> And then you have open source software which is heavily used in a lot of commercial products that might get attacked. With this kind of thing there's a big incentive not to report bugs to the project but to sell them to a company who has no incentive to see them fixed...
Then a lot of people need to revisit their own thoughts on exactly why they use open source, and the consequences of what happens if it goes away.
> For example, will we see these companies hiring ex-developers and testers from software product companies, as they might have inside knowledge of where products are weak.
That might happen, but it depends on intent. Products may be realized to be weak afterwards, due to a changing software landscape, so the company hiring them is a good thing - the software gets fixed in some way, and a need was fulfilled.
Then the question becomes: how likely do you think it is that someone purposefully creates a flawed product in order to make a gain later, after the project has been completed, released; after they have left the job; after they have been hired by these testing companies? It sounds as likely to me as people purposefully putting back-doors into software for future self interest. There exists another outlet for unethical intent, but in my opinion, the problem begins with ethics to begin with.
Software is too complex to perfect. There will always be bugs. Regulation of industry and regulation of the regulatory bodies is additionally, very complex. The idea of regulating where knowledge is allowed to flow on top of that horrifies me: i.e., whether a developer is allowed to work at one of these companies eventually, in judgment of prior work.
I wish people had greater incentive to maintain a standardization of ethics, but this is all theoretical to begin with, at least from my direct observations. There is nothing to judge unless it happens, and then the best one can do is act.
There's stuff you expect (or have read, heard, thought about, observed) science to be about, and there's stuff you don't expect science to be about. The stuff you don't expect science to be about is the stuff that concerns me.
I don't know whether I can convey the change in understandings I've had about science since leaving academia. I don't want it to be typical, nor do I want it to be atypical in that the definition of atypical is dependent on the opposite of what is typical.
I don't really know, honestly. When groups are arguing between opposing world views, all of which can appear equally likely depending on data selection, I find that absolutely frightening that our current scientific process of peer review can not help us tell our heads from our asses. Or it does so often enough, that it's doing a very good job at keeping the bulk of knowledge stable. Science can be frightening.
Personally, I think it might take a lot more time than I've been alive to come close to a solution. I don't feel comfortable having an opinion on this, but I'm fine having questions. I don't intend to make implications with my questions, they are not consciously intentionally leading.
I don't have firsthand experience publishing in a peer reviewed journal, but from all my experience in academia, some of which involved very close observances, it doesn't seem to be a perfect solution.
No, I mean, that there is some probability that someone intelligent within the system is manipulating the infrastructure of the peer review system for an advantage.
I don't understand why I was downvoted for asking a question. I just meant to imply that there must exist some middle infrastructure, and I do not believe that it is a trivial problem to solve.
Source: I studied computer security systems that attempted to automate the flow of information to maintain security level thresholds on information types. When code 'touches' other code, meaning that it uses code with information at one security level to reason about code with information at another security level, unless you are particularly careful in the structure and organization of the code, information can leak out, structures can be manipulated, rules can be broken.
I am not saying scientists are unethical, I am saying they are human and prone to emotional reaction occasionally before objectivity (unless they are perfect). Combining information inference, intelligence, and an understanding of the flaws of an automated system; they are capable of 'accidentally' tweaking those things in their favor. It's not in the interest of science when this happens, and it requires a substantial amount of real intelligence to moderate. It's basically 'accidental bias'.
I was talking about people who have 'stress induced depression because they have huge goals and occasionally need to be strong enough to be their own motivation because it seems like begging for other people to tell them what they want to hear' mental thing. I didn't call it an illness, I only know that I've experienced it.
I can't ask people to tell me I'm going to be the greatest computer scientist just to get myself to code or learn something new every day. I just have to dedicate my life to it until I am proud of what I am and what I strive to be.
That said, the right medication helps. So can having people to talk to. I don't like paying to have people to talk to about my people theories, or explain category theory to, because that's what I wind up doing in therapy.
The problem is that people who create startups tend to be highly analytical, logical, rational, intelligent in many facets with the perspective that their startup is their whole world and the whole world falls apart if their startup falls apart.
They are not the kind that can be helped by mental health care professionals in a traditional sense. Given the objective outcome, a mental health care professional can either reshape your world view (which I don't desire, because it's a ridiculous vocabulary I don't care to study again) or we can argue back and forth on theories about the human psyche, philosophize about various shared characteristics, and hope that somehow, abstractly, beneath this communication, lays something useful for the startup, code, math, logic, and so on.
The startup, the knowledge, the extending beyond the boundary of humanity TODAY is the goal. If you are completely alone in your life, then a health care professional can tell you objectively whether you are showering daily enough or not. They can not help you do research or build something new. Otherwise, I like the idea of having other people who have been through similar things to talk to.
It may even be possible that the person who created this is probably looking for a way to deal with their depression. People here are looking for perfectly unique solutions to perfectly unique problems. That's a difficult kind of depression to treat, if not impossible, theoretically, and I would say it runs a high risk of increasing the depression, unless the therapist happens to be one of these types themselves.
That implies that (gossipy/social) information is processed in a single way, that doesn't have dependencies on other functionality of the brain (that which we measure for IQ, or the link between successful startup founders and such).
You can analyze it and try to improve the situation, or you can learn to manipulate some of humanities more 'built in' functionality of socializing and survival. Then factor in that everyone around you has this abstract layer of social processing, and it's back to probability / guessing whether people around you will manipulate it, use it for good, for evil, or for neutral.
Explaining things mathematically, logically, and reasonably can be just as useless. It really depends on what you like to talk about. If you don't like gossiping, there is surely some outlet you have that increases happiness and is nonproductive. If not, find one. It might turn out to be an essential part of success for reasons you can't (and I can't) even begin to pretend to understand.
I didn't dismiss it. My point is that theorizing over whether money leads to happiness doesn't take into account the absence of money acting as an obstacle to happiness. The heuristic is psychologically leading in that it does not make the distinction of what happiness is. Happiness can be relatively defined from personal experience. In order to analyze this any further, I'd have to examine the studies to see how the definition and interpretation of happiness is controlled.
I am questioning whether the definition of the heuristics influence the outcome. Self fulfilling prophecies and such.
Specifics are necessary because it can determine whether something is a fundamental property of a thing, how it influences the definition of a thing, how that definition influences the perception of a thing, and the relationships that thing has with other things.
A heuristic requires specifics to be defined, in order for it's definition to exist.
You are judging this from the criteria of an average person living and spending their money.
Plastic surgery might help someone with a physical deformity, and renting out a hotel might be a necessity for a scientific conference.
You can't judge the value of a dollar based on the assumption that there exists an average person that spends it. For every frivolous act of spending you can conceive of, I can respond with a similar 'well intentioned / ethically sanctioned' act of spending, from a perspective you might not have been aware of, given you likely don't have perfect information about the state of everything in existence.
It depends on who you think you are to judge how another person lives their life. What you consider essential and what you can live without is not the absolute for everyone.
Experience: being a woman people have call beautiful; experiencing wondering whether I am persistently being evaluated on a superficial characteristic.
We all can draw abstract lines in the sand and overgeneralize to have opinions and make points. It doesn't mean it tells the entire story, nor does it mean it's correct forever.
Getting ripped to shreds by a lion can be a genuine experience, but that doesn't mean I desire it. If you enjoy something you can buy with money, there is likewise no need to taint the experience bleak simply because it was money that enabled you to experience it. I have no doubt that money changes the attributes of a thing sometimes, but so can any other attribute, including the way you collectively simplify a set of attributes and make a comparison to an ideal.
Then a lot of people need to revisit their own thoughts on exactly why they use open source, and the consequences of what happens if it goes away.
> For example, will we see these companies hiring ex-developers and testers from software product companies, as they might have inside knowledge of where products are weak.
That might happen, but it depends on intent. Products may be realized to be weak afterwards, due to a changing software landscape, so the company hiring them is a good thing - the software gets fixed in some way, and a need was fulfilled.
Then the question becomes: how likely do you think it is that someone purposefully creates a flawed product in order to make a gain later, after the project has been completed, released; after they have left the job; after they have been hired by these testing companies? It sounds as likely to me as people purposefully putting back-doors into software for future self interest. There exists another outlet for unethical intent, but in my opinion, the problem begins with ethics to begin with.
Software is too complex to perfect. There will always be bugs. Regulation of industry and regulation of the regulatory bodies is additionally, very complex. The idea of regulating where knowledge is allowed to flow on top of that horrifies me: i.e., whether a developer is allowed to work at one of these companies eventually, in judgment of prior work.
I wish people had greater incentive to maintain a standardization of ethics, but this is all theoretical to begin with, at least from my direct observations. There is nothing to judge unless it happens, and then the best one can do is act.