I think treating every human with equal dignity goes beyond politics. While the specific context here was political, but that is only the context, not the principle.
I own a Jeep Wrangler, and you're right the electronics are terrible. The rest of the vehicle is really solid though. The only problems I've had with it in three years are electronic in nature. And I've really pushed it to the limits: Colorado Passes, Utah Dessert, Montana backroads. I drove it to the Arctic Ocean and back on the Dempster.
Still there is no excuse for how terrible the electronics are in Jeep / Dodge (I'm assuming all Chrysler) vehicles. And it's been that way for decades.
I owned a Jeep 4XE, and I was glad the day we sold it, and I'm doubly glad today. The electronics and software were crap, and the powertrain was simply insufficient. At one point, they issued a notice that amounted to 'it might catch on fire, keep it away from your house.'
Yeah, I have family members with 2 JKs and a JL, unfortunately all plagued with issues, almost entirely related to the electronics. A Jeep Wrangler is a vehicle that sounds great on paper, but actually owning one is an exercise in frustration unless you just enjoy fucking with wiring harnesses. I am sure many others will come out of the woodwork to say that Jeeps are great, unfortunately they are not.
Docker is still too complex for the layman, and that's ultimately who we have to win over anyway. Big Tech makes it super easy to surrender privacy and sovereignty by giving them your e-mail and a password to create an account and use a new thing. Apps make it easy to do the same, but now for your physical location and device identifiers as well.
Until setting up a private chatroom for your family is as easy as downloading an app on your phone, people are going to keep going back to Big Tech. UX for IT folk and UX for the layman are entirely different beasts, and the UX for IT is only recently improving thanks to things like Docker and the containerization of software making it more widespread and commoditized.
> Until setting up a private chatroom for your family is as easy as downloading an app on your phone
It already is - all my family and close friends are on our own Mattermost instance but it still has them have the same social apps everyone else has because two degrees out are not on our own Mattermost instance :)
This is absolutely ok! As the cost of providing a service becomes less subsidized and starts to reflect the true cost to service a user, more and more people are going to self-host. Hopefully federated networks take off then.
You're making a chain of assumptions and deductions that are not necessarily true given the initial statement of the scenario. Just because you think those things logically follow doesn't mean that they do.
You also make throw away assertions line "That's why so many claims are only found to not replicate years or decades after they were published." What is "so many claims?" The majority? 10%? 0.5%?
I totally agree with you that the nuances of the situation are very important to consider, and the things you mention are possibilities, but you are too eager to reject things if you think "that specific example should undermine your belief quite significantly if you're a rational person." You made lots of assumptions in these statements and I think a rational person with humility would not make those assumptions so quickly.
> What is "so many claims?" The majority? 10%? 0.5%?
Wikipedia has a good intro to the topic. Some quick stats: "only 36% of the replications [in psychology] yielded significant findings", "Overall, 50% of the 28 findings failed to replicate despite massive sample sizes", "only 11% of 53 pre-clinical cancer studies had replications that could confirm conclusions from the original studies", "A survey of cancer researchers found that half of them had been unable to reproduce a published result".
The example is hypothetical and each step is probabilistic, so we can't say anything is necessarily true. But which parts of the reasoning do you think are wrong?
Oh so you're talking about replications in a very specific field, one completely different from the example you're using elsewhere of climate change.
Your first step is "It's a group of scientists and their work was reviewed, so they are probably all dishonest."
Even that is an unreasonable step. It is very possible for a single person to deceive their peers.
Deductive reasoning like this works so much better for Sherlock Holmes, in fiction. In reality, deductive reasoning tends to re-enforce your biases and ignore the vast possibility space of alternatives.
I didn't pick the example of climate change, but the field is irrelevant. It was just an example. The argument applies equally well regardless of what the hypothetical scientists are inventing data for.
It is possible for a single person to deceive all their peers if you assume unlimited incompetence and naiveity, but that should reduce your faith in what they say just as much!
The argument uses logical induction, not deduction. Induction works fine and is the sort of ordinary reasoning used by people every day. It's normal to trust a group of people less after they were caught lying. If you don't do this, you're the one being irrational, not other people.
In a world where Target can figure out a women is pregnant before she knows herself due to her shopping habits, the line that separates sensitive data is pretty ambiguous.
> Refusing to use something because of who created it or who benefits from it is a bit too much I think, to the point of being unworkable depending on the case.
Having a hard and fast rule that can always be applied about this is impossible. We're just too interconnected and interdependent, and there are too many unknowns.
That doesn't mean we can just ignore it and not think about it. We owe it to each other to still do our best, even if it's not going to be perfect.
Unless your name is nationally known, I doubt this is the case. It's not local people who are deporting you. There are numerous cases of well connected people beloved in their community getting deported. There are no consequences for the perpetrators.
That's the main reason its happening, there are no consequences for making mistakes. So they can ship you to a concentration camp and no one will know, because there won't be paperwork anywhere saying this happened, unless someone happened to be there and recorded you being abducted.
By the time someone might decide to check ICE records you could be in South Sudan already. No one is safe.
It's useful to remember this when tempted to make arguments that assume there is a Right Way to do things. We are exploring a massive possibility space where components interact in non-linear ways. There isn't a right way, there is no golden path. The reality of our society is an integration of each individual experience. We build theories as abstractions of that integration in order to manage and engage with that massive complexity. It can be useful, as long as we remember that they are abstractions. When we forget that our abstractions are only abstractions, we tend to cause additional problems on top of that which we were already trying to engage.
Profits are bad when they exist due to unethical cost cutting. Profits are bad when they artificially lower the cost of the good by exporting the costs to other people.
If a clothing company is profitable because they use slave labor, that is not good profit.
If an oil company is profitable because they do not address the environmental impact they have, that is not good profit.
If an insurance company is profitable because they refuse required treatments for their customers, that is not good profit.
You have a very simplistic view of profit that is not based in actual history. We have centuries of seeing this exact thing happen over and over again. Just because something is profitable does not make it good. Only someone obsessed with theory while ignoring the practice could think otherwise.
I think treating every human with equal dignity goes beyond politics. While the specific context here was political, but that is only the context, not the principle.