged Discord and the Matrix network. It took less than ten minutes to set up. Now that I got the hang of using it, I'm able to get it working in less than five minutes. There are a few quirks but overall it works fantastically and it's completely free. I recommend [donating](https://t2bot.io/donations/) if you use the bot since there is no charge for using it. It's a great tool for avoiding proprietary Discord and Slack. [Google Colab](https://colab.research.google.com) is a service Google offers that gives researchers and students a free GPU. It can be used for things like training neural networks in Python. It wasn't required for this course per se, but if you didn't have one you had better have a GPU or be in a group with a member that had a GPU. I have a computer with a GPU, but it is AMD, not Nvidia so it wouldn't work with the Python libraries like Keras and Tensorflow we were using to train the neural networks. I discovered this after I had already set up the machine for class unfortunately. I really took issue with Google Colab being basically required. If students didn't agree to the Google terms of service, how would it be possible to do the project? You could have relied on a group member to have an account and train the networks, but that just pushes the problem back a step to your team member agreeing to the terms of service. Worse, Colab requires proprietary JavaScript in the browser so you would have to run proprietary code to use it. And you know Google is collecting your experiment data in case you find something of interest because that's their whole evil business model. diff --git a/content/entry/rejecting-visual-studio.md b/content/entry/rejecting-visual-studio.md index b1fc7fe..c09e5bf 100644 --- a/content/entry/rejecting-visual-studio.md +++ b/content/entry/rejecting-visual-studio.md @@ -18,10 +18,10 @@ After I had already written my program, I spent over four extra hours learning h The professor and grader agreed, just for this one time, to regrade my program to reflect the work I put in instead of my willingness to agree to Microsoft's insane licenses and run proprietary malware just to write a C++ program, and I got a 90% losing 10% only because I submitted a day late. For the next two programs, the professor and grader agreed that I can submit only the source code cpp files because the grader had figured out how to run them in Visual Studio. ## Assignment Two and Three -The second assignment was Huarong Path, also called [Klotski](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klotski). It is a sliding puzzle where you try to get a particular piece into a particular spot on the board by sliding all the tiles around until you have the piece in the destination spot. There are many heuristics you can develop for this, but I found that implementation was just as important as heuristics. The third assignment was Fore & Aft where you try to reverse the positions of the differently colored pegs. Imagine a large square broken into four quadrants, but two quadrants that are diagonal to one another are missing, and there is one empty center peg and the quadrants have differently colored pegs. The rules are that you can move any peg into an empty adjacent peg or jump over pegs like in the game checkers. I ended up using [A*](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/A*_search_algorithm) to solve the puzzle. I was able to submit these two assignments with only the source code files, so I didn't have to use Visual Studio and there was no problem. +The second assignment was Huarong Path, also called [Klotski](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klotski). It is a sliding puzzle where you try to get a particular piece into a particular spot on the board by sliding all the tiles around until you have the piece in the destination spot. There are many heuristics you can develop for this, but I found that implementation was just as important as heuristics. The third assignment was Fore & Aft where you try to reverse the positions of the differently colored pegs. Imagine a large square broken into four quadrants, but two quadrants that are diagonal to one another are missing, and there is one empty center peg and the quadrants have differently colored pegs. The rules are that you can move any peg into an empty adjacent peg or jump over pegs like in the game checkers. I ended up using [A*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A*_search_algorithm) to solve the puzzle. I was able to submit these two assignments with only the source code files, so I didn't have to use Visual Studio and there was no problem. ## Assignment Four - N Queens Puzzle -Fast forward to the fourth assignment. It was an N Queens puzzle. For N=8, this is better known as the [8 Queens Puzzle](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_queens_puzzle). This was my favorite puzzle to write a solution for. I found a simple [hill-climbing algorithm](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill_climbing) from our textbook that was much faster at finding solutions than was asked of us. We had to find three unique solutions. I just allowed my program to take as input the board size as well as the initial position of the first queen. For some reason it was stipulated that we had to enable one queen in the solution to be "fixed" to a certain square so she was guaranteed to be there. It didn't take me long to have this solution written up and submitted, but my grade unexpectedly returned with a failing grade for the assignment. It was because gnu-c++ allowed specifying C arrays without a size, but the standard C++ compiler didn't, so it didn't compile in Visual Studio. +Fast forward to the fourth assignment. It was an N Queens puzzle. For N=8, this is better known as the [8 Queens Puzzle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_queens_puzzle). This was my favorite puzzle to write a solution for. I found a simple [hill-climbing algorithm](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill_climbing) from our textbook that was much faster at finding solutions than was asked of us. We had to find three unique solutions. I just allowed my program to take as input the board size as well as the initial position of the first queen. For some reason it was stipulated that we had to enable one queen in the solution to be "fixed" to a certain square so she was guaranteed to be there. It didn't take me long to have this solution written up and submitted, but my grade unexpectedly returned with a failing grade for the assignment. It was because gnu-c++ allowed specifying C arrays without a size, but the standard C++ compiler didn't, so it didn't compile in Visual Studio. When I turned on warnings when compiling with gnu-c++, I immediately saw what the grader was talking about and fixed it. The grader allowed me to fix it since it was just an issue with the compiler compatibility and not my code. I got full points back for this assignment. I was told after the first assignment that it would be my responsibility to make sure my code worked in Visual Studio and if it didn't, I would be graded accordingly. But the grader was willing to allow this to slide since it was such a minor issue and strictly to do with compiler compatibility. diff --git a/content/entry/remote-fair-coin-flipping-with-friends.md b/content/entry/remote-fair-coin-flipping-with-friends.md index a95f3ca..cfce132 100644 --- a/content/entry/remote-fair-coin-flipping-with-friends.md +++ b/content/entry/remote-fair-coin-flipping-with-friends.md @@ -4,21 +4,21 @@ date: 2020-11-19T00:00:00 tags: ['computing'] draft: false --- -Suppose you and some friends want to flip a coin without meeting up. It has to be done over an [authenticated communication channel](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_channel) such as a secure messaging app. How can you do it such that nobody can predict the final result? I'll explain how to do it fairly. I'm well aware of common coin algorithms. This post is mostly just for amusement. It's my half-hearted attempt at designing a cryptosystem. More on that later. +Suppose you and some friends want to flip a coin without meeting up. It has to be done over an [authenticated communication channel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_channel) such as a secure messaging app. How can you do it such that nobody can predict the final result? I'll explain how to do it fairly. I'm well aware of common coin algorithms. This post is mostly just for amusement. It's my half-hearted attempt at designing a cryptosystem. More on that later. # Coin Flipping ## Flipping a Coin with a Friend These are the steps for performing a single coin flip: 1. Flip a physical coin. Heads represents 0. Tails represents 1. -2. Append to the result of step 1 a space followed by a [nonce](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographic_nonce) that your friend cannot easily guess. Never reuse the nonce. For tails, it will look like this: 1 munxpawrqoivzhujfxbxwcang +2. Append to the result of step 1 a space followed by a [nonce](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographic_nonce) that your friend cannot easily guess. Never reuse the nonce. For tails, it will look like this: 1 munxpawrqoivzhujfxbxwcang 3. Calculate the SHA-256 hash of the string in step 2 (in [Bash](https://www.gnu.org/software/bash/)): echo -n "1 munxpawrqoivzhujfxbxwcang" | sha256sum 4. Publish the hash from step 3 onto the authenticated communication channel. 5. Pause until your friend completes step 4. 6. Publish the result from step 2 onto the authenticated communication channel. 7. Pause until your friend completes step 6. 8. Calculate the hash of your friend's step 2 result comparing it to their step 3 result. If it doesn't match, then one of you has incorrectly computed the hash. -9. If the hashes match, remove the space and nonce from both you and your friend's step 2 results. Then [XOR](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_or) both results. +9. If the hashes match, remove the space and nonce from both you and your friend's step 2 results. Then [XOR](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_or) both results. 10. Convert the value from step 9 back to heads or tails as defined in step 1. ## Flipping Multiple Coins with a Friend @@ -26,42 +26,42 @@ These are the steps for performing a single coin flip: If you want to flip multiple coins, you can repeat steps 1-10 of the single coin flip, but that's very cumbersome. There's an easier solution. Suppose you and your friend want to flip N coins: 1. Flip N physical coins. Heads represents 0. Tails represents 1. Concatenate the coin flip results. -2. Append to the result of step 1 a space followed by a [nonce](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographic_nonce) that your friend cannot easily guess. Never reuse the nonce. For the sequence heads tails heads tails heads, it will look like this: 01010 yabynkgpbfnagntyzvgvgmwaa +2. Append to the result of step 1 a space followed by a [nonce](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographic_nonce) that your friend cannot easily guess. Never reuse the nonce. For the sequence heads tails heads tails heads, it will look like this: 01010 yabynkgpbfnagntyzvgvgmwaa 3. Calculate the SHA-256 hash of the string in step 2 (in [Bash](https://www.gnu.org/software/bash/)): echo -n "01010 yabynkgpbfnagntyzvgvgmwaa" | sha256sum 4. Publish the hash from step 3 onto the authenticated communication channel. 5. Pause until your friend completes step 4. 6. Publish the result from step 2 onto the authenticated communication channel. 7. Pause until your friend completes step 6. 8. Calculate the hash of your friend's step 2 result comparing it to their step 3 result. If it doesn't match, then one of you has incorrectly computed the hash. -9. If the hashes match, remove the space and nonce from both you and your friend's step 2 results. Then [XOR](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_or) both results. +9. If the hashes match, remove the space and nonce from both you and your friend's step 2 results. Then [XOR](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_or) both results. 10. Convert the values from step 9 back to heads or tails as defined in step 1. ## Flipping a Coin with 3+ Friends -It is possible to perform a remote fair coin flip with 3 or more participants, but there are 3 caveats. One caveat is depending on how many participants you have, it could take quite a bit longer than the previous cases where you only have 1 other person. This is because everyone has to participate in the coin flip if everyone wants to ensure fairness. Otherwise the other participants can collude to manipulate the coin flip. The second caveat is you need to have a robust authenticated group communication channel resistant to [replay attacks](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replay_attack) and other funny business such as messages being edited/deleted without indication and out of order message receipt. But maybe that's taking my cryptosystem too seriously. The third caveat is increased complexity. All participants will need to know how to perform all the steps and there's a greater chance someone doesn't do step 3 right. Regardless, here's how you flip a coin with 3+ friends: +It is possible to perform a remote fair coin flip with 3 or more participants, but there are 3 caveats. One caveat is depending on how many participants you have, it could take quite a bit longer than the previous cases where you only have 1 other person. This is because everyone has to participate in the coin flip if everyone wants to ensure fairness. Otherwise the other participants can collude to manipulate the coin flip. The second caveat is you need to have a robust authenticated group communication channel resistant to [replay attacks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replay_attack) and other funny business such as messages being edited/deleted without indication and out of order message receipt. But maybe that's taking my cryptosystem too seriously. The third caveat is increased complexity. All participants will need to know how to perform all the steps and there's a greater chance someone doesn't do step 3 right. Regardless, here's how you flip a coin with 3+ friends: 1. Flip a physical coin. Heads represents 0. Tails represents 1. -2. Append to the result of step 1 a space followed by a [nonce](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographic_nonce) that your friends cannot easily guess. Never reuse the nonce. For tails, it will look like this: 1 munxpawrqoivzhujfxbxwcang +2. Append to the result of step 1 a space followed by a [nonce](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographic_nonce) that your friends cannot easily guess. Never reuse the nonce. For tails, it will look like this: 1 munxpawrqoivzhujfxbxwcang 3. Calculate the SHA-256 hash of the string in step 2 (in [Bash](https://www.gnu.org/software/bash/)): echo -n "1 munxpawrqoivzhujfxbxwcang" | sha256sum 4. Publish the hash from step 3 onto the authenticated communication channel. 5. Pause until all your friends complete step 4. 6. Publish the result from step 2 onto the authenticated communication channel. 7. Pause until all your friends complete step 6. 8. Calculate the hashes of your friends' step 2 results comparing it to their step 3 results. If they don't match, then one of you has incorrectly computed the hash. -9. If the hashes match, remove the space and nonce from both you and your friends' step 2 results. Then [XOR](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_or) all results. +9. If the hashes match, remove the space and nonce from both you and your friends' step 2 results. Then [XOR](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_or) all results. 10. Convert the value from step 9 back to heads or tails as defined in step 1. ## Flipping Multiple Coins with 3+ Friends This is the most difficult coin flip: multiple coins with more than 2 participants. I think you get the gist of it by now and I don't really need to type all this out, but I will for completeness sake. Not much will be changed from the above steps though. 1. Flip N physical coins. Heads represents 0. Tails represents 1. Concatenate the coin flip results. -2. Append to the result of step 1 a space followed by a [nonce](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographic_nonce) that your friends cannot easily guess. Never reuse the nonce. For the sequence heads tails heads tails heads, it will look like this: 01010 yabynkgpbfnagntyzvgvgmwaa +2. Append to the result of step 1 a space followed by a [nonce](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographic_nonce) that your friends cannot easily guess. Never reuse the nonce. For the sequence heads tails heads tails heads, it will look like this: 01010 yabynkgpbfnagntyzvgvgmwaa 3. Calculate the SHA-256 hash of the string in step 2 (in [Bash](https://www.gnu.org/software/bash/)): echo -n "01010 yabynkgpbfnagntyzvgvgmwaa" | sha256sum 4. Publish the hash from step 3 onto the authenticated communication channel. 5. Pause until all your friends complete step 4. 6. Publish the result from step 2 onto the authenticated communication channel. 7. Pause until all your friends complete step 6. 8. Calculate the hashes of your friends' step 2 results comparing it to their step 3 results. If they don't match, then one of you has incorrectly computed the hash. -9. If the hashes match, remove the space and nonce from both you and your friends' step 2 results. Then [XOR](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_or) all results. +9. If the hashes match, remove the space and nonce from both you and your friends' step 2 results. Then [XOR](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_or) all results. 10. Convert the values from step 9 back to heads or tails as defined in step 1. # Rationale diff --git a/content/entry/robert-miles-makes-accessible-ai-safety-videos.md b/content/entry/robert-miles-makes-accessible-ai-safety-videos.md index 1bae43a..e216184 100644 --- a/content/entry/robert-miles-makes-accessible-ai-safety-videos.md +++ b/content/entry/robert-miles-makes-accessible-ai-safety-videos.md @@ -4,11 +4,11 @@ date: 2023-04-26T00:00:00 tags: ['computing'] draft: false --- -I remember being in class once introducing a small group of students to the AI safety problem as it pertains to long-term accidental risks. I was talking about some thought experiment like the [paperclip maximizer](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_convergence#Paperclip_maximizer) while the group asked me many questions, each of which warranted their own discussion entirely. +I remember being in class once introducing a small group of students to the AI safety problem as it pertains to long-term accidental risks. I was talking about some thought experiment like the [paperclip maximizer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_convergence#Paperclip_maximizer) while the group asked me many questions, each of which warranted their own discussion entirely. The questions were along the lines of "Would it be like Terminator?", "Why would it have a utility function?", "Wouldn't it be smart enough to realize maximizing paperclips is a dumb goal?", "Why would it want to acquire resources or self-improve?", "What makes you think it would become superintelligent?", "Why couldn't we just turn it off?", so on and so forth. All great questions, but I unfortunately didn't have the time to cover them all. -I realized that the group I was trying to teach lacked the necessary background to understand why the paperclip maximizer would behave the way I was describing. It's not just lay people and students though. Many people who work in the field of AI are unaware of AI safety. Their job only requires them to think about how they can make their AI model less racially biased. It doesn't require that they consider AI as an [existential risk](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_catastrophic_risk#Defining_existential_risks). +I realized that the group I was trying to teach lacked the necessary background to understand why the paperclip maximizer would behave the way I was describing. It's not just lay people and students though. Many people who work in the field of AI are unaware of AI safety. Their job only requires them to think about how they can make their AI model less racially biased. It doesn't require that they consider AI as an [existential risk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_catastrophic_risk#Defining_existential_risks). Maybe you don't think it matters because that person isn't intending to work on artificial general intelligence (AI as smart as or much smarter than humans). I would argue that that's besides the point. We may live in a universe where the technological development path of AGI is such that it's highly probable that it gets invented accidentally. In other words, someone with no intentions to invent AGI and only rudimentary understanding of AI safety ends up inventing it. That scenario would be disastrous for humanity. diff --git a/content/entry/shining-light-on-the-dark-side-of-law-enforcement.md b/content/entry/shining-light-on-the-dark-side-of-law-enforcement.md index 2e4ad6d..d7638b1 100644 --- a/content/entry/shining-light-on-the-dark-side-of-law-enforcement.md +++ b/content/entry/shining-light-on-the-dark-side-of-law-enforcement.md @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ title: "Shining Light on the Dark Side of Law Enforcement" date: 2020-12-04T00:00:00 draft: false --- -The US constitution is supposed to protect citizens from [thug](/glossary/) overreach. However, evidence from the past decade shows that thugs have been stomping all over our civil liberties daily by colluding with intelligence agencies. The federal government does this by constructing lies about how agents discover information. For example if the government discovers a crime through illegal mass surveillance or another covert surveillance program, it can't use that evidence directly because that would violate the 4th amendment and expose Big Brother. Instead, "hints" are passed on to thugs so they can construct a "parallel" chain of evidence that can be used in court. This is where it gets the name [parallel construction](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction). Parallel construction sounds like innocuous jargon from an architecture course, so I prefer to call the practice by the more descriptive name, evidence laundering. +The US constitution is supposed to protect citizens from [thug](/glossary/) overreach. However, evidence from the past decade shows that thugs have been stomping all over our civil liberties daily by colluding with intelligence agencies. The federal government does this by constructing lies about how agents discover information. For example if the government discovers a crime through illegal mass surveillance or another covert surveillance program, it can't use that evidence directly because that would violate the 4th amendment and expose Big Brother. Instead, "hints" are passed on to thugs so they can construct a "parallel" chain of evidence that can be used in court. This is where it gets the name [parallel construction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction). Parallel construction sounds like innocuous jargon from an architecture course, so I prefer to call the practice by the more descriptive name, evidence laundering. Evidence laundering prevents defendants in criminal cases from knowing about infringements of their rights. It makes challenging thugs' actions in court very difficult, making a mockery of the right to a fair trial. The motivation for thugs to respect a defendant's rights is that evidence obtained illegally cannot be used in court. With evidence laundering, the illegal evidence is converted into legal evidence. Therefore the motivation not to violate citizen's rights goes away, so long as thugs can keep citizens from proving it occurred. Even if a defendant in a criminal trial suspects evidence laundering, it's nigh impossible to prove. This puts minorities and political activists at risk of having their rights violated without even knowing it. diff --git a/content/entry/site-update-001.md b/content/entry/site-update-001.md index 8814d09..56337ae 100644 --- a/content/entry/site-update-001.md +++ b/content/entry/site-update-001.md @@ -7,4 +7,4 @@ draft: false # What's New I just finished migrating this site to a new server in Poland and I made a few changes along the way. I added IPv6 support to the site. I cleaned up the [about page](/about/) and added some context to give the site a clear purpose. The primary crypto donation method is now Monero instead of Bitcoin. It's better for privacy. I also switched from Ko-fi to [Liberapay](https://liberapay.com). Liberapay supports multiple currencies and languages. It's a non-profit that handles transactions transparently with [free software](https://github.com/liberapay). -As for the site mirrors, I removed the [SIUe mirror](https://www.siue.edu/~njohnag) since it's insecure and I seem to have lost access since I don't attend any more. I changed the onion address to a [new vanity onion](http://nick6gsepvtmkcpibpid6dqtqroxt62u6ab4ep65vxrenffruumj6jad.onion). I also registered my I2P site with zzz's I2P domain name service so it's more memorable. It will take up to a week to propagate through all the nodes, so you'll have to use the direct [base32 address](http://nickg4tsj3wy3i23faxp5momjcnlwrvwl5ek5l7lkm5vrbblvgbq.b32.i2p) or a jump service to access this blog over I2P for now. I don't plan on changing the links again so it's safe to bookmark the new onion address and I2P link. I've made a backup of the private keys for the eepsite, onion, and Zeronet addresses. In the event of a future server migration, I'll be able to keep the addresses the same. +As for the site mirrors, I removed the SIUe mirror since it's insecure and I seem to have lost access since I don't attend any more. I changed the onion address to a [new vanity onion](http://nick6gsepvtmkcpibpid6dqtqroxt62u6ab4ep65vxrenffruumj6jad.onion). I also registered my I2P site with zzz's I2P domain name service so it's more memorable. It will take up to a week to propagate through all the nodes, so you'll have to use the direct [base32 address](http://nickg4tsj3wy3i23faxp5momjcnlwrvwl5ek5l7lkm5vrbblvgbq.b32.i2p) or a jump service to access this blog over I2P for now. I don't plan on changing the links again so it's safe to bookmark the new onion address and I2P link. I've made a backup of the private keys for the eepsite, onion, and Zeronet addresses. In the event of a future server migration, I'll be able to keep the addresses the same. diff --git a/content/entry/site-update-005.md b/content/entry/site-update-005.md index a144de9..becc43a 100644 --- a/content/entry/site-update-005.md +++ b/content/entry/site-update-005.md @@ -7,6 +7,6 @@ draft: false # What's New I removed the people and organizations sections on the [about page](/about/). I never explained why those sections were there in the first place. I just filled them with links to organizations and people. My linking to them was not an endorsement of everything those people and organizations have ever said or done. For people I was just trying to indicate that each person in the list had some important ideas. For organizations I was trying to indicate that I thought they fought for worthy causes on the whole. But there was no way for readers to know just by looking at the links which words and actions I agreed with and which I disagreed with. I removed those links because, as I've written before, I want my blog to be chiefly about ideas, not people or organizations. -With that said, there are so many ideas that I appreciate from others that sound better in their words rather than my own. I was conscious of this when writing about [free](/2020/06/19/free-will-is-incoherent-part-1) [will](/2020/08/22/free-will-is-incoherent-part-2). Those posts were inspired by [Sam Harris](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris)' book [Free Will](https://samharris.org/books/free-will/). It's not that I can't make a good case against free will. It's that I can't make a better case against free will than Sam does in his book. So it might have been better for me to literally plug his book rather than write my own post on the subject. I feel this way when it comes to lots of topics. Why spend so much time and effort restating something someone else has already expressed in a clearer way than I can? +With that said, there are so many ideas that I appreciate from others that sound better in their words rather than my own. I was conscious of this when writing about [free](/2020/06/19/free-will-is-incoherent-part-1/) [will](/2020/08/22/free-will-is-incoherent-part-2/). Those posts were inspired by [Sam Harris](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris)' book [Free Will](https://www.samharris.org/books/free-will). It's not that I can't make a good case against free will. It's that I can't make a better case against free will than Sam does in his book. So it might have been better for me to literally plug his book rather than write my own post on the subject. I feel this way when it comes to lots of topics. Why spend so much time and effort restating something someone else has already expressed in a clearer way than I can? Therefore I've decided to create a new tag called "recommendation". Posts under the recommendation tag will feature books, articles, academic papers, videos and ideas along with some commentary. The idea is this will give me the flexibility to write a new post when I want to share ideas in my own words and create a "recommendation" post when I want to endorse the ideas of others in their own words. After I've created a few recommendation posts and a few regular posts, I'll reevaluate site organization and decide whether to keep recommendations or come up with something else. diff --git a/content/entry/site-update-006.md b/content/entry/site-update-006.md index e2f34c8..48cca96 100644 --- a/content/entry/site-update-006.md +++ b/content/entry/site-update-006.md @@ -7,6 +7,6 @@ draft: false # What's New I changed the website theme. It's darker now and much easier on the eyes. I didn't particularly like the last theme ever since I started using it. I only picked it because it was easy to manage with how minimal it was. I added a favicon to identify my site: -[favicon [IMG]](/favicon.ico) +[favicon [IMG]](/old-favicon.ico) It's nothing to brag about. I just thought I ought to have something there. The markdown is improved, especially the blockquotes. It didn't seem like they were rendering on the previous theme, but now they do. Each post now has a word count and estimated reading time in the metadata section. Posts are paginated so they're not all on one page like before. I'm allergic to client-side JS, so this site has none. I modified the theme to use CSS rather than JS for the interactive features. I'm happy with the way it turned out and I consider it a significant improvement. The new theme is everything I originally wanted for my blog, so it's here to stay. diff --git a/content/entry/site-update-007.md b/content/entry/site-update-007.md index ffa6816..7df6f88 100644 --- a/content/entry/site-update-007.md +++ b/content/entry/site-update-007.md @@ -5,4 +5,4 @@ tags: ['journal updates'] draft: false --- # What's New -I provisioned a new TLS certificate from [ZeroSSL](https://zerossl.com). That's why there was some downtime yesterday on 0gitnick.xyz. By default [Caddy](https://caddyserver.com) provisions TLS certs from [Let's Encrypt](https://letsencrypt.org) with a P-256 public key. I don't trust [NIST curves](https://safecurves.cr.yp.to/rigid.html) so 0gitnick.xyz uses a 4096 bit RSA key now. As of the time of this post all other [clearnet site mirrors](/about) use 2048 bit RSA which is also secure. +I provisioned a new TLS certificate from [ZeroSSL](https://zerossl.com). That's why there was some downtime yesterday on 0gitnick.xyz. By default [Caddy](https://caddyserver.com) provisions TLS certs from [Let's Encrypt](https://letsencrypt.org) with a P-256 public key. I don't trust [NIST curves](https://safecurves.cr.yp.to/rigid.html) so 0gitnick.xyz uses a 4096 bit RSA key now. As of the time of this post all other [clearnet site mirrors](/about/) use 2048 bit RSA which is also secure. diff --git a/content/entry/site-update-008.md b/content/entry/site-update-008.md index 3f611eb..883dd47 100644 --- a/content/entry/site-update-008.md +++ b/content/entry/site-update-008.md @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ draft: false It seems I'm making update posts more often than I imagined, but it's fine. I'm going to try out a list format for this one. * Change "recommendation" tag to more specific tags. (e.g., "books", "videos") -* Sign commits on Github/[Gitlab](https://gitlab.com/0Gitnick/0Gitnick.github.io) so users can [TOFU](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_on_first_use) this blog +* Sign commits on Github/Gitlab so users can [TOFU](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_on_first_use) this blog * Minify HTML and CSS # Future Plans diff --git a/content/entry/site-update-009.md b/content/entry/site-update-009.md index 91addd0..f05eda3 100644 --- a/content/entry/site-update-009.md +++ b/content/entry/site-update-009.md @@ -9,10 +9,10 @@ I haven't posted anything for a while and I've been working behind the scenes to * Output RSS content as full post content rather than mere content summaries for better accessibility to RSS users. * Move the custom inline CSS to the external stylesheet. -* The site's Github and [Gitlab](https://gitlab.com/0gitnick/0gitnick.gitlab.io) CI workflows that host the [site mirrors](/about) have been fixed. Before, I was locally generating files and uploading them as a single commit. Now, I upload the source files and let the remote servers do the work. -* Launch Gitea server on new subdomain [https://git.0gitnick.xyz](https://git.0gitnick.xyz) to host site content and theme for better organization and transparency in generating the site. The reason I did not go with Savannah as I planned in my last site update is because Savannah has very strict licensing requirements. Since my site is forked and I might fork more projects in the future, I'd rather not spend hours fixing license text before I can even upload the project. I have no problem with meticulously licensing my own work. It would just be too demotivating to do that for someone else's work. +* The site's Github and Gitlab CI workflows that host the site mirrors have been fixed. Before, I was locally generating files and uploading them as a single commit. Now, I upload the source files and let the remote servers do the work. +* Launch Gitea server on new subdomain (https://git.0gitnick.xyz) to host site content and theme for better organization and transparency in generating the site. The reason I did not go with Savannah as I planned in my last site update is because Savannah has very strict licensing requirements. Since my site is forked and I might fork more projects in the future, I'd rather not spend hours fixing license text before I can even upload the project. I have no problem with meticulously licensing my own work. It would just be too demotivating to do that for someone else's work. * Write content summaries for every post. This was very tedious but worth it. It makes the site more aesthetically pleasing and much easier to follow. It's my own fault for not doing this from the beginning. * Add Ethereum address and tokens for more donation options. # Future Plans -* Add [Gemini](https://gemini.circumlunar.space/) support. The modern web has so many problems: tracking cookies, [proprietary client-side JavaScript](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html), non-Unix philosophy, [browser fingerprinting](https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/), [DRM](https://www.w3.org/TR/encrypted-media/) as a standard, etc. [Gopher](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gopher_%28protocol%29) is 30 years old and has suffered decline. [Gemini](https://gemini.circumlunar.space/) is more modern avoiding the limitations of Gopher and the pitfalls of the modern web. +* Add [Gemini](https://gemini.circumlunar.space/) support. The modern web has so many problems: tracking cookies, [proprietary client-side JavaScript](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html), non-Unix philosophy, [browser fingerprinting](https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/), [DRM](https://www.w3.org/TR/encrypted-media/) as a standard, etc. [Gopher](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gopher_%28protocol%29) is 30 years old and has suffered decline. [Gemini](https://gemini.circumlunar.space/) is more modern avoiding the limitations of Gopher and the pitfalls of the modern web. diff --git a/content/entry/site-update-010.md b/content/entry/site-update-010.md index 539d07c..c46c3f0 100644 --- a/content/entry/site-update-010.md +++ b/content/entry/site-update-010.md @@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ I did some more behind the scenes work on my site: * Change post licenses to CC-BY-SA 4.0. Previously they were under CC-BY-ND, but I don't mind if others change my content and redistribute it. I don't even care if they monetize it. I only care that I'm given credit for my work. # Future Plans -* Add [Gemini](https://gemini.circumlunar.space/) support. I justified this in [my last site update](/2021/02/21/site-update-009). I've converted my Hugo markdown files to Gemini and created a repo for the [Gemini capsule](https://archive.softwareheritage.org/swh:1:snp:fb9bef300f9b939382f5656232d95377c8630a10;origin=https://git.nicholasjohnson.ch/nicksphere-gmi). +* Add [Gemini](https://gemini.circumlunar.space/) support. I justified this in [my last site update](/2021/02/21/site-update-009/). I've converted my Hugo markdown files to Gemini and created a repo for the [Gemini capsule](https://archive.softwareheritage.org/swh:1:snp:fb9bef300f9b939382f5656232d95377c8630a10;origin=https://git.nicholasjohnson.ch/nicksphere-gmi). I have 2 options when it comes to Gemini: diff --git a/content/entry/siue-cyberstalking-feature.md b/content/entry/siue-cyberstalking-feature.md index de572d5..880b5b4 100644 --- a/content/entry/siue-cyberstalking-feature.md +++ b/content/entry/siue-cyberstalking-feature.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ date: 2020-06-06T00:00:00 tags: ['computing', 'siue'] draft: false --- -[https://www.siue.edu/search/people.shtml](https://www.siue.edu/search/people.shtml) +[https://web.archive.org/web/20200519134013if_/http://www.siue.edu/search/people.shtml](https://web.archive.org/web/20200519134013if_/http://www.siue.edu/search/people.shtml) This lesser-known feature has existed for at least 2 years and probably much longer than that. I emailed their [help desk](mailto:help@siue.edu) several times pointing out the search feature could be abused by cyberstalkers and data mined. I pointed out that it should require authentication and not be open to the public internet. It's a huge risk for student privacy and safety. Anyone can find any student's full name, area of study, rank, home address, phone number and university email. A week later, I still have no response. diff --git a/content/entry/siue-eid-creation-and-maintenance-problems.md b/content/entry/siue-eid-creation-and-maintenance-problems.md index 023331f..fe6af2c 100644 --- a/content/entry/siue-eid-creation-and-maintenance-problems.md +++ b/content/entry/siue-eid-creation-and-maintenance-problems.md @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ tags: ['computing', 'siue'] draft: false --- # Arbitrary Password Rules -I'll go over them one at a time. They are found at [https://eid.siue.edu/am/change_password](https://eid.siue.edu/am/change_password). +I'll go over them one at a time. They are found at [https://eid.siue.edu/am/change_password](https://web.archive.org/web/20220516152531if_/https://eid.siue.edu/am/change_password). * The previous 6 passwords cannot be reused. @@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ Do I even need to say it a third time? * A password cannot contain any of the characters $&@=+"/[]:;|*,?<>~' or a space. -Throw out the NIST guideline on using all printable ASCII characters and Unicode. In fact, it doesn't support Unicode. I tried inserting a Unicode character only to get errors. From a security perspective, this rule is extremely concerning. I'm not sure what it's trying to do, but some of the characters are used in SQL commands. Could this indicate a [SQL injection](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL_injection) vulnerability? Since SIUe has to update the password across multiple systems (Blackboard, Outlook, etc.), it could be due to a compatibility issue. This could also be a security concern. +Throw out the NIST guideline on using all printable ASCII characters and Unicode. In fact, it doesn't support Unicode. I tried inserting a Unicode character only to get errors. From a security perspective, this rule is extremely concerning. I'm not sure what it's trying to do, but some of the characters are used in SQL commands. Could this indicate a [SQL injection](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL_injection) vulnerability? Since SIUe has to update the password across multiple systems (Blackboard, Outlook, etc.), it could be due to a compatibility issue. This could also be a security concern. I'm going to lump the last 4 together because the only thing I have to add is that they reduce the password space again and are composition rules. @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ I'm going to lump the last 4 together because the only thing I have to add is th ## 60 Day Reset -Every 60 days, you are required to [reset your password](https://web.archive.org/web/20201026122131/https://www.siue.edu/its/eid_faq.shtml#expired). The NIST password policy guidelines say users shouldn't be required to change their passwords regularly or arbitrarily. If an account is compromised, then it makes sense. But otherwise, you'll just be making everyone increment the last digit in their password every time. Almost no one will create a completely different password when they can just change one character. +Every 60 days, you are required to [reset your password](https://web.archive.org/web/20201026122131if_/https://www.siue.edu/its/eid_faq.shtml#expired). The NIST password policy guidelines say users shouldn't be required to change their passwords regularly or arbitrarily. If an account is compromised, then it makes sense. But otherwise, you'll just be making everyone increment the last digit in their password every time. Almost no one will create a completely different password when they can just change one character. Furthermore, all these password rules make it much more difficult to analyze the number of possible passwords. To do that, you would need every e-ID and every word in "the dictionary". Who knows what words are included even. I'm certain that even the administrators have no idea how big the password space is, but it's definitely insufficient. This brings me to my next point. @@ -50,26 +50,26 @@ If your password is reset using your security question, or you get your password # Annoying User Interface ## Looks -Take a look at the [creation and maintenance](https://eid.siue.edu/am/e-ID) page. I myself am not great at designing graphical user interfaces, but this one is bad. There was a class I had where the professor went over how awful the creation and maintenance page was during the class, but I won't mention who. Some things they noticed on the face of it: For some strange reason, the table has four columns, but the third and fourth column only have one item. The radio buttons get their own separate cells which look awful with the borders. Everything is at the top of the page, not centered. The gray background is very bland and it looks like not much thought was put into the color scheme. And it definitely isn't going to look nice on mobile. +Take a look at the [creation and maintenance](https://web.archive.org/web/20230327172111if_/https://eid.siue.edu/am/get_e-ID) page. I myself am not great at designing graphical user interfaces, but this one is bad. There was a class I had where the professor went over how awful the creation and maintenance page was during the class, but I won't mention who. Some things they noticed on the face of it: For some strange reason, the table has four columns, but the third and fourth column only have one item. The radio buttons get their own separate cells which look awful with the borders. Everything is at the top of the page, not centered. The gray background is very bland and it looks like not much thought was put into the color scheme. And it definitely isn't going to look nice on mobile. ## Input Ambiguity The date of birth on the "I want to get an e-ID" option and the "I have an e-ID but I forgot my password" option have 3 separate input boxes! The day and month are dropdowns while the year is a text box. It doesn't indicate how you should enter the year either, as 2 digits or 4 digits. It wants 4. But, if you enter 2, it gives you a generic error message saying the account information is not correct. -The new password and confirm new password fields on the [change password page](https://eid.siue.edu/am/change_password) allow you to input in your browser 9 characters, but the server just rejects anything more than 8. It also has text above the input field saying it only allows 8 characters. +The new password and confirm new password fields on the [change password page](https://web.archive.org/web/20220516152531if_/https://eid.siue.edu/am/change_password) allow you to input in your browser 9 characters, but the server just rejects anything more than 8. It also has text above the input field saying it only allows 8 characters. ## Invalid HTML After seeing the poor quality of the subdomain's web pages, I got curious and clicked view source. They were using XHTML 1.0 and the legacy windows-1252 character encoding. After checking all the pages reachable from the radio buttons with the HTML validator at [https://validator.w3.org/](https://validator.w3.org/), the results were as expected. Every URL I checked had invalid HTML at the time of this writing: -* [https://eid.siue.edu/am/e-ID](https://eid.siue.edu/am/e-ID) (85 errors) -* [https://eid.siue.edu/am/get_e-ID](https://eid.siue.edu/am/get_e-ID) (16 errors) -* [https://eid.siue.edu/am/reset.pl](https://eid.siue.edu/am/reset.pl) (19 errors) -* [https://eid.siue.edu/am/change_password](https://eid.siue.edu/am/change_password) (91 errors, 2 warnings) -* [https://eid.siue.edu/am/bid_lookup](https://eid.siue.edu/am/bid_lookup) (14 errors) +* [https://eid.siue.edu/am/e-ID](https://web.archive.org/web/20200814190750if_/https://eid.siue.edu/am/e-ID) (85 errors) +* [https://eid.siue.edu/am/get_e-ID](https://web.archive.org/web/20230327172111if_/https://eid.siue.edu/am/get_e-ID) (16 errors) +* [https://eid.siue.edu/am/reset.pl](https://web.archive.org/web/20220331012226if_/https://eid.siue.edu/am/reset.pl) (19 errors) +* [https://eid.siue.edu/am/change_password](https://web.archive.org/web/20220516152531if_/https://eid.siue.edu/am/change_password) (91 errors, 2 warnings) +* [https://eid.siue.edu/am/bid_lookup](https://web.archive.org/web/20200925202214if_/https://eid.siue.edu/am/bid_lookup) (14 errors) -The landing page for the university at [https://www.siue.edu](https://www.siue.edu) also had invalid HTML yielding 13 errors from the validator. Other URLs under the SIUe domain also had errors. These errors are less severe than the creation and maintenance page but still deserve to be addressed. The HTML looks like it was written in an editor, not by a human. +The landing page for the university at [https://www.siue.edu](https://web.archive.org/web/20200610071634if_/https://www.siue.edu/) also had invalid HTML yielding 13 errors from the validator. Other URLs under the SIUe domain also had errors. These errors are less severe than the creation and maintenance page but still deserve to be addressed. The HTML looks like it was written in an editor, not by a human. ## Usability -After you submit the [change password form](https://eid.siue.edu/am/change_password), you are redirected to a webpage where you have the option to change your secret phrase. You can use the secret phrase to reset your password if you forget it. The problem is the secret phrase works the opposite way than you think it does. You don't select a question and input the answer. You input both the question and answer manually. And then when you go to reset your password, it will give you the answer to the secret phrase and you have to come up with the question. If you think about it for a while, it's not hard to see that some answers correspond to really only one question. So this is not a good scheme. +After you submit the [change password form](https://web.archive.org/web/20220516152531if_/https://eid.siue.edu/am/change_password), you are redirected to a webpage where you have the option to change your secret phrase. You can use the secret phrase to reset your password if you forget it. The problem is the secret phrase works the opposite way than you think it does. You don't select a question and input the answer. You input both the question and answer manually. And then when you go to reset your password, it will give you the answer to the secret phrase and you have to come up with the question. If you think about it for a while, it's not hard to see that some answers correspond to really only one question. So this is not a good scheme. For example, "The Incredibles" is the hint. You can guess the question "What is your favorite movie?". On the other hand, picking a question from a dropdown box and having a normal security question challenge setup would be a better scheme. If a student isn't aware of how the system works, it might leak sensitive information about them to hackers, especially since they can define their own question and answer. @@ -77,6 +77,6 @@ For example, "The Incredibles" is the hint. You can guess the question "What is When it lets you change the secret phrase and answer, it literally shows you the existing secret phrase and answer. That means that the question to your secret phrase is not hashed and salted. SIUe has a big database of questions of ~13k active students. And don't forget all past students' questions and answers going back years are still in the system. And their answers to those questions are just sitting on a server somewhere ready for a data breach. This is pure negligence and should be fixed as soon as possible. There's no reason to have personal questions and answers of students sitting on a server somewhere in plain text. # Denial of Service Vulnerability -There is a denial of service vulnerability related to the [change password form](https://eid.siue.edu/am/change_password). If you unsuccessfully reset your password more than 5 times, your ability to reset your password will be locked for 24 hours. This password reset attempt limit persists across browsing sessions and IP addresses. It must be stored on SIUe servers. That means anyone can use the [people search feature](https://www.siue.edu/search/people.shtml), which I covered previously, to scrape for e-ID's. Then, they can spam the password reset form with every e-ID scraped from the search feature. Since it's only necessary to do this once every 24 hours per account, anyone can effectively break the password reset feature for all active students, faculty and staff with a simple Python script. +There is a denial of service vulnerability related to the [change password form](https://web.archive.org/web/20220516152531if_/https://eid.siue.edu/am/change_password). If you unsuccessfully reset your password more than 5 times, your ability to reset your password will be locked for 24 hours. This password reset attempt limit persists across browsing sessions and IP addresses. It must be stored on SIUe servers. That means anyone can use the [people search feature](https://web.archive.org/web/20200519134013if_/http://www.siue.edu/search/people.shtml), which I covered previously, to scrape for e-ID's. Then, they can spam the password reset form with every e-ID scraped from the search feature. Since it's only necessary to do this once every 24 hours per account, anyone can effectively break the password reset feature for all active students, faculty and staff with a simple Python script. Of course, students can make a call to the help desk to get the password reset limit fixed so they have 5 more attempts within the 24 hours. But it's possible to run this attack continuously with such high volume that even students who call the help desk and get a reset on the attempts cannot change their password. I'm not encouraging or condoning denial of servicing the change password feature. I'm only pointing the attack vector exists in the hope that it gets fixed. diff --git a/content/entry/siue-unauthenticated-smtp-server.md b/content/entry/siue-unauthenticated-smtp-server.md index c3883e8..cb8e6dc 100644 --- a/content/entry/siue-unauthenticated-smtp-server.md +++ b/content/entry/siue-unauthenticated-smtp-server.md @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ tags: ['computing', 'siue'] draft: false --- # Email Server -During my last semester at [SIUe](https://siue.edu), one of my professors demonstrated spoofing an email using an unauthenticated SMTP server (smtp.siue.edu) on the university network. I believe the server is still present on the network despite being reported multiple times to IT. It isn't accessible on the public internet, only through the university's network that all students have easy access to. Non-students could also gain access to the network fairly easily while at the university and therefore have access to the email server. +During my last semester at [SIUe](https://www.siue.edu/), one of my professors demonstrated spoofing an email using an unauthenticated SMTP server (smtp.siue.edu) on the university network. I believe the server is still present on the network despite being reported multiple times to IT. It isn't accessible on the public internet, only through the university's network that all students have easy access to. Non-students could also gain access to the network fairly easily while at the university and therefore have access to the email server. The email server has no authentication whatsoever. You don't have to offer any credentials to send emails. You can't read others' emails, however. This means you don't even need to be a student to send emails. As a non-student, you can access the email server through Telnet and send emails as any student, professor, faculty or staff member. With that, you can send out emails to any email lists. This unauthenticated server has been present on the network for years according to other students I have talked to. diff --git a/content/entry/social-media-alternatives.md b/content/entry/social-media-alternatives.md index 4e5171d..62629c7 100644 --- a/content/entry/social-media-alternatives.md +++ b/content/entry/social-media-alternatives.md @@ -6,12 +6,12 @@ draft: false --- You don't want to miss out on social media, but you also don't want to deal with tracking scripts, ads and other nonsense that comes along with using proprietary walled garden platforms. Luckily there are publicly available privacy-respecting alternative front-ends for these popular social media sites: -* Instagram - [Bibliogram](https://bibliogram.art/) ([source](https://sr.ht/~cadence/bibliogram/)) -* Reddit - [Teddit](https://teddit.net/) ([source](https://codeberg.org/teddit/teddit)) -* Twitter - [Nitter](https://nitter.net/) ([source](https://github.com/zedeus/nitter)) -* Youtube - [Invidious](https://invidio.us/) ([source](https://github.com/iv-org/invidious)) +* Instagram - Bibliogram ([source](https://sr.ht/~cadence/bibliogram/)) +* Reddit - Teddit ([source](https://codeberg.org/teddit/teddit)) +* Twitter - Nitter ([source](https://github.com/zedeus/nitter)) +* Youtube - [Invidious](https://invidious.io) ([source](https://github.com/iv-org/invidious)) -There is also an Android app in [F-droid](https://www.f-droid.org) called [UntrackMe](https://www.f-droid.org/en/packages/app.fedilab.nitterizeme/) which redirects Youtube, Twitter and Instagram links to their free alternatives. Reddit support was just added 2 weeks ago. +There is also an Android app in [F-droid](https://f-droid.org/) called [UntrackMe](https://f-droid.org/en/packages/app.fedilab.nitterizeme/) which redirects Youtube, Twitter and Instagram links to their free alternatives. Reddit support was just added 2 weeks ago. I recommend exclusively using the free alternative links when using a web browser. It's also best if you send others the alternative links when sharing content. The alternatives don't always support all the features of the official website. diff --git a/content/entry/start-fresh-in-every-moment.md b/content/entry/start-fresh-in-every-moment.md index 0c88c4a..4f25f5b 100644 --- a/content/entry/start-fresh-in-every-moment.md +++ b/content/entry/start-fresh-in-every-moment.md @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ I'll use Covid as an example. There are thousands of depressing Covid stats and There's a false dichotomy that the only two options are facing the cold, hard, depressing truth and telling yourself comforting lies. Either you're a tortured genius or a happy idiot. But this ignores the fact that it's not just the depressing truth which is depressing. It's the constantly thinking about it that's the most destructive. ## Toxic Positivity -You don't necessarily need to lie to yourself about what's going on in the world not to be depressed. A few people opt for that strategy. They put a positive spin on everything and when that becomes impossible, they outright lie to themselves. This is a form of [Toxic Positivity](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_positivity). +You don't necessarily need to lie to yourself about what's going on in the world not to be depressed. A few people opt for that strategy. They put a positive spin on everything and when that becomes impossible, they outright lie to themselves. This is a form of [Toxic Positivity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_positivity). For examples of toxic positivity, just search Youtube for how to get rich. You'll find clueless one-percenters who genuinely seem to think poor people only exist because they have the wrong mindset. I don't think I need to explain how harmful this is. This extreme can be avoided by just not lying to yourself. @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ What does any of this have to do with starting fresh? Well, people tell themselv And it might be true that if you relapse then you're likely to become a regular user again. I don't know the odds. But on a personal level, the odds don't matter because it's counterproductive to remind yourself of the bad odds while you're trying to quit. -It's much more helpful to focus on the positives like "If I quit, I'll be healthier." or "Other people quit using, so it's not impossible." Focusing on the positives without deluding yourself isn't anything new. It goes all the way back to the ancient [Stoics](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism) who invented several techniques for achieving positivity without delusion. +It's much more helpful to focus on the positives like "If I quit, I'll be healthier." or "Other people quit using, so it's not impossible." Focusing on the positives without deluding yourself isn't anything new. It goes all the way back to the ancient [Stoics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism) who invented several techniques for achieving positivity without delusion. From a subjective perspective, you are always starting fresh. Every moment is a new moment and it's going to be filled with whatever thoughts you happen to have. Reflect on the past and learn from it. Plan for the future. But there's no need to cling to the past and imagined future as final arbiters of who you are or what you're capable of now. Thoughts of the past don't make you who you are any more than the thought of money makes you rich. diff --git a/content/entry/started-from-the-bottom-stayed-at-the-bottom.md b/content/entry/started-from-the-bottom-stayed-at-the-bottom.md index 96ebaf0..d26fab9 100644 --- a/content/entry/started-from-the-bottom-stayed-at-the-bottom.md +++ b/content/entry/started-from-the-bottom-stayed-at-the-bottom.md @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ Rather than drawing the conclusion that "This person got very lucky." they draw First, let's assume that by "economic success", people mean upgrading their socioeconomic class, since that's what happens in media that inspires these sorts of claims. -The conclusion then implies a pseudo-[meritocratic](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy) view of the current economy where wealth is apportioned according to who works hardest. But wealth distribution is not even close to meritocratic and even if it were, those who are predisposed to pick up certain skills would be rewarded the same as untalented people who worked very hard to learn the same skills. +The conclusion then implies a pseudo-[meritocratic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy) view of the current economy where wealth is apportioned according to who works hardest. But wealth distribution is not even close to meritocratic and even if it were, those who are predisposed to pick up certain skills would be rewarded the same as untalented people who worked very hard to learn the same skills. Also, it's not clear what the conclusion means by "anybody". I assume it's excluding the severely disabled people and senile elderly people who are poor who we would all agree have zero socioeconomic mobility. @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ That may seem like a trivial question, but I argue that it's not. There's room f I think I've sufficiently critiqued the conclusion enough to convince the audience that it should be rejected outright or at least be treated very skeptically, but we have to go along with it anyways to understand the mindset of those who believe it. -The [modus tollens](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens) of "Anybody can upgrade their economic stratum if they only work hard enough." results in "People who can't upgrade their economic stratum don't work hard enough." which often gets twisted into "Poor people are lazy." +The [modus tollens](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens) of "Anybody can upgrade their economic stratum if they only work hard enough." results in "People who can't upgrade their economic stratum don't work hard enough." which often gets twisted into "Poor people are lazy." Even accepting the flawed premise that I've already criticised, one still could not conclude that "Poor people are lazy." The phrase "hard enough" in the conclusion after the modus tollens, while sounding like a moral failure on behalf of the poor, merely refers to the fact that the poor aren't better than their competitors in the labor market. Calling them "lazy" just because it's logically impossible for everyone to be better than the competition is stupid. By that logic, there can never not be lazy people no matter how hard everyone works. diff --git a/content/entry/stop-using-toilet-paper.md b/content/entry/stop-using-toilet-paper.md index b838ff1..02aa757 100644 --- a/content/entry/stop-using-toilet-paper.md +++ b/content/entry/stop-using-toilet-paper.md @@ -3,6 +3,6 @@ title: "Stop Using Toilet Paper" date: 2023-04-12T00:00:01 draft: false --- -One small way to reduce your environmental footprint is washing your butt with a [bidet](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bidet) instead of using toilet paper. Using water to wash your butt may seem like a foreign concept, but it's very common in some parts of the world. If everyone using toilet paper switched to a bidet, [millions of trees could be saved every year](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-talks-bidets). +One small way to reduce your environmental footprint is washing your butt with a [bidet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bidet) instead of using toilet paper. Using water to wash your butt may seem like a foreign concept, but it's very common in some parts of the world. If everyone using toilet paper switched to a bidet, [millions of trees could be saved every year](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-talks-bidets/). What other reason do you need? diff --git a/content/entry/stupid-laws-regarding-teen-sexting-and-child-pornography.md b/content/entry/stupid-laws-regarding-teen-sexting-and-child-pornography.md index 1324a0b..750dbd5 100644 --- a/content/entry/stupid-laws-regarding-teen-sexting-and-child-pornography.md +++ b/content/entry/stupid-laws-regarding-teen-sexting-and-child-pornography.md @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ The majority of teen sexting goes unpunished even if police end up finding out s However, some teen sexting cases are prosecuted as possession of child pornography, leaving teens with a criminal record. This is a completely over-zealous and senseless application of criminal law. If the images are being coerced in some way, that's different. But I'm talking about cases where police are punishing completely victimless and consensual behavior. -I think one problem with these laws is having a cut-off age to begin with. If the age of consent is 18 and a 17-year-old and 18-year-old engage in consensual sex, is the 18-year-old a statutory rapist? I say no. If the age of consent is 16 in a state with no [Romeo and Juliet laws](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape#Romeo_and_Juliet_laws), and a 14-year-old and a 15-year-old engage in consensual sex, did they rape each other? Of course not. That's ridiculous. +I think one problem with these laws is having a cut-off age to begin with. If the age of consent is 18 and a 17-year-old and 18-year-old engage in consensual sex, is the 18-year-old a statutory rapist? I say no. If the age of consent is 16 in a state with no [Romeo and Juliet laws](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape#Romeo_and_Juliet_laws), and a 14-year-old and a 15-year-old engage in consensual sex, did they rape each other? Of course not. That's ridiculous. Many countries like Finland actually agree with me on this and have more reasonable laws in place. They stipulate that consensual sex is not rape if "There is no great difference in the ages or the mental and physical maturity of the persons involved." @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ If a 51 year-old-man man solicits nude pictures from a 13-year-old girl, that's ## Child Pornography -I'm skeptical that pedophiles downloading child pornography they didn't solicit is always harmful. My position comes from the [current research](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_child_pornography_and_child_sexual_abuse "Relationship between child pornography and child sexual abuse"): +I'm skeptical that pedophiles downloading child pornography they didn't solicit is always harmful. My position comes from the [current research](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_child_pornography_and_child_sexual_abuse "Relationship between child pornography and child sexual abuse"): > "A range of research has been conducted examining the link between viewing child pornography and perpetration of child sexual abuse, and much disagreement persists regarding whether a causal connection has been established." diff --git a/content/entry/taking-back-the-web-with-haketilo.md b/content/entry/taking-back-the-web-with-haketilo.md index 4cfb110..4fd3a37 100644 --- a/content/entry/taking-back-the-web-with-haketilo.md +++ b/content/entry/taking-back-the-web-with-haketilo.md @@ -6,6 +6,6 @@ draft: false --- About a month ago, [I announced my LibrePlanet presentation](/2022/03/14/come-watch-me-present-at-libreplanet-2022/) "Taking Back The Web With Haketilo". In case you missed the livestream, there's now a final, edited copy available on the [LibrePlanet website](https://media.libreplanet.org/u/libreplanet/m/taking-back-the-web-with-haketilo/). Find the direct link [here](https://media.libreplanet.org/mgoblin_media/media_entries/2710/neptune-saturday-1430.webm). -There is room for self-improvement, but I think the final copy turned out fine and I attribute that to the rehearsing I did the weeks prior to the talk. If you have extra time, please also watch Amin Bandali's talk "[The Net Beyond The Web](https://web.archive.org/web/20220523023637if_/https://media.libreplanet.org/u/libreplanet/m/the-net-beyond-the-web/)". Find the direct link [here](https://web.archive.org/web/20220523023637id_/https://media.libreplanet.org/mgoblin_media/media_entries/2711/saturn-sunday-1620.webm). +There is room for self-improvement, but I think the final copy turned out fine and I attribute that to the rehearsing I did the weeks prior to the talk. If you have extra time, please also watch Amin Bandali's talk "[The Net Beyond The Web](https://web.archive.org/web/20220523023637if_/https://media.libreplanet.org/u/libreplanet/m/the-net-beyond-the-web/)". Find the direct link [here](https://web.archive.org/web/20220523023637if_/https://media.libreplanet.org/mgoblin_media/media_entries/2711/saturn-sunday-1620.webm). Diversity of opinion is important when we're talking about solutions for the Web. I shouldn't be the only voice on such a big topic. So if you watch my presentation, please watch his as well. diff --git a/content/entry/the-addiction-to-thinking.md b/content/entry/the-addiction-to-thinking.md index 853bce2..5735dc1 100644 --- a/content/entry/the-addiction-to-thinking.md +++ b/content/entry/the-addiction-to-thinking.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ date: 2021-02-06T00:00:00 draft: false --- # Disclaimer -I said in a [previous post](/2021/01/17/on-spirituality) that posts tagged spirituality aren't to be interpreted as [truth-apt](https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803105953845) and that I wanted to be clearer about how to interpret these posts. Well this post is an exception. Do interpret it as making truth claims. I'm going to be more rigorous than I normally am in spiritual posts and try not to make any false claims. So let's get started. +I said in a [previous post](/2021/01/17/on-spirituality/) that posts tagged spirituality aren't to be interpreted as [truth-apt](https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803105953845) and that I wanted to be clearer about how to interpret these posts. Well this post is an exception. Do interpret it as making truth claims. I'm going to be more rigorous than I normally am in spiritual posts and try not to make any false claims. So let's get started. # Writing Meditation This activity doesn't require you to believe superstitions or unsubstantiated claims as a prerequisite. It's very simple. All you need is a pen and paper. Be sure to use a pen, not a pencil. @@ -13,10 +13,10 @@ Here are the instructions: > Pick up the pen and hold it to the paper. Whenever you notice a thought that can be written down in words, you write it down. Don't worry about grammar or spelling, that's not the point. Don't worry if it's even coherent or continuous. Don't scratch anything out. Redundancy is perfectly fine. Just write down whatever is on your mind. If it's kind, peaceful, helpful, write it down. If it's hateful, vulgar, taboo, write it down anyway. It's important that you don't censor anything. Just let there be a continuous flow of thoughts from your mind to the paper. > -> Write until you notice enough thoughts that your mind outpaces your hand. Try to at least fill up 1 full page with thoughts. The more, the better. The goal is to write down as much of your own [self-talk](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_talk) as you can. +> Write until you notice enough thoughts that your mind outpaces your hand. Try to at least fill up 1 full page with thoughts. The more, the better. The goal is to write down as much of your own [self-talk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_talk) as you can. ## Limitations -This style of meditation has limitations that don't inhibit practices like [Vipassana](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vipassan%C4%81). An obvious one is if your hand can't keep up with your mind then you miss some thought-material. Another limitation is you can only capture a rather small fraction of thoughts. A significant portion of your thoughts aren't words and sentences. They're images, memories, abstract concepts, and emotions. +This style of meditation has limitations that don't inhibit practices like [Vipassana](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vipassan%C4%81). An obvious one is if your hand can't keep up with your mind then you miss some thought-material. Another limitation is you can only capture a rather small fraction of thoughts. A significant portion of your thoughts aren't words and sentences. They're images, memories, abstract concepts, and emotions. None of that matters for our purposes. What matters is you end up with a tangible object to reference. Please do it before you continue reading. You won't get the full benefit otherwise. @@ -39,14 +39,14 @@ None of this is new information. Contemplatives have said for centuries that bei I have to clarify that thinking is an absolutely necessary faculty. It's necessary for survival and human progress. For instance all technology first began with a thought. So thought is not the enemy here. The problem is thinking without being aware of it. As contemplatives through the ages have discovered, having that background stream of thoughts is a primary source of human suffering. Reason being that internal conversation, even for the most average people, is often negative and, as I discussed, sounds like how someone in a mental asylum might communicate. # Life is Pain -There may be no more important fact to realize if you want to lead a fulfilling life than this one: Throughout the course of a normal human life, the quality of one's mind determines quality of one's life. If you go through life entranced by your thoughts as most of us do, you will lead a life of dissatisfaction. You'll never be fully content with the present moment. In my own experience and others', even the best days of our lives don't quite cut it. In ancient Indian literature, this is known as [Dukkha](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dukkha). +There may be no more important fact to realize if you want to lead a fulfilling life than this one: Throughout the course of a normal human life, the quality of one's mind determines quality of one's life. If you go through life entranced by your thoughts as most of us do, you will lead a life of dissatisfaction. You'll never be fully content with the present moment. In my own experience and others', even the best days of our lives don't quite cut it. In ancient Indian literature, this is known as [Dukkha](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dukkha). # An Alternative, Perhaps? Mystics, yogis and monks that have spent decades doing nothing but meditating in caves have suggested that there are alternatives to living entranced by your thoughts. They've suggested that contentment is actually a learnable skill. To most people it sounds strange that one could learn to be content. It's thought that contentment arises out of favorable life circumstances. This is contradicted by scientific studies showing people don't report being much happier given increases in income once the threshold for basic needs is met. Unless you believe all the contemplative literature over the millennia is merely a product of mental illness and self-deception, you have to admit some people seem to have found an alternative to being entranced by thought, to being perpetually dissatisfied with life. Once you admit that, you also have to admit that if it was possible for them, then it just might be possible for you too. -And the alternatives to dissatisfaction don't require you to ignore bad things happening in the world or accept religious dogma. They just require a shift in consciousness. For some the shift is gradual taking many years of practice. And for others like [Eckhart Tolle](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eckhart_Tolle) it's instantaneous. +And the alternatives to dissatisfaction don't require you to ignore bad things happening in the world or accept religious dogma. They just require a shift in consciousness. For some the shift is gradual taking many years of practice. And for others like [Eckhart Tolle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eckhart_Tolle) it's instantaneous. ## Is Spirituality For Everyone? Now I'm not saying there's an alternative for everyone. Oftentimes an interest in spirituality comes after seeing the mechanics of suffering. It's not hard to notice. I couldn't have been older than age 12 when I saw it. I wanted something. I got it. I was satisfied for an instant before it wore off and I wanted something else. At that point I had the revelation that the nature of the mind is to never be satisfied. At the time, like most westerners, I made nothing of it. I assumed that was the way life was and it couldn't be any other way. It wasn't until I neared adulthood that I sincerely considered the possibility of alternative mind states. diff --git a/content/entry/the-electronic-frontier-foundation-defends-your-digital-rights.md b/content/entry/the-electronic-frontier-foundation-defends-your-digital-rights.md index 16bf036..6b1deea 100644 --- a/content/entry/the-electronic-frontier-foundation-defends-your-digital-rights.md +++ b/content/entry/the-electronic-frontier-foundation-defends-your-digital-rights.md @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ The [Electronic Frontier Foundation](https://www.eff.org) (EFF) is a nonprofit t > > EFF is a donor-funded U.S. 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that depends on your support to continue fighting for users." -Organizations like the EFF are more important now than they've ever been. They run [campaigns](https://act.eff.org/action "EFF Campaigns") and [events](https://www.eff.org/events/list?type=event "EFF Events"), host [podcasts](https://www.eff.org/taxonomy/term/11579/ "EFF Podcasts"), make [press releases](https://www.eff.org/updates?type=press_release "EFF Press Releases"), fight [legal battles](https://www.eff.org/cases "EFF Legal Cases"), promote [digital privacy tools](https://www.eff.org/pages/tools "EFF Tools"), document [police surveillance tech](https://atlasofsurveillance.org/ "EFF Atlas of Surveillance"), and much more in the name of protecting digital civil liberties. +Organizations like the EFF are more important now than they've ever been. They run [campaigns](https://act.eff.org/action "EFF Campaigns") and [events](https://www.eff.org/events/list?type=event "EFF Events"), host [podcasts](https://www.eff.org/taxonomy/term/11579/ "EFF Podcasts"), make [press releases](https://www.eff.org/updates?type=press_release "EFF Press Releases"), fight [legal battles](https://www.eff.org/pages/legal-cases "EFF Legal Cases"), promote [digital privacy tools](https://www.eff.org/pages/tools "EFF Tools"), document [police surveillance tech](https://atlasofsurveillance.org/ "EFF Atlas of Surveillance"), and much more in the name of protecting digital civil liberties. My main personal interest in the EFF is their press releases. I find them informative and they help me stay updated. For others who might want to easily follow the EFF, here is [a list of their RSS feeds](https://www.eff.org/rss "EFF RSS Feeds"). diff --git a/content/entry/the-eternal-here-and-now.md b/content/entry/the-eternal-here-and-now.md index bb71a80..b34c66b 100644 --- a/content/entry/the-eternal-here-and-now.md +++ b/content/entry/the-eternal-here-and-now.md @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ By now I think I've exhausted my allowance of strange sounding questions directe The Darth Vader of responses to this is "So what? What does it matter?". It can be really hard to show someone why this matters if they don't already see significance. There could be practical benefits to this kind of realization but the primary one is no longer being confused about what you are any more, and no longer suffering for it. People in the midst of this realization sometimes have a peculiar way of phrasing things. Instead of saying "I'm happy", they say "There is happiness" as in "Happiness is present in consciousness". You are never really happy, but there is happiness sometimes. Our usual way of talking is with subject-object form. But the sensation of being a subject in relation to a separate, external world of objects is itself a sensation appearing in consciousness. "There is a sensation of I". As a side note, none of this entails that it's not useful or important to have a sense of personal identity. A sense of identity is socially necessary. The contrapositive of that is that in order to lose your sense of "I", it's useful to undergo social isolation as many monks do. # Am I just an Observer? -You might wonder after reading all this if you're just some passive observer to this flow of experience. I've written at length about this before, but it's certain that [you don't have free will](/2020/06/19/free-will-is-incoherent-part-1). It's possible through meditation and other means to notice this firsthand. While it's possible to feel either way about it, that you are doing things or that things are happening to you, we know neuroanatomically that the feeling of being the author of your actions, that you are doing things, has to be an illusion. There's nowhere for the author to be hiding. There are only actions. And in that sense [you aren't ultimately responsible for your actions](/2020/08/22/free-will-is-incoherent-part-2), at least not in a way that justifies punishment for the sake of it. It's just because of the way language is that we have to talk about a "do-er" and an "action" as if you could ever really separate the two. +You might wonder after reading all this if you're just some passive observer to this flow of experience. I've written at length about this before, but it's certain that [you don't have free will](/2020/06/19/free-will-is-incoherent-part-1/). It's possible through meditation and other means to notice this firsthand. While it's possible to feel either way about it, that you are doing things or that things are happening to you, we know neuroanatomically that the feeling of being the author of your actions, that you are doing things, has to be an illusion. There's nowhere for the author to be hiding. There are only actions. And in that sense [you aren't ultimately responsible for your actions](/2020/08/22/free-will-is-incoherent-part-2/), at least not in a way that justifies punishment for the sake of it. It's just because of the way language is that we have to talk about a "do-er" and an "action" as if you could ever really separate the two. There's no satisfying way I can answer the question directly because the question assumes it makes sense to talk about an observer separately from that which is being observed. My suggestion is that dualistic distinctions about the subjective nature of reality are arbitrary. In subjective reality, there is only a "happening". Consciousness is just the word we use for the space that we imagine the happening taking place in. We imagine that experiences must occur in some place at some time, so we call that place consciousness. The phrase "consciousness and its contents" shouldn't be understood to indicate dualism I think. It's just a way of talking. "Consciousness and its contents" gets across the idea that experience is ever-changing. Everything is transitory because the contents are always changing. And the phrase "a happening" standing on its own better communicates the idea that experience is non-dual, that there is no experiencer in addition to the experience. diff --git a/content/entry/the-importance-of-early-autism-diagnosis.md b/content/entry/the-importance-of-early-autism-diagnosis.md index 638de6a..95e0876 100644 --- a/content/entry/the-importance-of-early-autism-diagnosis.md +++ b/content/entry/the-importance-of-early-autism-diagnosis.md @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ draft: false Because of this, I've always been pressured to meet the same expectations as normal people (neurotypicals). I'd like to share how those expectations have negatively impacted my life and, towards the end, I'll talk about the importance of early autism diagnosis. ## Employment -I've been pressured to hold down a full-time job to support myself financially. While this seems like a reasonable expectation to have of a normal person, it's been very difficult for me to achieve as an autistic person. Despite [planning my career path](/2021/06/16/my-career-path) and trying different jobs, [I've either been fired or quit first from every workplace I've been employed at](/2022/05/16/coming-out-as-autistic/), ultimately due to my inability to complete the job duties. +I've been pressured to hold down a full-time job to support myself financially. While this seems like a reasonable expectation to have of a normal person, it's been very difficult for me to achieve as an autistic person. Despite [planning my career path](/2021/06/16/my-career-path/) and trying different jobs, [I've either been fired or quit first from every workplace I've been employed at](/2022/05/16/coming-out-as-autistic/), ultimately due to my inability to complete the job duties. The only exception was when I worked at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville in the IT department. I would've been fired the first week if it were possible, but the university had some policy which made it very difficult to fire a student. It wasn't a normal competitive workplace environment, so I don't count it. diff --git a/content/entry/the-meaning-of-life.md b/content/entry/the-meaning-of-life.md index 7eab70f..6d947f0 100644 --- a/content/entry/the-meaning-of-life.md +++ b/content/entry/the-meaning-of-life.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ date: 2021-03-04T00:00:00 draft: false --- # Disclaimer -I said in a [previous post](/2021/01/17/on-spirituality) that posts tagged spirituality aren't to be interpreted as [truth-apt](https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803105953845) and that I wanted to be clearer about how to interpret these posts. Well this post is an exception. Do interpret it as making truth claims. I'm going to be more rigorous than I normally am in spiritual posts and try not to make any false claims. So let's get started. +I said in a [previous post](/2021/01/17/on-spirituality/) that posts tagged spirituality aren't to be interpreted as [truth-apt](https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803105953845) and that I wanted to be clearer about how to interpret these posts. Well this post is an exception. Do interpret it as making truth claims. I'm going to be more rigorous than I normally am in spiritual posts and try not to make any false claims. So let's get started. # The Meaning of Life It's 42, obviously. @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ This bias is human nature. It remains true across every culture and every societ Now, we have scientific explanations for life and the atheists among us have "outgrown" the god hypothesis. And as we learned Darwinian evolution produced life and not a god, we had to think of alternative sources of morality and meaning because god no longer existed in our minds to provide us those things. I've already talked about a moral framework based on hypothetical imperatives which is universal and does not require a god. See the link below. -[Metaethics](/2020/10/11/metaethics) +[Metaethics](/2020/10/11/metaethics/) So, morality is safe despite a godless world. But meaning is different. It doesn't seem so easily replaced. At least, the strong sense of ultimate purpose we had before seems difficult to replace. The basic problem is this: There's nothing "written in the clouds" telling us the point of life is. Nothing about the way the world is tells us how it should be (morality) and nothing about the way the world is tells us what matters in it (meaning), and it seems that nothing ever could. diff --git a/content/entry/the-nonlinearity-of-intelligence.md b/content/entry/the-nonlinearity-of-intelligence.md index d47fe01..501a7ed 100644 --- a/content/entry/the-nonlinearity-of-intelligence.md +++ b/content/entry/the-nonlinearity-of-intelligence.md @@ -8,14 +8,14 @@ The word "sports" covers a wide variety of activities. It's so broad that its us In the same way, you can talk about "intelligence" in a general sense. But when you're just talking about intelligence, it's hard to say much. So instead, to make it more interesting, you can differentiate between mathematical intelligence, social intelligence, historical intelligence, philosophical intelligence, etc. For many people, talking about intelligence in a linear or binary way doesn't accurately describe their situation. Let's look at a few case studies. ## Case Study #1: Kim Peek -[Laurence Kim Peek](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Peek) is the perfect example of the abstraction of general intelligence breaking down. Kim is the inspiration for the movie [Rain Man](https://libremdb.iket.me/title/tt0095953). According to Kim's father Francis, Kim learned to read before age 2. Kim read the left page with his left eye and right page with his right eye. He was able to read 1 page per second remembering nearly all of it years later. He was a human encyclopedia. +[Laurence Kim Peek](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Peek) is the perfect example of the abstraction of general intelligence breaking down. Kim is the inspiration for the movie [Rain Man](https://libremdb.iket.me/title/tt0095953). According to Kim's father Francis, Kim learned to read before age 2. Kim read the left page with his left eye and right page with his right eye. He was able to read 1 page per second remembering nearly all of it years later. He was a human encyclopedia. Kim also didn't learn to walk until age 4. He was diagnosed severely mentally retarded and had an 87 IQ. He couldn't button up his shirt and had great difficulty socializing and performing basic motor tasks. In one way, Kim was superhuman. In another way, he was cognitively limited. He possessed a skill to a degree that no one else on the planet was known to have it. He also had limitations associated with being severely mentally retarded. He's no genius, but he's no idiot. He's not really of average intelligence either. And so here you can see the word "intelligence" breaks down. It fails to meaningfully describe Kim. For describing Kim Peek, it's more useful to talk about "types of intelligence", not just generalized intelligence. ## Case Study #2: Daniel Tammet -For the second case study, we'll look at [Daniel Tammet](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Tammet). He is an [autistic savant](https://autism.wikia.org/wiki/Autistic_savant). Daniel set the European record reciting pi to 22,514 digits without a single mistake. He knows 10 languages and is able to become conversational in new languages in only a week. Daniel is able to perform huge math calculations in his head. +For the second case study, we'll look at [Daniel Tammet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Tammet). He is an [autistic savant](https://autism-advocacy.fandom.com/wiki/Autistic_savant). Daniel set the European record reciting pi to 22,514 digits without a single mistake. He knows 10 languages and is able to become conversational in new languages in only a week. Daniel is able to perform huge math calculations in his head. Perhaps the most unique thing about Daniel is that he has subjective insight on how he can perform huge mental calculations. In our first case study with Kim Peek, Kim could not articulate how he remembered everything. Most savants can't articulate their abilities, but Daniel can. He wrote an entire book on it called [Thinking in Numbers](http://www.danieltammet.net/numbers.php). In his own words: @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ The fact that he is able to introspect on his own savant capabilities is extraor Daniel has no apparent mental disability. But he can't leave his house without counting the number of clothes he's wearing. He can't drive. He has a hard time at the beach because of all the grains of sand. Socializing takes much more mental effort for him than it does for a neurotypical person because he has autism. He's so high-functioning that his mental disability is more or less invisible, but that doesn't make his struggles any less real. # Autism and Savantism -Less than 1% of the neurotypical population has [savant syndrome](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savant_syndrome) while that number is up to [1 in 10 with autistic individuals](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2677584/). About half of savants are autistic while the other half have some other developmental disorder. +Less than 1% of the neurotypical population has [savant syndrome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savant_syndrome) while that number is up to [1 in 10 with autistic individuals](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2677584/). About half of savants are autistic while the other half have some other developmental disorder. Autism doesn't guarantee you to be intelligent at something else as a trade-off for social intelligence. Instead, you have up to a 10% chance of being a savant if you're autistic. It also isn't necessarily true that autism causes savantism. But it's clear from the statistics that autism goes with savantism more than neurotypicality goes with savantism. Savantism seem to defy the conventional notion that intelligence is linear and genius is on one end with mental deficiency on the other. It seems to suggest that treating intelligence as linear is an oversimplification. @@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ I don't share that to gloat, but to make a point. It was hard for me to understa ## Moral Wisdom as Intelligence Some readers are going to disagree with me referring to "moral wisdom" as a form of intelligence. After all, being a good person and being intelligent are two separate things, right? -I agree, but knowing which actions and policies lead to a better society isn't a matter of being a good person. It's a matter of possessing a certain kind of intelligence that I call "moral wisdom". History has shown the [worst](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades) [atrocities](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks) were carried out by people who thought they were doing good, usually perverted by religious ideology. When I talk about moral wisdom, I don't mean doing the right thing. I mean having the intelligence to know what the right thing is. +I agree, but knowing which actions and policies lead to a better society isn't a matter of being a good person. It's a matter of possessing a certain kind of intelligence that I call "moral wisdom". History has shown the [worst](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades) [atrocities](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks) were carried out by people who thought they were doing good, usually perverted by religious ideology. When I talk about moral wisdom, I don't mean doing the right thing. I mean having the intelligence to know what the right thing is. When people have technological prowess without moral wisdom, we end up with the negative social consequence of having people with the kind of intelligence necessary to engineer proprietary software but lacking the kind of intelligence necessary to see that they're perpetuating an unjust social system. It would be better if those people had never learned to program in the first place because their work will only subjugate people. Most software engineers don't become software engineers to think about ethics, so there are lots of software engineers out there engineering evil software. @@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ For instance, the terrorists that flew the planes into the twin towers on 9/11 w ## Learning The last point I want to make is that intelligence is it's highly dynamic. The human brain is capable of creating new patterns of behavior and thought to become better at a skill. Once you learn to ride a bike, that muscle memory stays with you. You don't forget how to do it unless you have some traumatic brain injury. -There are other types of intelligence that do require constant reinforcement. [Magnus Carlsen](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_Carlsen), the world's greatest chess player, could not quit chess for 5 years, come back, and still expect to be the world's greatest chess player. Brain research suggests that the brain is a "use it or lose it" organ. You either keep learning or you lose your ability to learn. The brain needs to learn new things to remain plastic and healthy. +There are other types of intelligence that do require constant reinforcement. [Magnus Carlsen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_Carlsen), the world's greatest chess player, could not quit chess for 5 years, come back, and still expect to be the world's greatest chess player. Brain research suggests that the brain is a "use it or lose it" organ. You either keep learning or you lose your ability to learn. The brain needs to learn new things to remain plastic and healthy. The takeaway here is that brains are extremely dynamic systems. If you're missing a certain kind of intelligence, you can learn it. That's one of the most freeing things to learn about yourself. You might never be as intelligent at chess as Magnus Carlsen, but you can improve. You're not confined to things you already know. @@ -81,6 +81,6 @@ If there's a professor that mocks a student for asking basic questions, that stu # Be Open-Minded About Intelligence What I want to promote is a sense of open-mindedness about human intelligence. It's very easy to get frustrated when someone doesn't understand something that comes easily to you. That's the natural thing to do. But perhaps you're the wrong person to explain it or the way you explain it is confusing to them. Perhaps it's just not the right time, environment, or circumstances for them to learn. Everyone has different intelligences and different capacities for acquiring intelligences. That's why it's really important to have patience with others. I don't just say that to be politically correct either. To call anyone generally intelligent or unintelligent is almost always an oversimplification of intelligence and human potential. -Intelligence is not binary nor linear nor static. It's a multidimensional, highly dynamic human capacity. We should consider that before putting labels on people. I'll end with a quote from [Bill Nye](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye), the science guy: +Intelligence is not binary nor linear nor static. It's a multidimensional, highly dynamic human capacity. We should consider that before putting labels on people. I'll end with a quote from [Bill Nye](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye), the science guy: "Everyone you will ever meet knows something you don't." diff --git a/content/entry/the-pledge-of-allegiance.md b/content/entry/the-pledge-of-allegiance.md index 8a6b509..08d68e4 100644 --- a/content/entry/the-pledge-of-allegiance.md +++ b/content/entry/the-pledge-of-allegiance.md @@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ Many foreigners would be surprised to find out that we have something in the US To foreigners, the idea of all students standing up every morning chanting this probably sounds creepy. But since Americans are indoctrinated into chanting it starting in primary school, it goes unquestioned. Most American students don't ever think about what the words mean. It's just a ritual. I don't agree with it, but I'm just giving rationale for why students go along with it. # Legality -American students aren't legally required to stand for the Pledge. In [West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/319/624/case.html), the Supreme Court ruled that students can't be compelled to stand for or recite the Pledge as that would constitute compulsory speech, violating the First Amendment to the Constitution. Also students can't be required to justify themselves for not standing. So it is well within your rights not to stand as an American student. +American students aren't legally required to stand for the Pledge. In [West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/319/624/), the Supreme Court ruled that students can't be compelled to stand for or recite the Pledge as that would constitute compulsory speech, violating the First Amendment to the Constitution. Also students can't be required to justify themselves for not standing. So it is well within your rights not to stand as an American student. You might still be socially expected to stand depending on where you live. It's likely that most other students stand, so you'll feel uncomfortable the first few times if you choose to sit it out. With time it does get easier to stay sitting though. It's only a few seconds of resisting peer pressure anyway. diff --git a/content/entry/the-privacy-implications-of-weak-ai.md b/content/entry/the-privacy-implications-of-weak-ai.md index 7ef7681..e7175bd 100644 --- a/content/entry/the-privacy-implications-of-weak-ai.md +++ b/content/entry/the-privacy-implications-of-weak-ai.md @@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ The examples of self-driving cars and AI matchmaking were pretty mild in terms o If many useful services provided by AI simply cannot exist without collecting personal data on users, then we might end up with a 2-tier society. There will be those who sacrifice their privacy to reap the huge benefits of AI technology. Then there will be those who don't consent to giving up their privacy who will end up comparatively crippled. Dividing society in this way would be a very bad thing. ## Cryptography -But maybe we can avoid making trade-offs. One reason to stay hopeful I haven't mentioned yet is how cryptography could protect privacy from AI. With advances in [homomorphic encryption](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homomorphic_encryption), [differential privacy](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_privacy), [zero-knowledge proofs](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof), and other cryptographic tools, we might can have our AI/privacy cake and eat it too. Improvements in homomorphic encryption efficiency in particular could enable us to perform all computations encrypted, including [training neural networks on encrypted data](https://openaccess.thecvf.com/content_CVPRW_2019/papers/CV-COPS/Nandakumar_Towards_Deep_Neural_Network_Training_on_Encrypted_Data_CVPRW_2019_paper.pdf). This would be great news for privacy. Since efficient homomorphic encryption would allow businesses to perform arbitrary computations on encrypted data, no business offering an internet service would have any excuse for collecting or storing plaintext user data. +But maybe we can avoid making trade-offs. One reason to stay hopeful I haven't mentioned yet is how cryptography could protect privacy from AI. With advances in [homomorphic encryption](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homomorphic_encryption), [differential privacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_privacy), [zero-knowledge proofs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof), and other cryptographic tools, we might can have our AI/privacy cake and eat it too. Improvements in homomorphic encryption efficiency in particular could enable us to perform all computations encrypted, including [training neural networks on encrypted data](https://openaccess.thecvf.com/content_CVPRW_2019/papers/CV-COPS/Nandakumar_Towards_Deep_Neural_Network_Training_on_Encrypted_Data_CVPRW_2019_paper.pdf). This would be great news for privacy. Since efficient homomorphic encryption would allow businesses to perform arbitrary computations on encrypted data, no business offering an internet service would have any excuse for collecting or storing plaintext user data. We could also regulate businesses running AI-driven services so they're legally required to operate it collecting as minimal user data as possible. For instance, if we figured out how to use homomorphic encryption for the hypothetical AI matchmaking business without collecting plaintext data about users, it would then be legally required of all AI matchmaking businesses providing worse or equivalent service to provide that same level of privacy to users. diff --git a/content/entry/the-privacy-paradox.md b/content/entry/the-privacy-paradox.md index 59db3a9..a087a39 100644 --- a/content/entry/the-privacy-paradox.md +++ b/content/entry/the-privacy-paradox.md @@ -4,33 +4,33 @@ date: 2020-12-28T00:00:00 tags: ['computing'] draft: false --- -After the [Snowden revelations of 2013](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosures_%282013%E2%80%93present%29), we learned that the NSA's global internet surveillance program [XKeyscore](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/XKeyscore) was flagging people that read...[Linux Magazine](https://www.linuxjournal.com/content/nsa-linux-journal-extremist-forum-and-its-readers-get-flagged-extra-surveillance). That's right. The NSA would place you on a special high-priority surveillance list for taking an interest in one of the only operating systems that isn't known to have a [backdoor](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backdoor_%28computing%29). But it didn't end there. +After the [Snowden revelations of 2013](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosures_%282013%E2%80%93present%29), we learned that the NSA's global internet surveillance program [XKeyscore](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XKeyscore) was flagging people that read...[Linux Magazine](https://www.linuxjournal.com/content/nsa-linux-journal-extremist-forum-and-its-readers-get-flagged-extra-surveillance). That's right. The NSA would place you on a special high-priority surveillance list for taking an interest in one of the only operating systems that isn't known to have a [backdoor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backdoor_%28computing%29). But it didn't end there. -You can see in the [XKeyscore rules](https://daserste.ndr.de/panorama/xkeyscorerules100.txt) people that searched for [Tor](https://www.torproject.org/) and [Tails OS](https://tails.boum.org/) software were being targeted. These are programs written for the express purpose of anonymity and avoiding the watchful eye of Big Brother. +You can see in the [XKeyscore rules](https://daserste.ndr.de/panorama/xkeyscorerules100.txt) people that searched for [Tor](https://www.torproject.org/) and [Tails OS](https://tails.net/) software were being targeted. These are programs written for the express purpose of anonymity and avoiding the watchful eye of Big Brother. There seems to be a common theme here. Big Brother programs automatically targeted people that took steps to avoid surveillance. It's a fair bet to make that people that use privacy tools are still targeted more than those who don't. There's one very good reason to suspect this: Big Brother doesn't need to take a special interest in those that don't avoid mass surveillance because mass surveillance is sufficient to build a full portrait of their lives anyway. It's logical that Big Brother would only need to pay special attention to those avoiding mass surveillance since their privacy is harder to violate. # The Paradox Thus we end up with a paradox: The more you avoid mass surveillance, the more interesting you become to Big Brother. This increases the likelihood that you'll end up on one of their "extra surveillance" lists and that more targeted methods will be used on you. The less you avoid mass surveillance, the less interesting you become to Big Brother. All else being equal, this decreases the likelihood that you'll get special attention. Blending in with the surveilled masses might give you more anonymity and privacy, in practice. In other words, allowing yourself to be mass surveilled might act as a kind of protection against targeted surveillance. -If you [pay for everything in cash](/2020/11/16/avoiding-consumer-surveillance) where cash payments are uncommon, if you use [internet services](/2020/10/29/using-email) registered outside of [the Five Eyes](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes), if you use Tor and VPNs for accessing the internet, if you use [free as in freedom](/2020/10/20/use-free-software) software and encrypted communication apps, if you [avoid social media](/2020/12/17/atom-and-rss), if you drive a [privacy-friendly vehicle](/2020/12/16/avoiding-automobile-surveillance) when you can afford a newer car, you're going to attract attention to yourself. One of these things on its own isn't a red flag, but combined together, there's really only one thing you can be doing: avoiding mass surveillance. One doesn't avoid mass surveillance in today's world by accident unless you're Amish or living in a poor country. +If you [pay for everything in cash](/2020/11/16/avoiding-consumer-surveillance/) where cash payments are uncommon, if you use [internet services](/2020/10/29/using-email/) registered outside of [the Five Eyes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes), if you use Tor and VPNs for accessing the internet, if you use [free as in freedom](/2020/10/20/use-free-software/) software and encrypted communication apps, if you [avoid social media](/2020/12/17/atom-and-rss/), if you drive a [privacy-friendly vehicle](/2020/12/16/avoiding-automobile-surveillance/) when you can afford a newer car, you're going to attract attention to yourself. One of these things on its own isn't a red flag, but combined together, there's really only one thing you can be doing: avoiding mass surveillance. One doesn't avoid mass surveillance in today's world by accident unless you're Amish or living in a poor country. Knowing this, what ought you to do about it? Should you try to blend in or should you avoid mass surveillance and just not care how many watch lists you end up on? # What to Do About It ## Short Answer -Trying to blend in with the surveilled populace is like giving a thief your money so they can't steal it. If you really want to fight mass surveillance, you should take as many steps to avoid mass surveillance as you're willing to take and don't worry about being targeted. If enough people do this, it will [raise the bar on privacy](/2020/11/14/raising-the-bar-on-privacy) so that only the more expensive targeted surveillance tools will work. Then everyone will collectively have more privacy. +Trying to blend in with the surveilled populace is like giving a thief your money so they can't steal it. If you really want to fight mass surveillance, you should take as many steps to avoid mass surveillance as you're willing to take and don't worry about being targeted. If enough people do this, it will [raise the bar on privacy](/2020/11/14/raising-the-bar-on-privacy/) so that only the more expensive targeted surveillance tools will work. Then everyone will collectively have more privacy. ## Long Answer -If you or someone you know is doing something illegal and you don't want Big Brother's attention, especially since Big Brother has been known to do nasty things such as assisting with [evidence laundering](/2020/12/04/shining-light-on-the-dark-side-of-law-enforcement), you might think it's a good idea to avoid mass surveillance only when conducting illegal activities to avoid drawing too much attention to yourself. This strategy is ill-advised for at least two reasons: +If you or someone you know is doing something illegal and you don't want Big Brother's attention, especially since Big Brother has been known to do nasty things such as assisting with [evidence laundering](/2020/12/04/shining-light-on-the-dark-side-of-law-enforcement/), you might think it's a good idea to avoid mass surveillance only when conducting illegal activities to avoid drawing too much attention to yourself. This strategy is ill-advised for at least two reasons: ### Reason #1 Allowing yourself to be mass surveilled on purpose some of the time is the reason the bar on privacy remains low. If all you care about is not drawing attention to yourself and your illegal activities, then fine. But if you care about wider society, then you should raise the bar on privacy by avoiding mass surveillance at all times, not only when engaging in illegal activities. ### Reason #2 -You contribute to the stereotype that a desire for privacy indicates nefarious activity. It empowers the surveillance state in the current iteration of the [crypto wars](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars) because Big Brother can say that anonymity networks are mainly used for criminal purposes. If it can be shown for instance that 90% of Tor traffic is used for legal activities then it's (theoretically) much harder for the government to make the case that it should be censored because of drug dealers, money launderers, pedophiles and terrorists. +You contribute to the stereotype that a desire for privacy indicates nefarious activity. It empowers the surveillance state in the current iteration of the [crypto wars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars) because Big Brother can say that anonymity networks are mainly used for criminal purposes. If it can be shown for instance that 90% of Tor traffic is used for legal activities then it's (theoretically) much harder for the government to make the case that it should be censored because of drug dealers, money launderers, pedophiles and terrorists. -The only long-term winning strategy for all society is to avoid mass surveillance as much as possible with the hope that others will follow suit. This is true whether you're a law-abiding citizen or a criminal mastermind. To drive this point home, I'll end with a quote by [Edward Snowden](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden) from his interview with John Oliver on Last Week Tonight: +The only long-term winning strategy for all society is to avoid mass surveillance as much as possible with the hope that others will follow suit. This is true whether you're a law-abiding citizen or a criminal mastermind. To drive this point home, I'll end with a quote by [Edward Snowden](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden) from his interview with John Oliver on Last Week Tonight: > "You shouldn't change your behavior because a government agency somewhere is doing the wrong thing. If we sacrifice our values because we’re afraid, we don’t care about those values very much." diff --git a/content/entry/the-problem-with-grapheneos.md b/content/entry/the-problem-with-grapheneos.md index fc96c20..cbea307 100644 --- a/content/entry/the-problem-with-grapheneos.md +++ b/content/entry/the-problem-with-grapheneos.md @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ Yes it's a problem for all custom Android roms, but I'm picking on GrapheneOS in In my opinion, calling your operating system (OS) "private and secure" while not acknowledging the risk of the proprietary blobs required to run it is misleading. It's one thing if your OS can also run on open hardware or the proprietary firmware it requires is very limited, but it's another thing entirely when your OS only runs on very closed hardware. Free software, privacy, and security go hand in hand. You can't just ignore hundreds of megabytes of unauditable proprietary blobs that run at boot time and still pretend it's a secure device just because you have hardened malloc. -Also, there's another problem with the proprietary firmware which GrapheneOS doesn't sufficiently address in my opinion. Since GrapheneOS requires up-to-date proprietary firmware to support devices, it's entirely dependent on [OEMs](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_equipment_manufacturer "Original Equipment Manufacturer") to update that firmware. But it's in the OEM's economic self-interest to stop providing support as soon as they're not legally obligated to. +Also, there's another problem with the proprietary firmware which GrapheneOS doesn't sufficiently address in my opinion. Since GrapheneOS requires up-to-date proprietary firmware to support devices, it's entirely dependent on [OEMs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_equipment_manufacturer "Original Equipment Manufacturer") to update that firmware. But it's in the OEM's economic self-interest to stop providing support as soon as they're not legally obligated to. Why is this GrapheneOS' problem? Well if privacy-conscious people are promoting GrapheneOS, some might purchase new Pixel phones to keep up with GrapheneOS' releases. This funnels more money into proprietary hardware, perpetuating the cycle of endless e-waste rather than funding open hardware, which is less wasteful and clearly the right direction for privacy and security. GrapheneOS could warn people against buying new Pixel phones just to install their OS and instead suggest supporting open hardware. diff --git a/content/entry/the-self.md b/content/entry/the-self.md index dd4c010..2000c0e 100644 --- a/content/entry/the-self.md +++ b/content/entry/the-self.md @@ -4,11 +4,11 @@ date: 2020-05-02T00:00:00 draft: false --- # Language -Starting at a young age, we pick up language, mainly from our parents. We are very much conditioned to think in certain ways by the language we speak. This is known as the [Sapir-Whorf hypothesis](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity). What I want to talk about is similar to Sapir-Whorf. It isn't about how particular languages affect one's worldview, but about how any language can create a false image of the world. Language is a tool for getting information from one mind to another. But it's more than that. It is a tool for thinking. One thing that should be taught more in English classes is that writing is useful for crystallizing and refining thoughts, not just communicating them. +Starting at a young age, we pick up language, mainly from our parents. We are very much conditioned to think in certain ways by the language we speak. This is known as the [Sapir-Whorf hypothesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity). What I want to talk about is similar to Sapir-Whorf. It isn't about how particular languages affect one's worldview, but about how any language can create a false image of the world. Language is a tool for getting information from one mind to another. But it's more than that. It is a tool for thinking. One thing that should be taught more in English classes is that writing is useful for crystallizing and refining thoughts, not just communicating them. The problem with any spoken language is that in order to be useful, it has to create abstractions. These abstractions are fuzzy, inexact ways of talking about things. Mathematical language is not fuzzy and imprecise like spoken language is. Mathematical language is symbolic and rigorous. What is written is unambiguous. But this fuzziness of concept is a necessary evil, otherwise natural language would be inefficient and slow and still inexact. The problem isn't language itself. It comes when we treat language as reality, when we forget we are dealing with these inexact fuzzy abstractions which are nouns, pronouns, adjectives, verbs, etc. A lot of the words in spoken language are fuzzy. -This is something that I have always found intuitive but is an easy mistake to make in philosophy. I would argue that a rather large fraction of academic papers about philosophy aren't actually creating an interesting argument or bringing any substance to the table. Academics are simply bickering about how words should be used without even realizing it. For example, look at the [Ship of Theseus](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus). The essential question it poses is this: "Is an object the same object if all its component parts are replaced over time?". I agree with Noam Chomsky that this is a cognitive issue manufactured by humans because we get really bent out of shape if we don't know what to label something. We have to have a label. So what we do we call something if all its parts are replaced? Do we call it something else or do we call it the same thing? Now the problem becomes more clear. It's a question about language. +This is something that I have always found intuitive but is an easy mistake to make in philosophy. I would argue that a rather large fraction of academic papers about philosophy aren't actually creating an interesting argument or bringing any substance to the table. Academics are simply bickering about how words should be used without even realizing it. For example, look at the [Ship of Theseus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus). The essential question it poses is this: "Is an object the same object if all its component parts are replaced over time?". I agree with Noam Chomsky that this is a cognitive issue manufactured by humans because we get really bent out of shape if we don't know what to label something. We have to have a label. So what we do we call something if all its parts are replaced? Do we call it something else or do we call it the same thing? Now the problem becomes more clear. It's a question about language. The right question is "If an object's parts are replaced, should we still call it the same object?". We could make a pros and cons list of calling it the same object versus giving it a different name and decide what makes more sense. One might think I'm being being pedantic about this and philosophers understand the real question is about what we call the object. My own personal experience has shown that this is not true. People often do not understand that they're arguing about what to call something, and it's not any deeper than that. This is called [Mistaking the Map for the Territory](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Mistaking_the_map_for_the_territory). diff --git a/content/entry/the-tipping-point-rejecting-windows-zoom-lockdown-browser-and-the-lockdown-monitor.md b/content/entry/the-tipping-point-rejecting-windows-zoom-lockdown-browser-and-the-lockdown-monitor.md index d8e5afb..0a54a84 100644 --- a/content/entry/the-tipping-point-rejecting-windows-zoom-lockdown-browser-and-the-lockdown-monitor.md +++ b/content/entry/the-tipping-point-rejecting-windows-zoom-lockdown-browser-and-the-lockdown-monitor.md @@ -9,16 +9,16 @@ This semester I took networking at [SIUe](https://www.siue.edu). Networking is a # Story ## Windows -The first software freedom issue I had in this class had to do with the Wiresharks labs. [Wireshark](https://www.wireshark.org/) is free software that can be used to capture and analyze network traffic. So there was no issue with Wireshark. Actually, the issue was with the assignment instructions. The instructions were written so that some tasks had to be performed outside of Wireshark and screenshotted. If I remember correctly Professor X said he did not make any changes to the assignment before giving us the assignment. The assignments were actually obtained from the [University of Massachusetts, Amherst](https://gaia.cs.umass.edu/kurose_ross/wireshark.htm). The DHCP Wireshark lab contained instructions that only work on Windows. +The first software freedom issue I had in this class had to do with the Wiresharks labs. [Wireshark](https://www.wireshark.org/) is free software that can be used to capture and analyze network traffic. So there was no issue with Wireshark. Actually, the issue was with the assignment instructions. The instructions were written so that some tasks had to be performed outside of Wireshark and screenshotted. If I remember correctly Professor X said he did not make any changes to the assignment before giving us the assignment. The assignments were actually obtained from the [University of Massachusetts, Amherst](https://gaia.cs.umass.edu/kurose_ross/wireshark.php). The DHCP Wireshark lab contained instructions that only work on Windows. It wouldn't have been hard for me to find the equivalent commands on GNU/Linux, but by this point I realized that me doing all the legwork to get things working on GNU/Linux ultimately doesn't do much good. It gets me by but it doesn't help other students or have any effect moving coursework toward using free software. So instead, I decided I wasn't going to do the extra work myself, and instead included a note in my completed assignment submission stating that I don't own a Windows machine and wouldn't use it. So I downloaded the Wireshark trace from the University of Massachusetts (the assignment said we could do this if we couldn't get Wireshark to capture). I imported it into Wireshark and used it for the duration of the assignment. -Back in class after the assignment was graded, Professor X announced that students would no longer be permitted to download the trace from the University of Massachusetts. It would have to be captured manually by following the Windows-only instructions. This swiftly closed the loophole I used to bypass using Windows. Therefore, it is no longer possible to take networking with Professor X without using Windows unless you want to do extra work. And by the way, this is one of, if not the most ardent GNU/Linux professors at SIUe based on my experience. He said in class that he uses [Arch](https://www.archlinux.org/) and is comfortable doing things in the terminal. The point I'm trying to get across is that if you want to only use free software, do not study at SIUe. It is not a free software friendly university and you will struggle trying to work around that. +Back in class after the assignment was graded, Professor X announced that students would no longer be permitted to download the trace from the University of Massachusetts. It would have to be captured manually by following the Windows-only instructions. This swiftly closed the loophole I used to bypass using Windows. Therefore, it is no longer possible to take networking with Professor X without using Windows unless you want to do extra work. And by the way, this is one of, if not the most ardent GNU/Linux professors at SIUe based on my experience. He said in class that he uses [Arch](https://archlinux.org/) and is comfortable doing things in the terminal. The point I'm trying to get across is that if you want to only use free software, do not study at SIUe. It is not a free software friendly university and you will struggle trying to work around that. ## Zoom -After the corona virus lockdown was declared in Illinois and the university shut down all classes on campus, the lectures needed a way to continue. Professor X went for [Zoom](https://zoom.us/). Zoom is proprietary crapware. You can download Zoom on your computer or use it through the browser which probably requires proprietary JavaScript and camera and microphone access. I emailed Professor X if there was another way I could watch the lectures. To accommodate me, he began recording the meetings and emailing them to everyone. However, he said he was still taking attendance with Zoom unfortunately. So I found out it's possible to use [SIP](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Session_Initiation_Protocol). I attempted to set up an SIP account so I could use Zoom, but then I quickly gave up on that and decided on just using the recordings. I felt that I shouldn't have to do extra legwork to avoid using proprietary software. If professors are going to suggest proprietary software to students, which they shouldn't, then they should at least offer a free software alternative that works equally well. Of course, Zoom in the long run is turning out to be a disaster as proprietary software often does. +After the corona virus lockdown was declared in Illinois and the university shut down all classes on campus, the lectures needed a way to continue. Professor X went for [Zoom](https://zoom.us/). Zoom is proprietary crapware. You can download Zoom on your computer or use it through the browser which probably requires proprietary JavaScript and camera and microphone access. I emailed Professor X if there was another way I could watch the lectures. To accommodate me, he began recording the meetings and emailing them to everyone. However, he said he was still taking attendance with Zoom unfortunately. So I found out it's possible to use [SIP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Session_Initiation_Protocol). I attempted to set up an SIP account so I could use Zoom, but then I quickly gave up on that and decided on just using the recordings. I felt that I shouldn't have to do extra legwork to avoid using proprietary software. If professors are going to suggest proprietary software to students, which they shouldn't, then they should at least offer a free software alternative that works equally well. Of course, Zoom in the long run is turning out to be a disaster as proprietary software often does. -I want to elaborate a bit on how Zoom is turning out to be a disaster. Zoom is a privacy nightmare. It actually has an attention tracking feature documented in the [knowledge base](https://web.archive.org/web/20200310192605/https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/115000538083-Attendee-attention-tracking) which creepily allowed hosts of a Zoom meeting to track if the participants were paying attention or not. The CEO addressed [multiple issues](https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2020/04/01/a-message-to-our-users/). One issue was uninvited participants joining and crashing conferences. Another was that the iOS client contained the Facebook SDK. Facebook is a surveillance monster, so of course that was an absolute privacy disaster and it had to be removed. Zoom video and audio doesn't even have end-to-end encryption according to [this article](https://theintercept.com/2020/03/31/zoom-meeting-encryption/). Hackers quickly found a way to exploit Zoom to expose Windows passwords and showed a screenshot of it on [Twitter](https://nitter.net/hackerfantastic/status/1245133371262619654). Some Zoom calls may have been routed through China, where geofencing should have prevented this. [The CEO didn't say how many users could have been effected](https://www.businessinsider.com/china-zoom-data-2020-4). China does not enforce laws about personal data privacy so who knows if the calls got collected, stored, or analyzed. +I want to elaborate a bit on how Zoom is turning out to be a disaster. Zoom is a privacy nightmare. It actually has an attention tracking feature documented in the [knowledge base](https://web.archive.org/web/20200310192605if_/https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/115000538083-Attendee-attention-tracking) which creepily allowed hosts of a Zoom meeting to track if the participants were paying attention or not. The CEO addressed [multiple issues](https://web.archive.org/web/20200404225143if_/https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2020/04/01/a-message-to-our-users/). One issue was uninvited participants joining and crashing conferences. Another was that the iOS client contained the Facebook SDK. Facebook is a surveillance monster, so of course that was an absolute privacy disaster and it had to be removed. Zoom video and audio doesn't even have end-to-end encryption according to [this article](https://theintercept.com/2020/03/31/zoom-meeting-encryption/). Hackers quickly found a way to exploit Zoom to expose Windows passwords and showed a screenshot of it on [Twitter](https://x.com/hackerfantastic/status/1245133371262619654). Some Zoom calls may have been routed through China, where geofencing should have prevented this. [The CEO didn't say how many users could have been effected](https://www.businessinsider.com/china-zoom-data-2020-4). China does not enforce laws about personal data privacy so who knows if the calls got collected, stored, or analyzed. So now some universities are rushing over to Microsoft Teams, which will also be a privacy and security disaster forced upon students yet again. They are just going from one proprietary privacy disaster to the next when the best solution is to just use free software. Teams is proprietary and the Teams website requires proprietary JavaScript and perhaps worse a Microsoft account where you must agree to their insane terms of service. So at this point you may be wondering, what free software is out there that would be reasonable for schools to use that would be better? [Jitsi](https://jitsi.org/jitsi-meet/) seems like a very viable alternative. It allows video calling, voice calling, meetings between an unlimited number of participants, and no sign up or account required. I'm not sure about the encryption and data privacy it has, but at least you know it doesn't come with the Facebook SDK. Besides, there is also [Matrix](https://matrix.org/) which is cross-platform and has multiple clients. There are free software options available that universities should be looking into rather than all jumping onboard the Zoom train, then jumping onto the Teams train after Zoom derailed. diff --git a/content/entry/the-victim-mentality-versus-individual-responsibility.md b/content/entry/the-victim-mentality-versus-individual-responsibility.md index 31e3923..c4034e6 100644 --- a/content/entry/the-victim-mentality-versus-individual-responsibility.md +++ b/content/entry/the-victim-mentality-versus-individual-responsibility.md @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ In the United States, the extreme political left is seen as propping up this min Besides the infinite temporal regression of blaming that can happen leaving no one and nothing ultimately responsible, there is also the possibility of the circularity of blame which also leaves no one ultimately responsible. Imagine a group of ten employees sitting at a round table meeting. The boss asks who is responsible for some financial mishap and everyone points to the person on their left, similar to how computer processes can enter a circular deadlock. Each process can blame the process it's waiting on for being stuck, but the processes are waiting in a circular fashion preventing progress from being made. I like to see these two different scenarios of regression and circularity as part of "the blame game", related to "playing the victim" or "the victim card". It's not my fault, it's someone else's. I'm the victim here. I don't "do" anything. Things simply "happen" to me. -With collective victimhood, entire groups of people feel marginalized, mistreated, underrepresented, or discriminated against. Economic and social inequality and treatment of minorities are a focus of the left. Leftists are concerned about groups of people that are disadvantaged relative to others groups of people. Leftists might be apt to say that marginalized groups are not responsible for what happens to them. For example, black people were historically barred from voting. Black schools weren't given the same resources as white schools. Segregation in public places instilled the idea that black and white people were meant to be separate and that black people were, rightly, second class citizens. It was pointed out that one problem with collective victimhood taken to the extreme is that it takes away all "agency" from the marginalized group. If a group is victimized, they have no responsibility for where they are at and no agency to direct where they want to go. They are powerless. So one criticism of collective victimhood is that seeing yourself as a victim or in a group of victims is disempowering. It basically is saying that you can't "direct your own destiny". Your life is simply completely subject to "fate" as is everyone in your marginalized group. It is up to people not in the marginalized group, those with the agency, to fix things. Talking about agency starts to get into the idea of free will. Free will is an incoherent concept. I recommend Sam Harris' book [The Illusion of Free Will](https://samharris.org/the-illusion-of-free-will/) on the subject, although I plan on dedicating an entirely separate post to it. +With collective victimhood, entire groups of people feel marginalized, mistreated, underrepresented, or discriminated against. Economic and social inequality and treatment of minorities are a focus of the left. Leftists are concerned about groups of people that are disadvantaged relative to others groups of people. Leftists might be apt to say that marginalized groups are not responsible for what happens to them. For example, black people were historically barred from voting. Black schools weren't given the same resources as white schools. Segregation in public places instilled the idea that black and white people were meant to be separate and that black people were, rightly, second class citizens. It was pointed out that one problem with collective victimhood taken to the extreme is that it takes away all "agency" from the marginalized group. If a group is victimized, they have no responsibility for where they are at and no agency to direct where they want to go. They are powerless. So one criticism of collective victimhood is that seeing yourself as a victim or in a group of victims is disempowering. It basically is saying that you can't "direct your own destiny". Your life is simply completely subject to "fate" as is everyone in your marginalized group. It is up to people not in the marginalized group, those with the agency, to fix things. Talking about agency starts to get into the idea of free will. Free will is an incoherent concept. I recommend Sam Harris' book [The Illusion of Free Will](https://www.samharris.org/blog/the-illusion-of-free-will) on the subject, although I plan on dedicating an entirely separate post to it. Ultimately, what we have to realize is that the victim mentality is a way of talking about events. To paint a clearer picture of what's going on, I want to iterate through a few things. First, having a victim mentality can be disempowering to the person or group that has it. No doubt about that. It can create a feeling of helplessness, a sense of not having agency and control over your own life. I think that agency and control are complex subjects and loaded words, but I'm just talking about how the victim mentality can make people feel. It can create a feeling that the world or other people owe you something. It can be very devastating I think to the sense of control over your own life. If taken to the extreme, it can get you stuck in a place in life you don't like, and you can keep yourself there for a long time by telling yourself there's nothing you can do to improve your circumstances. And I do think this is a real thought pattern that drives self-pity and keeps people stuck in a bad situation. This is my primary concern with the victim mentality way of talking to yourself about things. And it is just a way of talking to yourself. That's the most important thing to keep in mind, because blame is really an abstraction made up by people to figure out who we need to help or punish. You might say the abstraction of blame comes in useful sometimes to figure out who is responsible for some mistake so that person can be singled out and given whatever treatment they need so that the mistake doesn't reoccur. But oftentimes, time is wasted figuring out who to blame. The desire to place blame can become so strong that you make up a sort of blame calculus and when all the tabulations are over, you realize the whole exercise was pointless. Because after the "blame units" have been tabulated and you know who to assign them to, the tabulation is functionally useless because despite the fact you know who to blame and how much, you did nothing with the tabulation. In that case, the abstraction of blame can become not so useful. A lot of time can be wasted playing the blame game to no useful end. That's also something I see happen in the real world all the time. diff --git a/content/entry/thoughts-on-blogging.md b/content/entry/thoughts-on-blogging.md index f60c467..97a8381 100644 --- a/content/entry/thoughts-on-blogging.md +++ b/content/entry/thoughts-on-blogging.md @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ I'm not advocating for self-censorship. I'm also not advocating avoiding controv With all that said, it's also true that the internet has made us less able to forgive. Memory plays a huge role in forgiveness. Before the internet and smartphones, when you did something foolish or said something regrettable, the people that saw or heard it would forget about it. The memory would fade away. Even if they shared your mistake with someone else, that someone couldn't really "relive" the experience. It was just their recollection of events transmitted via spoken words. -With the internet, your mistakes are permanent. Anything you do or say can be recorded and stored forever, and you can never take it back. It's also harder for others to forgive and forget because your mistake is digitally preserved in video, audio, text and other formats. It can be easily shared with an unlimited number of people. To see the full impact of this, all you have to do is look at [the high-profile suicide of Amanda Todd](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Amanda_Todd). She was a 15-year old Canadian student that was cyberbullied with nude pictures of herself that got screen captured. Those pictures followed her ultimately driving her to suicide. +With the internet, your mistakes are permanent. Anything you do or say can be recorded and stored forever, and you can never take it back. It's also harder for others to forgive and forget because your mistake is digitally preserved in video, audio, text and other formats. It can be easily shared with an unlimited number of people. To see the full impact of this, all you have to do is look at [the high-profile suicide of Amanda Todd](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Amanda_Todd). She was a 15-year old Canadian student that was cyberbullied with nude pictures of herself that got screen captured. Those pictures followed her ultimately driving her to suicide. ## The Importance of Forgiveness My point is, if someone says or does something regrettable and it gets digitally captured and put on the internet, whether or not they meant to upload it, it doesn't make sense to judge them by that forever. Amanda Todd is an extreme case and I'm not equivocating her suicide with intentionally publishing content in blogging. I'm just pointing out that the internet is an unforgiving place when it comes to making mistakes whether that is a mistake on your blog or leaked nude photos. @@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ You should still try to limit the number of mistakes you make on your blog. One ## Changing Your Mind Even if you try your best to limit the number of mistakes you make, errors will slip in anyway. A common feature of honest intellectuals and good bloggers is an ability to admit past errors without hang up. If you write a post that isn't true and later learn that it's bad information, you can edit the original post or make a new post correcting your mistake. Crucially, it shouldn't be a big deal for you to do that. In the intellectual world, we are all working to promote good ideas and get rid of bad ones. It's wrong to think of changing one's mind as being "wishy washy". When you get new information that contradicts what you previously thought, changing your mind is the appropriate thing to do. -Lead member of the United States Coronavirus Task Force [Anthony Fauci](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_S._Fauci) garnered criticism from the White House for telling people not to wear masks early on in the Coronavirus pandemic and various other "mistakes". The criticism he received and continues to receive over his "mistakes" is absurd because at the time and context in which he made those "mistakes", the information he had available was very limited and pointed to the same advice he was giving. So, the "mistakes" he is being accused of aren't even mistakes. They were the right calls to make at the time. After receiving new information, he "updated" his advice to fit the new evidence about the virus. +Lead member of the United States Coronavirus Task Force [Anthony Fauci](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_S._Fauci) garnered criticism from the White House for telling people not to wear masks early on in the Coronavirus pandemic and various other "mistakes". The criticism he received and continues to receive over his "mistakes" is absurd because at the time and context in which he made those "mistakes", the information he had available was very limited and pointed to the same advice he was giving. So, the "mistakes" he is being accused of aren't even mistakes. They were the right calls to make at the time. After receiving new information, he "updated" his advice to fit the new evidence about the virus. This shows that changing your mind doesn't mean you made an error. Maybe the information you posted on your blog was the best available information at the time and it just so happens that it got updated since you posted it. Since I wrote [my post about Zoom](/2020/05/23/exposing-zoom/) there has been news about it that I left out. This doesn't mean what I wrote is wrong, just outdated. In a certain sense, everything you post will soon be outdated just because of how language evolves. To be a rational thinking person is to change your mind sometimes, so get used to the idea that it might happen in your blog. You are under no obligation to continue believing the same things. diff --git a/content/entry/thoughts-on-logic.md b/content/entry/thoughts-on-logic.md index c405ca5..a02785b 100644 --- a/content/entry/thoughts-on-logic.md +++ b/content/entry/thoughts-on-logic.md @@ -11,9 +11,9 @@ The point of teaching the formal, symbolic logic starting at a young age is not When I studied philosophy in community college, I remember there was an art student. He had a great personality and was a very likable person. Whenever he got called on to answer a question though, he was never able to produce the right answer. It was clear to me that he never learned how to think logically. I wondered what it must be like to be a young adult never having learned that. There are also plenty of functioning older adults out there that never learned how to think logically. To be clear, studying formal logic isn't a prerequisite for logical thought. What I find to be the case with nearly everyone without training in formal logic is that they have an intuitive sense of how to reason, but there's important pieces of the puzzle they're missing. That's what I'm going to focus on in this post, the things that those without experience in formal logic get confused about. In my posts, I try not to assume prior knowledge, so I'm going to explain a bit about logic before I explain some of those missing pieces. If you're already familiar with logic, click here. # Logic -Logic is the study of [rules of inference](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_inference). Rules of inference allow you to draw conclusions based on premises. In other words, starting with a statement A, you can conclude statement B. For example, the earth is round is a true statement. Therefore the earth is round or up is down is also a true statement. In fact, I could replace the statement up is down with any proposition Z and the earth is round or Z would still be true. I used the rule of inference "addition" to draw my conclusion, so I'm guaranteed that it's true no matter what Z is. I can apply another rule of inference to get humans have 3 legs therefore either the earth is round or up is down. That is also a true statement. It sounds strange because the normal way of understanding "therefore" is as a causal relationship. In this context, it's a strictly logical implication, not causal. Despite how strange it sounds, humans have 3 legs therefore either the earth is round or up is down logically follows from the earth is round. +Logic is the study of [rules of inference](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_inference). Rules of inference allow you to draw conclusions based on premises. In other words, starting with a statement A, you can conclude statement B. For example, the earth is round is a true statement. Therefore the earth is round or up is down is also a true statement. In fact, I could replace the statement up is down with any proposition Z and the earth is round or Z would still be true. I used the rule of inference "addition" to draw my conclusion, so I'm guaranteed that it's true no matter what Z is. I can apply another rule of inference to get humans have 3 legs therefore either the earth is round or up is down. That is also a true statement. It sounds strange because the normal way of understanding "therefore" is as a causal relationship. In this context, it's a strictly logical implication, not causal. Despite how strange it sounds, humans have 3 legs therefore either the earth is round or up is down logically follows from the earth is round. -To test your skills in logic, I suggest trying out some logic puzzles such as [Knights and Knaves](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_and_Knaves). If you get really ambitious, you can try your hand at [The Hardest Logic Puzzle Ever](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hardest_Logic_Puzzle_Ever). +To test your skills in logic, I suggest trying out some logic puzzles such as [Knights and Knaves](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_and_Knaves). If you get really ambitious, you can try your hand at [The Hardest Logic Puzzle Ever](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hardest_Logic_Puzzle_Ever). # Things People Get Confused About Now that I've talked about what logic is, I want to talk about some of the important aspects of logic people commonly get confused about. @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ Now that I've talked about what logic is, I want to talk about some of the impor The first way to disprove an argument is by showing that one of the premises is false. The other way is showing that [the structure of the argument is invalid](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_validity). People are used to thinking of arguments in terms of "arguments for" and "arguments against". That's why it's easy to get confused here. It's the attitude "There's some good arguments for a proposition and some good arguments against it and it's my job to weigh the pros and cons". But, in logic, an argument is either sound or unsound. The property of [soundness](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Soundness) means that the premises are true and it has valid form. If the conclusion of an argument derives from valid rules of inference based on the premises, then the only way to disprove the argument is to show one of the premises is false. If all the premises are true and the form is valid, then the argument is sound and the conclusion is true. There's no "arguments for" and "arguments against", or "maybe it's wrong some other way". There's no two ways about it. No if, ands or buts. If an argument is sound, the conclusion necessarily follows. ## How Logical Fallacies Work -A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning. It can be [formal](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy) or [informal](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy). Formal fallacies have to do with the structure of an argument. If an argument has bad structure, it is invalid. Informal fallacies have to do with the content of an argument. In my experience, it's more rare for people to commit formal fallacies. This is because there are so many more ways to commit informal fallacies than there are ways to commit formal fallacies. There are only a few ways to structure an argument improperly, but there are virtually endless ways to get the content wrong since the content can be anything at all. Take a look at [yourlogicalfallacyis.com](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com). It's good to become familiar with informal fallacies by name and be able to call them out in real time. To challenge yourself, try doing that during a live presidential debate. There's so many logical fallacies in those it's impossible to keep up, at least for me. +A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning. It can be [formal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy) or [informal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy). Formal fallacies have to do with the structure of an argument. If an argument has bad structure, it is invalid. Informal fallacies have to do with the content of an argument. In my experience, it's more rare for people to commit formal fallacies. This is because there are so many more ways to commit informal fallacies than there are ways to commit formal fallacies. There are only a few ways to structure an argument improperly, but there are virtually endless ways to get the content wrong since the content can be anything at all. Take a look at [yourlogicalfallacyis.com](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com). It's good to become familiar with informal fallacies by name and be able to call them out in real time. To challenge yourself, try doing that during a live presidential debate. There's so many logical fallacies in those it's impossible to keep up, at least for me. The thing people get confused about when they're unfamiliar with logical fallacies is they think fallacies are a minor problem for an argument, similar to the "arguments for" and "arguments against" I talked about earlier. They see the fallacy as the "argument against" part. That's completely the wrong way to think about logical fallacies. The presence of a single logical fallacy in an argument means that argument is toast. A logical fallacy is not a "counterpoint" to an argument. It fully invalidates the argument. An entirely new argument is needed to prove the conclusion. @@ -32,11 +32,11 @@ It's important that you get it right if you do call out a fallacy. I often see p Sometimes people think invalidating an argument by pointing out a logical fallacy disproves its conclusion. This is known as [the fallacy fallacy](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fallacy_fallacy). A conclusion is like a destination you want to reach. Premises are where you begin. And an argument is the pathway from the premises to the conclusion. There are many different paths you can take to go from origin to destination. Just because one path doesn't work, that doesn't mean other paths can't. In other words, true statements can be defended with false logic. Perhaps the argument is bad because the premises are faulty. In that case, you need to find alternative premises to make your argument. The other case is the logic is invalid, the form is wrong. In that case, you can keep your premises but you need to fix the form. In the worst case, your argument is unsalvageable and you need to use different premises and different rules of inference to get to your conclusion. But just because you can't make an argument for a conclusion doesn't mean the conclusion is false. Even if no one on earth can make a sound argument for a conclusion, that doesn't mean the conclusion is false. ## The Burden of Proof -[The burden of proof](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof) is the obligation to supply evidence for a claim. The reason it's "guilty or not guilty" instead of "guilty or innocent" is because the prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt. You are innocent until proven guilty. [The null hypothesis](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis) is innocence. But the concept of the burden of proof applies far outside the courtroom. It's important in philosophy and it often gets misused. Shifting the burden of proof fallacy occurs when someone makes a claim, then when you demand evidence, they demand you prove the opposite. See [the gumball analogy](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Dillahunty#Gumball_analogy) for further explanation. +[The burden of proof](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof) is the obligation to supply evidence for a claim. The reason it's "guilty or not guilty" instead of "guilty or innocent" is because the prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt. You are innocent until proven guilty. [The null hypothesis](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis) is innocence. But the concept of the burden of proof applies far outside the courtroom. It's important in philosophy and it often gets misused. Shifting the burden of proof fallacy occurs when someone makes a claim, then when you demand evidence, they demand you prove the opposite. See [the gumball analogy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Dillahunty#Gumball_analogy) for further explanation. In some cases, it may not even be possible to provide evidence to disprove a claim, but that doesn't mean the claim is true. See Church of the [Flying Spaghetti Monster](https://www.spaghettimonster.org/) and [Russell's Teapot](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Russell%27s_Teapot). In debates about the existence of god, shifting of the burden of proof is an extremely common fallacy committed by theists. "You can't prove god doesn't exist!". Crucially, the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim. If I claim "There is a god", I have the burden of proving it. If I claim "There are no gods", then I have the burden to prove that. If I claim "There are probably gods", then I have the burden of proving that there are probably gods. If I claim "It's possible for a god to exist", then I have to somehow prove that it's possible, that there's a greater-than-zero chance of it occurring. So on and so forth for every claim. -The term "evidence" in this context isn't limited to hard, physical evidence. In [The Simulation Argument](https://www.simulation-argument.com), [Nick Bostrom](https://www.nickbostrom.com) demonstrates that there is a 1 in 3 probability that we are living in a simulation despite not referencing any direct physical evidence of a simulated universe. It would be hard to say what direct evidence of a simulated universe would even look like. His paper doesn't depend on that many external observable facts about the physical universe either. The assumptions he does rely on to make his argument are fairly uncontroversial, which makes his strong result all the more surprising. It just goes to show there are many ways to meet the burden of proof for a claim, not all relying on hard physical evidence. +The term "evidence" in this context isn't limited to hard, physical evidence. In [The Simulation Argument](https://simulation-argument.com/), [Nick Bostrom](https://nickbostrom.com/) demonstrates that there is a 1 in 3 probability that we are living in a simulation despite not referencing any direct physical evidence of a simulated universe. It would be hard to say what direct evidence of a simulated universe would even look like. His paper doesn't depend on that many external observable facts about the physical universe either. The assumptions he does rely on to make his argument are fairly uncontroversial, which makes his strong result all the more surprising. It just goes to show there are many ways to meet the burden of proof for a claim, not all relying on hard physical evidence. ## Ad Hominem Fallacy There are several ways people get confused over the argumentum ad hominem. The [ad hominem fallacy](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem) is a logical fallacy where you attempt to refute someone's argument by attacking their character. If you attack someone's character, that might harm their credibility. But, a person's credibility has nothing to do with the logical soundness of their argument. Soundness of an argument depends only upon the truth of the premises and the validity of the argument. I'm not saying credibility isn't important. It is. Credibility may influence your willingness to believe claims made by someone, but that's a separate issue. Your willingness to believe someone also bears no relation to the soundness of their argument or the truth of the claim they're making. The soundness of a logical argument is independent of the reputation of the person making it. @@ -47,13 +47,13 @@ Yet another way people misunderstand the ad hominem fallacy is they think it's e Tu Quoque translates into "you too!". It's also known as the appeal to hypocrisy and [whataboutism](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Whataboutism). This one is most often used in political debates between candidates to attack each other's credibility and (seemingly) invalidate their opponent's argument. The idea is if you can call someone a hypocrite, that invalidates their argument. Obviously it doesn't. We've been over that. The only way to invalidate an argument is by showing the premises to be false or the structure to be invalid. It might be a good strategy for "winning" a debate as judged by laypeople with no training in logic, but calling someone a hypocrite does nothing against their argument, even if they are in fact a hypocrite. I've never heard it explicitly said that someone's argument is wrong because they are a hypocrite, only implied. This basically goes back to a person's credibility being irrelevant to the truth of their argument. ## Bad Heuristics -There are several logical fallacies which fall into the category of what I call "[bad heuristics](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic)". They are substitutes for using logic to make up your own mind. +There are several logical fallacies which fall into the category of what I call "[bad heuristics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic)". They are substitutes for using logic to make up your own mind. ### Bandwagon -This one is the most widely-known. It simply means that many people believe something, so it must be true. There may be an evolutionary/psychological pressure to conform to what everyone else believes since it's perceived as the safest option. Several studies have been done showing that if you put a test subject in a group where the majority believes something, even if it's completely irrational, the subject will often just go along with it. Roughly [85% of the world's population believes in some form of god](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations) or gods depending on how you ask the question. There's no evidence for the existence of any gods, so their beliefs are unfounded. In other words, just going along with what everyone else believes is a bad heuristic. +This one is the most widely-known. It simply means that many people believe something, so it must be true. There may be an evolutionary/psychological pressure to conform to what everyone else believes since it's perceived as the safest option. Several studies have been done showing that if you put a test subject in a group where the majority believes something, even if it's completely irrational, the subject will often just go along with it. Roughly [85% of the world's population believes in some form of god](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations) or gods depending on how you ask the question. There's no evidence for the existence of any gods, so their beliefs are unfounded. In other words, just going along with what everyone else believes is a bad heuristic. ### Genetic -The genetic fallacy is whenever someone says something is good or true because it comes from a certain source. We can look at the media for example. While it is certainly true that some news sources are more reliable than others, the truth of an argument doesn't change depending on which news source makes it. This doesn't diminish the importance of having reliable sources of news. As a personal example, when [Nick Bostrom](https://www.nickbostrom.com) releases a new paper, I make an educated guess that I'll find it interesting based on his previous work being interesting. But the new paper that I read won't be interesting because all his previous work is. It will be interesting because of the contents of the paper. If you pick good sources of information, then that's actually not a bad heuristic for truth. You will only end up with a bad heuristic for truth if you pick bad sources of information, such as Facecrook. Just remember that the source of information has no bearing on the truth of the information. I'm really beating this point to death, but it bears repeating. The only determining factors for the soundness of an argument are the truth of the premises and the validity of the argument. +The genetic fallacy is whenever someone says something is good or true because it comes from a certain source. We can look at the media for example. While it is certainly true that some news sources are more reliable than others, the truth of an argument doesn't change depending on which news source makes it. This doesn't diminish the importance of having reliable sources of news. As a personal example, when [Nick Bostrom](https://nickbostrom.com/) releases a new paper, I make an educated guess that I'll find it interesting based on his previous work being interesting. But the new paper that I read won't be interesting because all his previous work is. It will be interesting because of the contents of the paper. If you pick good sources of information, then that's actually not a bad heuristic for truth. You will only end up with a bad heuristic for truth if you pick bad sources of information, such as Facecrook. Just remember that the source of information has no bearing on the truth of the information. I'm really beating this point to death, but it bears repeating. The only determining factors for the soundness of an argument are the truth of the premises and the validity of the argument. ### Nature The appeal to nature fallacy happens when someone says something is good, just or ideal because it's "natural". Two problems with that. For one, everything that happens is natural because we live in the natural world. But let's entertain the fallacy for a moment and define "natural" as things that aren't products of human intelligence. By that definition, Coronavirus is natural. Natural disasters are natural. It's even in the name. Lots of horrible things are natural. "Unnaturalness" is often used to argue against homosexuality. Other species of primate also show homosexual behavior, so homosexuality is natural even in non-human animals. To sum up, appealing to nature is a bad heuristic since it's hard to define what counts as natural and many natural things everyone agrees are natural are not good, while things people call "artificial", such as vaccines, are good. @@ -75,7 +75,7 @@ After you become really good at doing any type of logic, whether it be computati I've said that for an argument to be valid, the premises must be true. But how do we know the premises are true? We could make another argument to prove each premise, but then we'll just have the same problem we started with. We'll have to prove each one of the premises that we used in our argument to prove our original premises. It's an [infinite regress](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Infinite_regress). To resolve this, we need a starting point, an axiom. An [axiom](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Axiom) is a proposition that is taken for granted. It is assumed to be true without justification. There are various ideas about what axioms one should accept. Typically they tend to be kept as simple as possible. For example, take a look at the [logical absolutes](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:On_Logical_Absolutes): The Law of Identity, Non-Contradiction, and Excluded Middle. ### Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems -In the early 1920's, famous German mathematician [David Hilbert](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hilbert) put forward a proposal calling for the axiomatization of mathematics. He wanted to make all mathematical truths reducible to an agreed upon set of axioms such that all true statements could be proved, but no false statements could be proved. In 1931, one of the most significant logicians in history, [Kurt Gödel](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_G%C3%B6del), showed that no set of axioms is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of natural numbers. See [Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems](https://stopa.io/post/269). Gödel used mathematical logic to show that there are some places mathematical logic cannot go. Boiled down, he proved that logic cannot prove everything. This is also true in computing. See [The Halting Problem](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem). The essence of the trick seems to be, no matter which logic you're talking about, to find a way to encode [the liar paradox](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Liar_paradox) in the system. A prerequisite for that is somehow getting the logical system to talk about itself. Gödel found a very fascinating theorem and I would recommend for anyone interested to look more in depth at it. +In the early 1920's, famous German mathematician [David Hilbert](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hilbert) put forward a proposal calling for the axiomatization of mathematics. He wanted to make all mathematical truths reducible to an agreed upon set of axioms such that all true statements could be proved, but no false statements could be proved. In 1931, one of the most significant logicians in history, [Kurt Gödel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_G%C3%B6del), showed that no set of axioms is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of natural numbers. See [Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems](https://stopa.io/post/269). Gödel used mathematical logic to show that there are some places mathematical logic cannot go. Boiled down, he proved that logic cannot prove everything. This is also true in computing. See [The Halting Problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem). The essence of the trick seems to be, no matter which logic you're talking about, to find a way to encode [the liar paradox](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Liar_paradox) in the system. A prerequisite for that is somehow getting the logical system to talk about itself. Gödel found a very fascinating theorem and I would recommend for anyone interested to look more in depth at it. # Conclusion That's all I've got for this post. I think I've packed in a lot of information and good examples to research. Even if you never learn logic, I believe by reading this post you get a sense of what logic is all about and how to at least recognize some common informal fallacies and misunderstandings. I tried to include plenty of useful external links. This post is barely scratching the surface though. For some readers, just scratching the surface is good enough. But for all I know, the next Gödel might be reading this. In 2011, [a 25-year old math problem about superpermutations was solved by an anonymous 4chan user](https://yewtu.be/embed/OZzIvl1tbPo?local=true). If that doesn't show that cleverness can come from anywhere, I don't what does. diff --git a/content/entry/thoughts-on-spirituality.md b/content/entry/thoughts-on-spirituality.md index 93d7c62..5809e10 100644 --- a/content/entry/thoughts-on-spirituality.md +++ b/content/entry/thoughts-on-spirituality.md @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ So please don't think after reading this that I've spoiled the spiritual journey So just meditate. Don't worry about having an ulterior motive and don't worry about achieving "permanent" enlightenment. There's no need to be "permanently" enlightened to reap benefits from meditation. I think some people do reach that level. They couldn't be knocked off mental balance even by an asteroid impact. That level of mental composure may not be in the cards for everyone, but I think many of us can get close and it's worth it to try. # Spiritual Bypassing -Do watch out for other ways that the ego can creep back in though. Many novice meditators, after having insights about the nature of the mind, become convinced they're permanently enlightened and try to act as if they are all the time. This can be very psychologically destructive. It's called [spiritual bypassing](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_bypass), a term coined in 1984 by American psychologist [John Welwood](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Welwood). I'll let Wikipedia explain it: +Do watch out for other ways that the ego can creep back in though. Many novice meditators, after having insights about the nature of the mind, become convinced they're permanently enlightened and try to act as if they are all the time. This can be very psychologically destructive. It's called [spiritual bypassing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_bypass), a term coined in 1984 by American psychologist [John Welwood](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Welwood). I'll let Wikipedia explain it: > "On the other hand, when spiritual bypass is used as a long-term strategy for ignoring or suppressing unaddressed mental health issues, negative consequences can include "the need to excessively control others and oneself, shame, anxiety, dichotomous thinking, emotional confusion, exaggerated tolerance of inappropriate behavior, codependency, compulsive kindness, obsession or addiction, spiritual narcissism, blind allegiance to charismatic teachers, and disregard for personal responsibility" - Wikipedia, [CC BY-SA 3.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/) @@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ Regardless of how the problem is described, the basic solution is the same: non- # Spirituality And Skepticism ## Deepak Chopra -In the past, myself and others have lamented the fact that the atheist/skeptic/rationalist community doesn't get more involved with spirituality. When sane, rational people don't write books about spiritual inquiry or speak about it, the floor is given people who promote incoherent pseudoscientific pseudospiritual technobabble. Their technobabble sounds just scientific enough so lay people have a hard time distinguishing between the quacks and real scientists. People like [Deepak Chopra](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepak_Chopra) who promote alternative medicine and make proven false claims such as "you can tell your body not to age" cannot continue to represent the spiritual movement. +In the past, myself and others have lamented the fact that the atheist/skeptic/rationalist community doesn't get more involved with spirituality. When sane, rational people don't write books about spiritual inquiry or speak about it, the floor is given people who promote incoherent pseudoscientific pseudospiritual technobabble. Their technobabble sounds just scientific enough so lay people have a hard time distinguishing between the quacks and real scientists. People like [Deepak Chopra](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepak_Chopra) who promote alternative medicine and make proven false claims such as "you can tell your body not to age" cannot continue to represent the spiritual movement. ## Myself And an Unnamed Youtuber That's part of why I'm writing this entry. If people like me don't want quacks like Chopra to continue being the authority on all things spiritual, we have to step up and start our own dialog rooted in the principles of science and skepticism. @@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ A famous Youtuber whose name I won't say recently made a video trying to recount ## Eckhart Tolle The presence of so much spiritual mumbo jumbo out there is a testament to the difficulty of putting spiritual concepts into words. It's very hard to explain it in such a way that people won't horribly misunderstand you. -[Eckhart Tolle](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eckhart_Tolle), a spiritual teacher and self-help author, has written many sane sentences correctly diagnosing the problem of suffering and offering the solution. But Eckhart also says some things that are unclear how to interpret and other things that are just plain false, even when reading his work with the most charitable interpretation. It shows that even well-meaning people struggle with this. +[Eckhart Tolle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eckhart_Tolle), a spiritual teacher and self-help author, has written many sane sentences correctly diagnosing the problem of suffering and offering the solution. But Eckhart also says some things that are unclear how to interpret and other things that are just plain false, even when reading his work with the most charitable interpretation. It shows that even well-meaning people struggle with this. ## Sam Harris With so much mumbo jumbo out there, I think it's very important to be clear on this subject and the only spiritual book I've read so far that satisfies the level of clarity I'm looking for is [Waking Up](/2021/01/29/book-waking-up/). There's absolutely no mumbo jumbo in Waking Up. I feel comfortable recommending it without any caveats. It you haven't read it yet, it would probably be a good thing to read after this journal entry. diff --git a/content/entry/use-free-software.md b/content/entry/use-free-software.md index 155dda3..6db385f 100644 --- a/content/entry/use-free-software.md +++ b/content/entry/use-free-software.md @@ -18,12 +18,12 @@ The word "free" in "free software" means free as in freedom, not free as in pric Why are the 4 freedoms important? The most relevant answer I can give for software users is that it boils down to social and economic control. The 4 freedoms prevent the developer of the software from wielding too much power over its users. I will start with freedom 0 and go one by one explaining how each freedom impacts the social system between developers and users. ## Freedom 0 -Freedom 0 ensures that the user can use the program however they wish. Without freedom 0, the developer of the software can impose rules about how the program may or may not be used. If you use the program in a way that the developer doesn't approve of, then the developer may take legal action against you. This can be done with EULAs ([End-user license agreements](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-user_license_agreement)). Click-wrap licenses can even prevent users from knowing there are restrictions on the program's use until after starting the installation process. Users may be prevented from publishing performance information about the program to compare it to competitors, trying to reverse engineer the program for learning, developing plugins for the program, or any number of other legitimate uses of the program. Developers telling users what they can and can't do with programs on their own computer gives the developer tremendous control over the users. Freedom 0 prevents this by giving the user the right to do anything with the program that they are able to get it to do (within the bounds of other applicable laws). +Freedom 0 ensures that the user can use the program however they wish. Without freedom 0, the developer of the software can impose rules about how the program may or may not be used. If you use the program in a way that the developer doesn't approve of, then the developer may take legal action against you. This can be done with EULAs ([End-user license agreements](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-user_license_agreement)). Click-wrap licenses can even prevent users from knowing there are restrictions on the program's use until after starting the installation process. Users may be prevented from publishing performance information about the program to compare it to competitors, trying to reverse engineer the program for learning, developing plugins for the program, or any number of other legitimate uses of the program. Developers telling users what they can and can't do with programs on their own computer gives the developer tremendous control over the users. Freedom 0 prevents this by giving the user the right to do anything with the program that they are able to get it to do (within the bounds of other applicable laws). ## Freedom 1 Programs are made up of "source code". Source code is the developer-readable format of a program. Your average Joe could look at a program's source code and it would look like gibberish. But a sufficiently skilled programmer could read the source code and make sense of the program. With compiled languages, developers cannot run a program from its source code. It has to be compiled first. In summary, source code is the format the developer can understand the program and compiled code is the format the machine can actually run the program. -After the program is compiled, it's prohibitively difficult to make sense of the program even for developers. One strategy developers use to prevent other developers from reverse-engineering their program is to write the source code, then release only the compiled version of the program to the public. This way, only the developer can understand what the program really does and how it works. Not only that, but only they can make changes to the program. These programs are known as proprietary programs. It puts the developer in a position of power over the user and incentivizes the developer to add features that might hurt the user since the user is powerless to remove the bad features. This is also not conjecture. Proprietary programs often have malicious anti-features that benefit the developer and hurt the users such as [DRM](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management), surveillance, [back doors](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backdoor_%28computing%29), censorship, [tethers](https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/proprietary-tethers.html) and other [tyrannical anti-features](https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/). +After the program is compiled, it's prohibitively difficult to make sense of the program even for developers. One strategy developers use to prevent other developers from reverse-engineering their program is to write the source code, then release only the compiled version of the program to the public. This way, only the developer can understand what the program really does and how it works. Not only that, but only they can make changes to the program. These programs are known as proprietary programs. It puts the developer in a position of power over the user and incentivizes the developer to add features that might hurt the user since the user is powerless to remove the bad features. This is also not conjecture. Proprietary programs often have malicious anti-features that benefit the developer and hurt the users such as [DRM](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management), surveillance, [back doors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backdoor_%28computing%29), censorship, [tethers](https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/proprietary-tethers.html) and other [tyrannical anti-features](https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/). It's possible to reverse engineer a compiled program, but it's an extremely arduous process, especially for very large programs. Free software wants practical freedom to understand and change the program, not freedom in theory. Therefore, for Freedom 1 to be satisfied, the source code of the program must be distributed alongside the compiled version of the program. This ensures that anyone who uses the program has the opportunity to understand and modify it. This grants users individual control over the program. With Freedom 1, developers have less incentive to add malicious anti-features since other developers might notice them. This could cause people not to use programs made by that developer and for the developer to lose respect. @@ -37,16 +37,16 @@ As an example, Windows 10 is a proprietary operating system. An operating system ## Freedom 3 Continuing with the pizza analogy, Freedom 1 gives you the right to change the "recipe". You can make improvements and benefit from them. Freedom 3 lets you share your modified recipe with others so they can also benefit from your improvements. You can imagine a situation in which Freedoms 0, 1, and 2 are granted, but not 3. This would mean users can use the program any way they wish, modify it, and share exact copies, but not share modified copies. This is disastrous for collective control over the program. It would mean only the developer could make updates. "Forks" couldn't be public. Everyone else is free to make changes, but non-programmers can't benefit from those changes. -As I said before, free software is about practical control over the program, not control in theory. In reality, non-programmers can't make changes they want to make to the program because they don't know how to code. Even among programmers, one programmer might not have the expertise to modify a program to their liking or they might not be familiar with the programming language used. So unequipped developers and users rely on other developers to make the changes they desire. Without Freedom 3, only the original developer or group of developers is allowed to distribute modified versions of the program. In other words, the original developers retain a monopoly on modifications. They could charge any price for a requested feature. If they decide to stop maintaining the project, then other developers will be powerless to continue program maintenance. Freedom 3 is necessary to enable a healthy ecosystem of [forks](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_%28software_development%29) to suit the needs of each type of user. +As I said before, free software is about practical control over the program, not control in theory. In reality, non-programmers can't make changes they want to make to the program because they don't know how to code. Even among programmers, one programmer might not have the expertise to modify a program to their liking or they might not be familiar with the programming language used. So unequipped developers and users rely on other developers to make the changes they desire. Without Freedom 3, only the original developer or group of developers is allowed to distribute modified versions of the program. In other words, the original developers retain a monopoly on modifications. They could charge any price for a requested feature. If they decide to stop maintaining the project, then other developers will be powerless to continue program maintenance. Freedom 3 is necessary to enable a healthy ecosystem of [forks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_%28software_development%29) to suit the needs of each type of user. Since the original developer doesn't have a monopoly on modifications with Freedom 3, other developers can improve upon the code, add features they desire, remove features they don't desire, and collaboratively contribute to the program. This is just not possible without Freedom 3. # Free Software is not a Panacea -At the bare minimum of ethical standards for software, programs should be free software. Free software ensures that the social system around the software is just, that it doesn't automatically create unjust power differentials between developers and users and between developers and others developers that otherwise wouldn't be there. Obviously if developer A is more skilled than developer B, developer A will be better able to modify the program to their liking. And obviously if user A is wealthy and wants feature X and user B isn't wealthy and wants feature Y, then user A can pay developers to prioritize feature X over feature Y. Free software is not free from influence by corporate interests. The Mozilla Foundation wrote Firefox to use the Google search engine because Google funds Firefox development in return. Microsoft, the proprietary software giant, is on the Linux Foundation. Linus Torvalds has been responsible for big decisions in the mainline Linux kernel for decades. Free software doesn't even mean development of software is democratic in practice. [Benevolent dictator for life](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictator_for_life) is the title given to free software developers that get the final say in development decisions. Since the "dictator" has the majority of development inertia behind them, any developer that might think of forking the software upon a development dispute would think twice since the inertia for the project already lies behind the dictator's fork. Free software also doesn't have to be user friendly. It doesn't have to have accessibility for those that speak foreign languages or the disabled. It can even be socially harmful and still qualify as free software. Some free software may require expensive hardware that only the wealthy can afford. Accessibility is limited to the rich in that case. Free software doesn't solve everything. +At the bare minimum of ethical standards for software, programs should be free software. Free software ensures that the social system around the software is just, that it doesn't automatically create unjust power differentials between developers and users and between developers and others developers that otherwise wouldn't be there. Obviously if developer A is more skilled than developer B, developer A will be better able to modify the program to their liking. And obviously if user A is wealthy and wants feature X and user B isn't wealthy and wants feature Y, then user A can pay developers to prioritize feature X over feature Y. Free software is not free from influence by corporate interests. The Mozilla Foundation wrote Firefox to use the Google search engine because Google funds Firefox development in return. Microsoft, the proprietary software giant, is on the Linux Foundation. Linus Torvalds has been responsible for big decisions in the mainline Linux kernel for decades. Free software doesn't even mean development of software is democratic in practice. [Benevolent dictator for life](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictator_for_life) is the title given to free software developers that get the final say in development decisions. Since the "dictator" has the majority of development inertia behind them, any developer that might think of forking the software upon a development dispute would think twice since the inertia for the project already lies behind the dictator's fork. Free software also doesn't have to be user friendly. It doesn't have to have accessibility for those that speak foreign languages or the disabled. It can even be socially harmful and still qualify as free software. Some free software may require expensive hardware that only the wealthy can afford. Accessibility is limited to the rich in that case. Free software doesn't solve everything. # Still, Use It Free software does not solve the problems I mentioned and it's not meant to. The problems I described can possibly be avoided, with great care. With proprietary software, they are downright unavoidable. Proprietary software automatically sets up an unjust social system around software. It's a non-starter. Doomed before it even starts. There is no way to create proprietary software and have it be as ethical as free software because it doesn't meet the basic requirements for a just social and economic system. It discourages understanding, sharing, and collaboration. It's no good. If you use proprietary software often, it becomes a habit. And when it becomes a habit, the developer of the software gains influence over you because they control the software you rely on. Developers of proprietary software have a monetary incentive to mistreat their users. Anti-features can be very profitable. They have no reason not to add anti-features since others can't understand the compiled code and won't necessarily even know about the anti-features and couldn't do anything about them even if they did because they're not allowed to modify the program. Proprietary programs are instruments of unjust control over the users. Proprietary software should not exist. It should all be eradicated and replaced with free software instead. You shouldn't tolerate it if you can at all help it. The best way you can help with the liberation of cyberspace is by switching to using as much free software as possible instead of the proprietary software you might currently be using. Free software is how we stay in control of our own computing. Without it, our devices will cease to be our own. The code we run on our devices will be under the control of developers with incentives to do us harm. We want the developers writing our software to have incentives to write software that only benefits us. If we refuse to use proprietary software and use free software instead, developers will see they can't get away with not giving users their freedoms. -In the future I envision, developers will lose all incentive to write proprietary software knowing in advance no one will use it. It won't even cross their minds as a possibility. Right now, getting people to switch to free software is a struggle. Many proprietary programs benefit heavily from [the network effect](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect), keeping many people dependent. Free software is not even a well known social issue, yet. But with enough awareness and with enough people using free software, the network effect will work in favor of a liberated cyberspace, not a divided, controlled, proprietary one. Computers become more integral to our way of life every day. Our devices have become extensions of ourselves. This is why it's critical that they at least run free software. That's the only way we can hope to trust them. Use as much free software as you can and spread the word to others. We need to take back our computing. +In the future I envision, developers will lose all incentive to write proprietary software knowing in advance no one will use it. It won't even cross their minds as a possibility. Right now, getting people to switch to free software is a struggle. Many proprietary programs benefit heavily from [the network effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect), keeping many people dependent. Free software is not even a well known social issue, yet. But with enough awareness and with enough people using free software, the network effect will work in favor of a liberated cyberspace, not a divided, controlled, proprietary one. Computers become more integral to our way of life every day. Our devices have become extensions of ourselves. This is why it's critical that they at least run free software. That's the only way we can hope to trust them. Use as much free software as you can and spread the word to others. We need to take back our computing. diff --git a/content/entry/using-email.md b/content/entry/using-email.md index e710206..813ab9a 100644 --- a/content/entry/using-email.md +++ b/content/entry/using-email.md @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ draft: false [Email](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5321) is a very old internet standard, predating the world wide web. It was first defined in 1982. It was updated in 2008 and remains in widespread use. It's not a great protocol by today's standards, but we're all stuck with it. You almost certainly already have an email account. Although everyone has an email account, not everyone understands how email works or how to make the most of their account. Almost everyone with an email account just chose the first free, convenient option available for an email service provider. I know that's what I did at first. Most people just use Gmail, Outlook, Yahoo, AOL, or one of the other top providers. Knowing this has motivated me to write this post because I fear that others are missing out on a better email experience. # Choosing an Email Service Provider -The first step before using email is choosing an email service provider. Email is a [federated](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_%28information_technology%29) protocol. This means that no single entity "owns" email. If you want, you can create your own email provider and use it. Instead of john@gmail.com, your domain would be something like john@johnsdomain.com. But running your own mail server can be expensive and time-consuming. Mail servers also have many moving parts and require maintenance, so I won't be writing about how to set up your own mail server. It's just not a realistic option for non-technical users of email. +The first step before using email is choosing an email service provider. Email is a [federated](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_%28information_technology%29) protocol. This means that no single entity "owns" email. If you want, you can create your own email provider and use it. Instead of john@gmail.com, your domain would be something like john@johnsdomain.com. But running your own mail server can be expensive and time-consuming. Mail servers also have many moving parts and require maintenance, so I won't be writing about how to set up your own mail server. It's just not a realistic option for non-technical users of email. The best alternative to self-hosting is to pick an email service provider wisely. This list is obviously subjective, but here are some criteria which a good email service provider will meet: @@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ The best alternative to self-hosting is to pick an email service provider wisely * Migration support ## Free Software -The first and most important requirement is that the email provider uses exclusively free software. This means their website and webmail portal do not require [proprietary JavaScript](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.en.html). JavaScript licenses should be included somewhere on the site or it should work without JavaScript enabled. Also, all backend software should be free. In other words, if an email provider uses Mac or Windows to host the email server, it's as good as garbage and you shouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. It should probably run on GNU/Linux or FreeBSD. Good email providers support IMAP and POP3 for accessing email. Those protocols allow you to access emails from your own [email client](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_client) on any device. More on that later. Now onto security and privacy. +The first and most important requirement is that the email provider uses exclusively free software. This means their website and webmail portal do not require [proprietary JavaScript](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.en.html). JavaScript licenses should be included somewhere on the site or it should work without JavaScript enabled. Also, all backend software should be free. In other words, if an email provider uses Mac or Windows to host the email server, it's as good as garbage and you shouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. It should probably run on GNU/Linux or FreeBSD. Good email providers support IMAP and POP3 for accessing email. Those protocols allow you to access emails from your own [email client](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_client) on any device. More on that later. Now onto security and privacy. ## Privacy and Security The email provider should have a policy of not keeping logs. This brings me to my next and important point that the email provider needs to reside within a privacy-respecting country. The legal requirements for collecting logs and sharing user data are going to differ depending on which country it's in. Using an email provider based in the US or the UK is a very bad idea. Those countries don't have strong privacy considerations and your email data (and metadata) won't be safe. Email providers in those countries can't guarantee safety of your emails. You can get a lot of information about what data is collected just by actually reading the Terms of Service when you sign up. Don't use an email provider like Gmail, Outlook, or Yahoo that logs all your emails and sells them to advertisers. If it's in the Terms of Service that the service shares non-trivial data with third parties, then that email service is garbage and you shouldn't use it. In fact, good email providers will never share any data without a court order first. In order to take an email provider's claims of protecting your data seriously, the email provider should have a transparency report providing as much detail as is legal about what information they can be forced to turn over, when, and how often it actually happens. @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ I've gone over some of the technical details, but I haven't mentioned the busine Nothing I've mentioned gives you a 100% guarantee that the email provider is secure, will stay in operation, doesn't sell your data to advertisers, or is competent. But the more criteria that the email provider meets, the better the chances that it's a good one. At some point you have to say "Okay, this email service meets so many criteria of being ethical that it either actually operates ethically or is so good at faking it I could never hope to tell the difference anyway". Once you do enough research where you can confidently say that, then you should consider using it. There are other features email services provide that I haven't mentioned such as email aliasing and email storage space. Those depend heavily on how you use email and if I listed all possible features of an email service, I'd never finish this post. But I think I have covered some of the key features to look for when choosing an email service. # Using an Email Client -The most common way by far to access email nowadays is using webmail which is a shame. Webmail is when you access your email account in the browser. Remember that email predates the web, so it doesn't rely on the web at all. It's just that people have been spoiled by web apps and never need to leave the browser environment any more. Using an email client, also known as a user agent, is a more satisfying way to use email. It provides functionality such as easy account navigation, email filtering, email flagging, calendaring, contacts, and more. Webmail also provides the same features, but often requires running proprietary JavaScript to accomplish the same tasks. Using an email client gives you a single, unified user experience that you can customize to your liking for all email accounts, even if the accounts are on different email services. Using an email client empowers you to use inbound encryption, managing your encryption keys yourself. I just want to quickly mention that [Protonmail](https://protonmail.com) requires installing a [proprietary bridge application](https://protonmail.com/bridge) for IMAP and SMTP support. If you want to use Protonmail with your own email client, you'll have to install their software. I'm not trying to pick on them in particular. I just want to point out it's more secure to use email clients that work for any email provider, not client programs that the specific email service has home-brewed even if they are free software programs. Individualized email clients and client-related programs likely have less code review and less scrutiny which means you're less secure using them. Some good email clients are [Thunderbird](https://www.thunderbird.net), [Evolution](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_%28software%29) or [Mutt](http://www.mutt.org) if you prefer a terminal. [Microsoft Outlook](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Outlook) is common, but it is proprietary. Don't use it. +The most common way by far to access email nowadays is using webmail which is a shame. Webmail is when you access your email account in the browser. Remember that email predates the web, so it doesn't rely on the web at all. It's just that people have been spoiled by web apps and never need to leave the browser environment any more. Using an email client, also known as a user agent, is a more satisfying way to use email. It provides functionality such as easy account navigation, email filtering, email flagging, calendaring, contacts, and more. Webmail also provides the same features, but often requires running proprietary JavaScript to accomplish the same tasks. Using an email client gives you a single, unified user experience that you can customize to your liking for all email accounts, even if the accounts are on different email services. Using an email client empowers you to use inbound encryption, managing your encryption keys yourself. I just want to quickly mention that [Protonmail](https://proton.me/mail) requires installing a [proprietary bridge application](https://proton.me/mail/bridge) for IMAP and SMTP support. If you want to use Protonmail with your own email client, you'll have to install their software. I'm not trying to pick on them in particular. I just want to point out it's more secure to use email clients that work for any email provider, not client programs that the specific email service has home-brewed even if they are free software programs. Individualized email clients and client-related programs likely have less code review and less scrutiny which means you're less secure using them. Some good email clients are [Thunderbird](https://www.thunderbird.net/en-US/), [Evolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_%28software%29) or [Mutt](http://www.mutt.org) if you prefer a terminal. [Microsoft Outlook](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Outlook) is common, but it is proprietary. Don't use it. ## POP3 Since most email users have been totally spoiled by the web, they have never heard the terms POP3 and IMAP. When you use an email client, you will have a choice of which protocol you prefer. POP stands for Post Office Protocol. The first version of POP was created in 1984. POP3 fetches emails from the remote email server, then deletes them from the server. It can be configured not to do that, but that's its main benefit. If you only check email from a single device and you don't want your emails hanging around on someone else's computer, then POP is the way to go. Sent emails are stored in the client you sent them. Deleted emails are only deleted in the client you deleted them in. So POP is not a good protocol if you are using multiple devices to check email. It doesn't try to sync across devices. POP is also good to use if you have very little space allocated to you on the remote server, but you regularly send and receive large email attachments. diff --git a/content/entry/video-atheist-debates-argument-from-design-part-1-order-and-purpose.md b/content/entry/video-atheist-debates-argument-from-design-part-1-order-and-purpose.md index 0ff452d..7b020a7 100644 --- a/content/entry/video-atheist-debates-argument-from-design-part-1-order-and-purpose.md +++ b/content/entry/video-atheist-debates-argument-from-design-part-1-order-and-purpose.md @@ -3,6 +3,6 @@ title: "[Video] Atheist Debates - Argument From Design, Part 1: Order and Purpos date: 2021-01-16T00:00:00 draft: false --- -[Matt Dillahunty](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Dillahunty) refutes the argument that a god must exist because the universe requires a designer. +[Matt Dillahunty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Dillahunty) refutes the argument that a god must exist because the universe requires a designer. [Video Link](https://yewtu.be/embed/RTJS1UHIj6k?local=true) diff --git a/content/entry/video-atheist-debates-argument-from-design-part-2-what-are-the-odds.md b/content/entry/video-atheist-debates-argument-from-design-part-2-what-are-the-odds.md index fb02ea3..5bbe9ed 100644 --- a/content/entry/video-atheist-debates-argument-from-design-part-2-what-are-the-odds.md +++ b/content/entry/video-atheist-debates-argument-from-design-part-2-what-are-the-odds.md @@ -3,6 +3,6 @@ title: "[Video] Atheist Debates - Argument From Design, Part 2: What Are the Odd date: 2021-01-16T00:00:00 draft: false --- -[Matt Dillahunty](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Dillahunty) refutes the argument that natural explanations are improbable, so god must've created everything. +[Matt Dillahunty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Dillahunty) refutes the argument that natural explanations are improbable, so god must've created everything. [Video Link](https://yewtu.be/embed/fsw8VXAcHz4?local=true) diff --git a/content/entry/video-atheist-debates-pascals-wager.md b/content/entry/video-atheist-debates-pascals-wager.md index 95d2db7..0f3b27a 100644 --- a/content/entry/video-atheist-debates-pascals-wager.md +++ b/content/entry/video-atheist-debates-pascals-wager.md @@ -3,6 +3,6 @@ title: "[Video] Atheist Debates - Pascal's Wager" date: 2021-01-16T00:00:00 draft: false --- -[Matt Dillahunty](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Dillahunty) thoroughly refutes Pascal's Wager. He mentions the idea of [fractal wrongness](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractal_wrongness) which means that a worldview is wrong at every scale of resolution. Many theistic arguments are fractally wrong, not just Pascal's Wager. But I'm really glad Matt brings it up in this video. +[Matt Dillahunty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Dillahunty) thoroughly refutes Pascal's Wager. He mentions the idea of [fractal wrongness](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractal_wrongness) which means that a worldview is wrong at every scale of resolution. Many theistic arguments are fractally wrong, not just Pascal's Wager. But I'm really glad Matt brings it up in this video. [Video Link](https://yewtu.be/embed/YBCDGohZT70?local=true) diff --git a/content/entry/video-atheist-debates-supernatural-causation.md b/content/entry/video-atheist-debates-supernatural-causation.md index d6511f5..37f1056 100644 --- a/content/entry/video-atheist-debates-supernatural-causation.md +++ b/content/entry/video-atheist-debates-supernatural-causation.md @@ -3,6 +3,6 @@ title: "[Video] Atheist Debates - Supernatural Causation" date: 2021-01-16T00:00:00 draft: false --- -[Matt Dillahunty](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Dillahunty) discusses the difficulty of demonstrating the supernatural. +[Matt Dillahunty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Dillahunty) discusses the difficulty of demonstrating the supernatural. [Video Link](https://yewtu.be/embed/AwG7LJTTZFc?local=true) diff --git a/content/entry/video-car-surveillance-an-unregulated-privacy-disaster.md b/content/entry/video-car-surveillance-an-unregulated-privacy-disaster.md index dffb57d..24b6429 100644 --- a/content/entry/video-car-surveillance-an-unregulated-privacy-disaster.md +++ b/content/entry/video-car-surveillance-an-unregulated-privacy-disaster.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ date: 2021-04-09T00:00:00 tags: ['computing'] draft: false --- -[The Hated One](https://yewtu.be/channel/UCjr2bPAyPV7t35MvcgT3W8Q?dark_mode=true) is at it again, this time exposing automobile surveillance. I wrote [a post back in December of 2020 exposing some of the ways auto makers are collecting your data](/2020/12/16/avoiding-automobile-surveillance) and what you can do about it (hint: buy an old car!). I mostly talked about all the potential vectors for collection I could think of. In his video, The Hated One gives real-world examples and the implications of auto makers collecting so much data about people. I'm happy to see this issue getting increased attention lately by privacy advocates. +[The Hated One](https://yewtu.be/channel/UCjr2bPAyPV7t35MvcgT3W8Q?dark_mode=true) is at it again, this time exposing automobile surveillance. I wrote [a post back in December of 2020 exposing some of the ways auto makers are collecting your data](/2020/12/16/avoiding-automobile-surveillance/) and what you can do about it (hint: buy an old car!). I mostly talked about all the potential vectors for collection I could think of. In his video, The Hated One gives real-world examples and the implications of auto makers collecting so much data about people. I'm happy to see this issue getting increased attention lately by privacy advocates. Check out the video below to learn how your car is spying on you. diff --git a/content/entry/video-fixing-social-media-for-good.md b/content/entry/video-fixing-social-media-for-good.md index d486c07..52a18d8 100644 --- a/content/entry/video-fixing-social-media-for-good.md +++ b/content/entry/video-fixing-social-media-for-good.md @@ -23,9 +23,9 @@ Recent events have brought the issue of social media censorship to the forefront No informed person is disputing that these are private companies and they have the legal right to do whatever they want (within the bounds of the law) with their platforms. The 1st amendment doesn't apply here. Nonetheless it's very alarming that voices coming from the political left are sympathetic to widespread censorship just because it's Trump. If it were someone within their own ranks being censored they would no doubt be making the same argument I'm going to make about the danger of censorship. Voices coming from the political right actually have a saner viewpoint on the censorship problem in the sense that they can actually recognize censorship as a social problem which Trump's situation has only highlighted. -As amusing as it is seeing adult Eric Cartman's megaphone taken away, having a handful of big tech companies control who gets a voice and who doesn't is extremely dangerous. Once a platform is large enough it is a de facto public forum in the sense that it can be used by anyone to freely spread their ideas. Censorship on it in practice can be as damaging to freedom of speech as censoring a de jure public forum. The good coming from this censorship is people are waking up to the fact that big tech companies can and do censor whoever they want when it suits them. [Signal Messenger](https://signal.org) has even seen a [huge increase in downloads](https://nitter.snopyta.org/elonmusk/status/1347165127036977153) since the censorship imposed after the capitol riots. Uncensorable platforms are needed. [Luke Smith](https://yewtu.be/channel/UC2eYFnH61tmytImy1mTYvhA?dark_mode=true) proposes [federated platforms](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_%28information_technology%29) as a permanent fix for the censorship issue: +As amusing as it is seeing adult Eric Cartman's megaphone taken away, having a handful of big tech companies control who gets a voice and who doesn't is extremely dangerous. Once a platform is large enough it is a de facto public forum in the sense that it can be used by anyone to freely spread their ideas. Censorship on it in practice can be as damaging to freedom of speech as censoring a de jure public forum. The good coming from this censorship is people are waking up to the fact that big tech companies can and do censor whoever they want when it suits them. [Signal Messenger](https://signal.org) has even seen a [huge increase in downloads](https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1347165127036977153) since the censorship imposed after the capitol riots. Uncensorable platforms are needed. [Luke Smith](https://yewtu.be/channel/UC2eYFnH61tmytImy1mTYvhA?dark_mode=true) proposes [federated platforms](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_%28information_technology%29) as a permanent fix for the censorship issue: [Video Link](https://videos.lukesmith.xyz/videos/watch/0c256439-ec59-4e41-bd40-0ebeca751543?autoplay=1) # Federation Versus Peer to Peer -While federation is better than centralization, in practice federation tends toward centralization anyway. Email is federated but a few big providers (Gmail, Yahoo, Outlook, iCloud, Protonmail) control the market. Worse yet, all the big providers sell user data. But it's not just email. On the federated communication platform [Matrix](https://www.matrix.org) users are still heavily concentrated on the default matrix.org homeserver. So it's not true that federation alone fixes social media for good. A [peer-to-peer](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-to-peer) social media platform could fix social media for good. But I'd still rather see everyone on [The Fediverse](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fediverse#Communication_protocols_used_in_the_fediverse) instead of the centralized social media platforms used today. +While federation is better than centralization, in practice federation tends toward centralization anyway. Email is federated but a few big providers (Gmail, Yahoo, Outlook, iCloud, Protonmail) control the market. Worse yet, all the big providers sell user data. But it's not just email. On the federated communication platform [Matrix](https://www.matrix.org) users are still heavily concentrated on the default matrix.org homeserver. So it's not true that federation alone fixes social media for good. A [peer-to-peer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-to-peer) social media platform could fix social media for good. But I'd still rather see everyone on [The Fediverse](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fediverse#Communication_protocols_used_in_the_fediverse) instead of the centralized social media platforms used today. diff --git a/content/entry/video-the-current-plot-to-rig-us-elections.md b/content/entry/video-the-current-plot-to-rig-us-elections.md index 66e4b39..ce2cb58 100644 --- a/content/entry/video-the-current-plot-to-rig-us-elections.md +++ b/content/entry/video-the-current-plot-to-rig-us-elections.md @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ draft: false --- American democracy is in serious danger. Robert Reich, American professor, author, lawyer, political commentator, and previous Secretary of Labor created a video explaining how [Trump loyalists are rigging the upcoming 2024 presidential election](https://yewtu.be/embed/gV5VKW_fPVc?local=true). -The twice-impeached [wannabe dictator](/glossary/) and his cronies should be prosecuted for their involvement in the [January 6th coup attempt](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_United_States_Capitol_attack) and barred from ever holding public office again. That's the only reasonable outcome given what happened that day. +The twice-impeached [wannabe dictator](/glossary/) and his cronies should be prosecuted for their involvement in the [January 6th coup attempt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_United_States_Capitol_attack) and barred from ever holding public office again. That's the only reasonable outcome given what happened that day. We also need to pass legislation to strengthen and ultimately save American democracy. Here are just a few ideas to get started on that: * automatic voter registration for all eligible voters diff --git a/content/entry/video-tiktok-a-trojan-horse-into-chinas-dystopia.md b/content/entry/video-tiktok-a-trojan-horse-into-chinas-dystopia.md index 50803cf..6d38a89 100644 --- a/content/entry/video-tiktok-a-trojan-horse-into-chinas-dystopia.md +++ b/content/entry/video-tiktok-a-trojan-horse-into-chinas-dystopia.md @@ -4,9 +4,9 @@ date: 2021-01-11T00:00:00 tags: ['computing'] draft: false --- -TikTok is a national security risk and yet people are still using it by the millions. President Trump signed an [executive order to ban TikTok](https://web.archive.org/web/20210120145228id_/https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-addressing-threat-posed-tiktok/) by prohibiting United States citizens from doing business with the Chinese company ByteDance that owns TikTok. However the restrictions have been stalled in court since last August. At the time of the [TikTok lawsuit](https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-us/tiktok-files-lawsuit) ByteDance claimed they had 100 million active users in the United States. +TikTok is a national security risk and yet people are still using it by the millions. President Trump signed an [executive order to ban TikTok](https://web.archive.org/web/20210120145228if_/https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-addressing-threat-posed-tiktok/) by prohibiting United States citizens from doing business with the Chinese company ByteDance that owns TikTok. However the restrictions have been stalled in court since last August. At the time of the [TikTok lawsuit](https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-us/tiktok-files-lawsuit) ByteDance claimed they had 100 million active users in the United States. -The main concern in the executive order seems to be TikTok allows the CCP to collect Americans' personal information including federal employees and it can be used for disinformation and blackmail. But as [TheHatedOne](https://yewtu.be/channel/UCjr2bPAyPV7t35MvcgT3W8Q?dark_mode=true) points out, US-based social media platforms already do the same thing. Facecrook has collected personal user data way before TikTok was around and it has more than twice as many users today as TikTok did in August. A consequence of Facecrook's data collection is it enabled [Cambridge analytica](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Analytica_data_scandal) to manipulate the US presidential election in 2016 and yet the Federal Trade Commission only fined Bookface $5 billion dollars. Bookface made $15 billion in just the first quarter of 2019. The fine was barely a slap on the wrist. +The main concern in the executive order seems to be TikTok allows the CCP to collect Americans' personal information including federal employees and it can be used for disinformation and blackmail. But as [TheHatedOne](https://yewtu.be/channel/UCjr2bPAyPV7t35MvcgT3W8Q?dark_mode=true) points out, US-based social media platforms already do the same thing. Facecrook has collected personal user data way before TikTok was around and it has more than twice as many users today as TikTok did in August. A consequence of Facecrook's data collection is it enabled [Cambridge analytica](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Analytica_data_scandal) to manipulate the US presidential election in 2016 and yet the Federal Trade Commission only fined Bookface $5 billion dollars. Bookface made $15 billion in just the first quarter of 2019. The fine was barely a slap on the wrist. The moral is if you're a US-based company that endangers national security through personal data collection and manipulation of public opinion through propaganda you get a slap on the wrist from the FTC while the NSA pats you on the back. If you're a Chinese-based company doing more or less the same you get an executive order banning you from doing business in the United States. And the 2 core issues of centralization of power and proprietary software of which the other issues are a symptom never even get so much as a mention in the mainstream media or the government. diff --git a/content/entry/video-you-should-delete-your-whatsapp-asap.md b/content/entry/video-you-should-delete-your-whatsapp-asap.md index b3f9b3a..95c2d9c 100644 --- a/content/entry/video-you-should-delete-your-whatsapp-asap.md +++ b/content/entry/video-you-should-delete-your-whatsapp-asap.md @@ -9,10 +9,10 @@ draft: false [Video Link](https://yewtu.be/embed/shpiVm1qpnw?local=true) # Matrix -The only gripe I have about the video is the same one I had in [Fixing Social Media for Good](/2021/01/14/video-fixing-social-media-for-good). While [Matrix](https://matrix.org/) is [federated](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_%28information_technology%29) and infinitely better than Whatsapp, federation still tends toward centralization. Also Matrix doesn't protect metadata either and as TheHatedOne mentions, leaking metadata is really bad for a communications platform even if data is protected. +The only gripe I have about the video is the same one I had in [Fixing Social Media for Good](/2021/01/14/video-fixing-social-media-for-good/). While [Matrix](https://matrix.org/) is [federated](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_%28information_technology%29) and infinitely better than Whatsapp, federation still tends toward centralization. Also Matrix doesn't protect metadata either and as TheHatedOne mentions, leaking metadata is really bad for a communications platform even if data is protected. # Signal [Signal](https://www.signal.org/) says it protects metadata, but there's no way for users to verify that besides taking Signal's word for it and Signal is centralized. So neither Signal nor Matrix are the final solution to secure communications. # Cwtch -[Peer to peer](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-to-peer) is the best solution because there's no way for it to tend towards centralization. Once [cwtch.im](https://cwtch.im/) (Cwtch is Welsh for hug/cuddle) is stable it will probably be the best peer to peer instant messaging solution since it can verifiably protect metadata and have encrypted group conversations. It's also built on [Tor](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_%28anonymity_network%29) which is the most tested, most researched and most used anonymity network out there. +[Peer to peer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-to-peer) is the best solution because there's no way for it to tend towards centralization. Once [cwtch.im](https://cwtch.im/) (Cwtch is Welsh for hug/cuddle) is stable it will probably be the best peer to peer instant messaging solution since it can verifiably protect metadata and have encrypted group conversations. It's also built on [Tor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_%28anonymity_network%29) which is the most tested, most researched and most used anonymity network out there. diff --git a/content/entry/website-assange-defense.md b/content/entry/website-assange-defense.md index e27d6a9..aeabd60 100644 --- a/content/entry/website-assange-defense.md +++ b/content/entry/website-assange-defense.md @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ draft: false --- [Wikileaks](https://wikileaks.org) is an international non-profit organization that publishes classified news leaks from anonymous sources. Usually the news leaks expose high-level corruption and violations of human rights and civil liberties. -[Julian Assange](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange), the founder of Wikileaks, is being politically persecuted for publishing documents that exposed U.S. war crimes. Academics, journalists, activists, human rights groups, and politicans have all come out against this. +[Julian Assange](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange), the founder of Wikileaks, is being politically persecuted for publishing documents that exposed U.S. war crimes. Academics, journalists, activists, human rights groups, and politicans have all come out against this. There is no legal basis for detaining or extraditing Assange. The CIA spied on his lawyers and plotted to kill him. A key FBI informant in his case admitted to lying in exchange for immunity. There is no way he can have a fair trial now. diff --git a/content/entry/website-chat-control.md b/content/entry/website-chat-control.md index d50f554..ac914e9 100644 --- a/content/entry/website-chat-control.md +++ b/content/entry/website-chat-control.md @@ -4,12 +4,12 @@ date: 2022-07-30T00:00:00 tags: ['computing'] draft: false --- -[The EU wants to indiscriminately scan all EU citizens' private chats, emails, and messages without a warrant.](https://chatcontrol.eu) As always, the EU has chosen one of [the four horsemen of the infopocalypse](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse), pedophiles, as their stated reason for indiscriminately violating innocent people's right to privacy. The EU basically wants to make private digital communication impossible. +[The EU wants to indiscriminately scan all EU citizens' private chats, emails, and messages without a warrant.](https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/chat-control/) As always, the EU has chosen one of [the four horsemen of the infopocalypse](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse), pedophiles, as their stated reason for indiscriminately violating innocent people's right to privacy. The EU basically wants to make private digital communication impossible. This is clearly a case of the remedy being worse than the problem. The increased surveillance will do much more harm than good. As the Chat Control website created by Pirate Party member and German digital rights activist Patrick Breyer points out, there are more effective approaches to combating child pornography which don't harm the privacy of every innocent person and target teenagers for harmless sexting. Some better ideas are to teach digital literacy to children, teens, and adolescents, provide hotlines, counseling centers, mandate reporting mechanisms for online services, prevent such images and recordings from taking place, redirect police efforts to more effective means of catching pedophiles than reading automated reports, and explore ways to prevent pedophiles from offending. -While it's socially important for people to understand the value of privacy for freedom and democracy, the problem of mass surveillance also has to be addressed on a technical level. For the privacy of our devices, it needs to become the norm for all phones, laptops, servers, etc to ship with [free hardware](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_hardware) and [free software](https://www.fsf.org/about/what-is-free-software) only. +While it's socially important for people to understand the value of privacy for freedom and democracy, the problem of mass surveillance also has to be addressed on a technical level. For the privacy of our devices, it needs to become the norm for all phones, laptops, servers, etc to ship with [free hardware](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_hardware) and [free software](https://www.fsf.org/about/what-is-free-software) only. -Also, the outdated network stack must be replaced with one created with freedom and privacy in mind from the very start, such as [GNUnet](https://gnunet.org). That would go a long way in making measures like Chat Control unenforceable, even if passed. +Also, the outdated network stack must be replaced with one created with freedom and privacy in mind from the very start, such as [GNUnet](https://www.gnunet.org/en/). That would go a long way in making measures like Chat Control unenforceable, even if passed. diff --git a/content/entry/website-tosdr.md b/content/entry/website-tosdr.md index 9ce95f5..f5e3ea8 100644 --- a/content/entry/website-tosdr.md +++ b/content/entry/website-tosdr.md @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ It provides a searchable online database cataloguing and simplifying the terms o Each service also has a grade based on its terms. You can interpret the grade however you want, but I interpret it as a measure of whether or not I ought to use the service. It's incredibly useful for quickly ascertaining the risks of using a service. -[The people behind the project](https://tosdr.org/about) participate in free software, free culture, and law. They're funded by non-profits and [individual donations](https://tosdr.org/thanks) and all the info on the site is open data. If you want to contribute, ToS;DR has a [forum](https://forum.tosdr.org/) and [community](https://tosdr.org/community) page. +[The people behind the project](https://tosdr.org/about) participate in free software, free culture, and law. They're funded by non-profits and [individual donations](https://thanks.tosdr.org) and all the info on the site is open data. If you want to contribute, ToS;DR has a [forum](https://tosdr.community/) and [community](https://tosdr.org/community) page. While ToS;DR is a good project, it really shouldn't need to exist. There ought to be some comprehensive solution that doesn't require some French non-profit to make terms more understandable for people. diff --git a/content/entry/why-i-dont-trust-police-and-neither-should-you.md b/content/entry/why-i-dont-trust-police-and-neither-should-you.md index b1b0683..935b4d7 100644 --- a/content/entry/why-i-dont-trust-police-and-neither-should-you.md +++ b/content/entry/why-i-dont-trust-police-and-neither-should-you.md @@ -9,25 +9,25 @@ This writing only applies to cops in the United States. In other countries, the Here's a non-comprehensive list of 20 reasons you shouldn't trust police either (in no particular order): * Police defend each others' bad behavior, almost without exception. [The ones who don't end up getting fired or worse](https://www.theroot.com/the-price-a-cop-paid-for-crossing-the-blue-line-1790858428). -* [Police plant evidence.](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Kathryn_Johnston) +* [Police plant evidence.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Kathryn_Johnston) * Police union contracts arbitrarily restrict investigating officer misconduct. * [72% of police agree poorly performing officers are not held accountable for their actions.](https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/01/11/behind-the-badge/#fn-22351-1) * [More than half of police say their job has made them more callous.](https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/01/11/behind-the-badge/#fn-22351-1) * [Police steal more from the innocent than do thieves.](https://yewtu.be/embed/ZWvh8Ttd9eA?local=true) * [Police mistake everyday objects for guns.](https://yewtu.be/embed/sP7f96dE6Pg?local=true) -* [Police can search your home without your knowledge or consent if they suspect terrorism. You can be put on a terror watch list for almost anything and it's nearly impossible to clear your name.](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarization_of_police#United_States) -* Instead of listening to protesters calling for police reform, [police instead promote the myth that there's a "war on police"](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarization_of_police#Allegations_of_a_%22war_on_police%22). -* Local police departments use [powerful surveillance technology](https://www.eff.org/issues/street-level-surveillance) to [invade your privacy without a warrant](https://www.eff.org/issues/street-level-surveillance). +* [Police can search your home without your knowledge or consent if they suspect terrorism. You can be put on a terror watch list for almost anything and it's nearly impossible to clear your name.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarization_of_police#United_States) +* Instead of listening to protesters calling for police reform, [police instead promote the myth that there's a "war on police"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarization_of_police#Allegations_of_a_%22war_on_police%22). +* Local police departments use [powerful surveillance technology](https://sls.eff.org/) to [invade your privacy without a warrant](https://sls.eff.org/). * Police lying on the witness stand is so rampant it has a name: "[testilying](https://truthout.org/articles/lying-is-a-fundamental-part-of-american-police-culture/)" * [Police training is severely inadequate](https://reflector.uindy.edu/2020/10/07/the-problem-with-police-training-in-the-u-s/). They receive less hours of training than barbers. * [Police can and will lie to you](https://www.snyderlawyer.com/blog/ways-police-can-lie-to-you/), especially if you're ignorant of the law. But if you lie to them, you'll be arrested. * Police have spent 40 years blowing trillions of dollars ruining people's lives over drugs and causing the prison population to explode. All the while [drug use rates have remained constant](https://www.aclu.org/issues/smart-justice/sentencing-reform/war-drugs). -* Police have been lying to children about drugs since the early 80's. The D.A.R.E. program even [encourages children to snitch on their parents](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Abuse_Resistance_Education#Use_of_children_as_informants). +* Police have been lying to children about drugs since the early 80's. The D.A.R.E. program even [encourages children to snitch on their parents](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Abuse_Resistance_Education#Use_of_children_as_informants). * [Police infringe upon citizens' freedom to explore their own consciousness through psychedelics.](https://web.archive.org/web/20220118020130if_/https://legalizepsychedelics.com/) * Two 1990's studies showed [police commit domestic violence at significantly higher rates than the national average](https://sites.temple.edu/klugman/2020/07/20/do-40-of-police-families-experience-domestic-violence/). The stats may have changed since, but it's still cause for concern. * [Police officers launder evidence through illegal government surveillance](https://archive.org/details/ParallelReconstruction) to fight the failed war on drugs. * [Police departments partner with scAmazon's corporate mass surveillance network to circumvent your 4th amendment rights.](https://www.cancelring.com/) -* [America has a long history of racist policing.](https://www.aclu.org/news/criminal-law-reform/what-100-years-of-history-tells-us-about-racism-in-policing/) +* [America has a long history of racist policing.](https://www.aclu.org/news/criminal-law-reform/what-100-years-of-history-tells-us-about-racism-in-policing) # Rethinking the Role of Policing in Society I do believe in the institution of policing. But in practice, perverse incentives lead to a toxic police culture and a society where people (rightfully) do not trust the police. We need major police reform here in America. Perhaps I'll explore possible solutions in a future journal entry. diff --git a/content/entry/why-i-dont-use-a-pseudonym.md b/content/entry/why-i-dont-use-a-pseudonym.md index f0c12fe..7597c6f 100644 --- a/content/entry/why-i-dont-use-a-pseudonym.md +++ b/content/entry/why-i-dont-use-a-pseudonym.md @@ -9,11 +9,11 @@ There are limits to freedom of speech, some which I despise, but I don't overste Of course this doesn't mean I'm in the clear. If voting rights legislation isn't passed and U.S. democracy falls to fascism, this journal could condemn me under the new regime. Even if that doesn't happen, the U.S. government and powerful corporations have countless ways to ruin the lives of people who rock the consumer capitalist boat. -After the death of [John McAfee](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McAfee), a British American programmer and tax dodger, the mainstream media largely reported it as a suicide despite strong reasons for doubt. [Rob Braxman](https://yewtu.be/channel/UCYVU6rModlGxvJbszCclGGw?dark_mode=true), a popular internet privacy guy, was discussing McAfee's death and if my memory is accurate, he also mentioned worrying about being suicided for teaching people how to have privacy online. +After the death of [John McAfee](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McAfee), a British American programmer and tax dodger, the mainstream media largely reported it as a suicide despite strong reasons for doubt. [Rob Braxman](https://yewtu.be/channel/UCYVU6rModlGxvJbszCclGGw?dark_mode=true), a popular internet privacy guy, was discussing McAfee's death and if my memory is accurate, he also mentioned worrying about being suicided for teaching people how to have privacy online. -Now I think that's obviously a very unlikely thing to happen, but it's not a crazy thing to say. If you don't believe things like that happen, you're just not paying attention. Look at the case of the journalist [Julian Assange](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange). The FBI tried to frame him for hacking by granting legal immunity to his source Sigurdur Thordarson if he agreed to testily against Assange. There have been numerous other attempts to deface Assange's character as well. +Now I think that's obviously a very unlikely thing to happen, but it's not a crazy thing to say. If you don't believe things like that happen, you're just not paying attention. Look at the case of the journalist [Julian Assange](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange). The FBI tried to frame him for hacking by granting legal immunity to his source Sigurdur Thordarson if he agreed to testily against Assange. There have been numerous other attempts to deface Assange's character as well. -[Jacob Appelbaum](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Appelbaum), an independent American journalist, security researcher, and anarchist who previously worked on the Tor project was politically persecuted by the U.S. government to the point of fleeing to Germany. Officials seized his laptop and phones at the border. People who work in the U.S. as journalists do get harassed, selectively policed, and arrested. Serious journalists in the U.S. who say they don't worry about safety are either lying or naive. +[Jacob Appelbaum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Appelbaum), an independent American journalist, security researcher, and anarchist who previously worked on the Tor project was politically persecuted by the U.S. government to the point of fleeing to Germany. Officials seized his laptop and phones at the border. People who work in the U.S. as journalists do get harassed, selectively policed, and arrested. Serious journalists in the U.S. who say they don't worry about safety are either lying or naive. Writing this journal doesn't make me a journalist. I'm more like a commentator. But as a dissident and activist, I expect to be targeted. However I don't think I'm interesting enough to worry about what happened to Assange and Appelbaum happening to me. The government has bigger fish to fry. diff --git a/content/entry/why-i-left-its.md b/content/entry/why-i-left-its.md index 47f1834..4a4c980 100644 --- a/content/entry/why-i-left-its.md +++ b/content/entry/why-i-left-its.md @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ tags: ['computing', 'siue'] draft: false --- # Background -In October of 2018, I was hired to work at [information technology services at SIUe](https://www.siue.edu/its), where I also studied. I worked there until early this year. I worked part time and met many good people there and learned how the university works and is organized. The job was well-suited for students because we usually have some free time to do our studies. I worked at the [help desk](https://www.siue.edu/its/helpdesk) answering calls for a while before I eventually moved to a labs and classrooms technician position. The duties of the labs and classrooms student workers were essentially to do anything technology-related that needed done in the labs and classrooms. This included taking inventory for all the items, imaging computers, assisting professors and students if something broke during class time, setting up projectors, conference areas, replacing hardware, and responding to support calls. It was a good first job for learning common workplace skills. +In October of 2018, I was hired to work at [information technology services at SIUe](https://www.siue.edu/its/), where I also studied. I worked there until early this year. I worked part time and met many good people there and learned how the university works and is organized. The job was well-suited for students because we usually have some free time to do our studies. I worked at the [help desk](https://www.siue.edu/its/helpdesk/) answering calls for a while before I eventually moved to a labs and classrooms technician position. The duties of the labs and classrooms student workers were essentially to do anything technology-related that needed done in the labs and classrooms. This included taking inventory for all the items, imaging computers, assisting professors and students if something broke during class time, setting up projectors, conference areas, replacing hardware, and responding to support calls. It was a good first job for learning common workplace skills. # Learning About Free Software Everyone that is passionate about free/libre software has a story. Most students and teachers working with computers have never even heard about free software, even in computer science courses. It's one of the biggest social issues people are completely ignorant about. Part of that is because the ideas are misunderstood because "open source" has replaced free software in the classroom and workplace. Another reason is programmers don't get into programming because they want to grapple with the ethical implications of computing. What I'm saying is the kind of person who studies programming oftentimes is uninterested in ethics. Obviously this isn't true for every programmer out there, but the point I'm making is this: If you have any values at all, everything you do either moves you closer to your values, farther away from them, or is neutral. Whether you like it or not, this implies an ethical dimension to everything, including computing. @@ -22,4 +22,4 @@ Some readers are going to think resigning (partially) over ethical reasons was a Another objection readers might have to me leaving my job over free software is that even if I find another job where I don't have to use any proprietary software, I might be contributing to other social harms. In other words, it's hard to find a place to work that is without ethical problems. I can't deny this is true. Some people work at jobs where they have to use Windows, but they have kids to take care of. If they don't go in to work, they might not be able to support their family. I'm not trying to suggest everyone should do what I did. I'm definitely not trying to take the moral high ground compared to those people. I'm just explaining why I did what I did. But there are less "nuclear" options for people who can't quit their job. Spread the word about free software to friends, family, and coworkers. Set an example for others by being a mindful consumer. For example, don't buy home assistants with proprietary software such as the Amazon Alexa or Google Home. Don't buy "smart" devices like smart TVs, smart fridges, smart light bulbs, etc. These are small sacrifices consumers can make right now. With collective effort, we can create a large market for ethical tech and eliminate the market for unethical tech if only enough of us refuse to buy it. If the relatively small sacrifices aren't made now, the sacrifices required in the future to turn the tide will be much, much greater. Living without proprietary software is already far more inconvenient than most people will accept. And it's only going to get worse unless we reject proprietary products today. -That was my short call to action. If you've made it this far, thank you for reading. If you find my ideas valuable, then please consider making a donation. Details are on my [about page](/about). +That was my short call to action. If you've made it this far, thank you for reading. If you find my ideas valuable, then please consider making a donation. Details are on my [about page](/about/). diff --git a/content/entry/why-superman-isnt-brave.md b/content/entry/why-superman-isnt-brave.md index a565dad..1dfb7c2 100644 --- a/content/entry/why-superman-isnt-brave.md +++ b/content/entry/why-superman-isnt-brave.md @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ Real bravery is many things. It's having the moral strength to face danger, fear We all have our own personal struggles. Then there are struggles we share in common with everyone else. We all get sick. We grow old and frail and eventually we die. We aren't guaranteed of a good outcome in life. We face a universe that is indifferent to our existence. There's a real possibility that our species could destroy itself, forever extinguishing the only source of intelligent life we know of. But confronting that reality isn't something we do by choice. Even for people that seem to ignore reality, it's still there in the very back of their mind, often expressing itself in indirect ways. As such, facing reality isn't usually seen as bravery since we have no other option. -But, I want to give you something to consider: If you look at people who have acted bravely in the name of justice or good, they often did so because they couldn't continue any other way. Their psychic reality more or less forced them into bravery. Look at [Edward Snowden](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden) for example. In case you didn't know, he put his life and freedom at risk to tell the American people that our government is illegally spying on all of us. Here is what he said: +But, I want to give you something to consider: If you look at people who have acted bravely in the name of justice or good, they often did so because they couldn't continue any other way. Their psychic reality more or less forced them into bravery. Look at [Edward Snowden](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden) for example. In case you didn't know, he put his life and freedom at risk to tell the American people that our government is illegally spying on all of us. Here is what he said: > "If I had just wanted to harm the US? You could shut down the surveillance system in an afternoon. But that's not my intention. I think for anyone making that argument they need to think, if they were in my position and you live a privileged life, you're living in Hawaii, in paradise, and making a ton of money, 'What would it take you to leave everything behind?'" diff --git a/content/entry/you-dont-need-an-antivirus.md b/content/entry/you-dont-need-an-antivirus.md index dc86298..7b1f6f1 100644 --- a/content/entry/you-dont-need-an-antivirus.md +++ b/content/entry/you-dont-need-an-antivirus.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ date: 2022-01-09T00:00:00 tags: ['computing'] draft: false --- -This entry is in response to recent news of [Norton Antivirus putting a crypto miner in their program](https://web.archive.org/web/20220109214340id_/https://support.norton.com/sp/en/us/home/current/solutions/v138388461). This is such a dumb move in so many ways it requires its own entry. Others have already commented on it, so I'd rather just tell you why you don't need an antivirus in the first place. +This entry is in response to recent news of [Norton Antivirus putting a crypto miner in their program](https://web.archive.org/web/20220109214340if_/https://support.norton.com/sp/en/us/home/current/solutions/v138388461). This is such a dumb move in so many ways it requires its own entry. Others have already commented on it, so I'd rather just tell you why you don't need an antivirus in the first place. Most commercial antiviruses are targeted towards Windows users. News flash. If you're using Windows, you already have known malware installed on your computer. It's called Windows and no antivirus program can remove it. Same for Macs as well. You should remove Windows or Mac and install a free Linux or BSD distro. |