I was going to argue that you seem like a bit of a rare creature, but I suppose you would know better than I. I didn't bring it up because I didn't want it to sound like a personal attack or something.
Do YOU feel that it's common for folks to change their minds about such deeply held beliefs? I've met a few over the years that I know of. Maybe there are more, and I just don't realize it.
I agree with most of what you said, and it was well said.
However, I disagree in two ways.
Firstly, while villainizing them is unhelpful convincing them is utterly impossible when religion is involved. It doesn't matter if we learn to understand their perspective, especially as logic/reason often doesn't apply and they aren't being honest about their goals and motivations.
I think the best anyone can hope for in such cases is for all parties to agree that we all have belief structures, and that we don't get to force those beliefs on others via the law. IE - "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." It's the only rational basis for a society in which different belief systems coexist. The United States used to understand this, but we seem to have forgotten.
Secondly, I do agree that it might be easier to reason with folks the further you get from the top of the ladder. The "true believers" who fly airplanes into buildings or who want to outlaw eating candy because it might lead to smiling on a Sunday didn't start down that path last week.
The issue with the bottom up approach is that the folks on the bottom seldom have any real power, and for good reason. If pawns were allowed to move backwards they would kill their kings.
> they are optimizing but under differing constraints
Most often this doesn't happen because one side fails to understand the other, it happens because one side is dishonest about their motivations or goals.
In this case, the censors would like you to believe that they think pornography is harmful. The reality is that they're religious zealots who feel the need to prevent other people from making their own choices about something their religious leaders have told them is evil. They can't admit their real goal though, or people will realize it's just westernized Sharia law and stop taking them seriously.
You have a solid point. I also ignore the fact that RTO actually does improve the bottom line in some narrow scenarios, such as when it's used as a backdoor layoff in companies that don't mind losing the best and brightest.
Some companies don't see an appreciable difference in performance between those that can easily find work elsewhere and those who are otherwise unemployable. For those companies RTO is a great, though immoral, way to lower headcount without triggering the WARN act.
> If the overview becomes a trusted source of information
It never will. By disincentivizing publishers they're stripping away most of the motivation for the legitimate source content to exist.
AI search results are a sort of self-cannibalism. Eventually AI search engines will only have what they cached before the web became walled gardens (old data), and public gardens that have been heavily vandalized with AI slop (bad data).
However, it's pretty bad for local results and shopping. I find that anytime I need to know a local stores hours or find the cheapest place to purchase an item I need to pivot back to google. Other than that it's become my default for most things.
I would argue that all models are inherently incomplete because they are models (IE - they are the map not the territory). Rather than worrying about completeness, it's better to ask if the model is useful, and if anything would change about the requirement for tradeoffs in security if we used a more complete model?
I would answer that the triad IS useful in this scenario and further that if we used an alternative model (The 7-C's maybe?) we would still find inherently contradictory requirements for almost every security scenario. In fact, we would just MORE more of those trade-offs, further proving that security can never be "perfect."
For example, I can think of several fundamentals the triad doesn't cover directly. Privacy and non-repudiation spring to mind as concepts that don't neatly fit into the CIA triad, but they are the antithesis of each other!
Perfect privacy would require that nobody (including data-owners) can identify the user, and perfect non-repudiation would require that no access be granted without 100% proof of the current user. Again, you are forced to choose and this means that some aspect will always be less than perfect.
What would be the purpose of launching a decaying lump of monkey meat into space when the AI can explore just as well with a tiny fraction of the mass requirements?
I'd wager that it will be AI's using IRC from space, but IPv6 still won't have replaced IPv4. :)
To tell the truth, I don't remember. I've kept a "quotes.txt" file for the last two or three decades where I paste in anything I feel is worth remembering. It's been in there as long as I can remember, but I apparently didn't bother with a proper attribution.
I want to guess Oliver Wendell Holmes for some reason, but it doesn't read like something he said. Sorry I can't be more helpful.
"We do our peers, countrymen, students, and children a grave disservice by admonishing them to think for themselves without also giving them the critical thinking tools to do so, for in so doing we foster a culture where "independent thought" is equated with "contrarian thought". This gives rise to an anti-intellectual, anti-science paradigm that supports an idea not because it meets a basic standard of evidence, but rather simply because it opposes established thought. This is worse than the intellectual calcification that stagnant "herd thinking" would give rise to, because it doesn't simply halt progress — it puts it in full retreat."
I suspect that you're right, but only because of the rise in AI.
At a certain point we'll all have AI personal assistants that are easier to use, more convenient, and less harmful to us than smartphones have historically been. The cool kids will move to the shinier new format, and the poor will continue to use the moderately dangerous, addictive, less efficient legacy tech for a long while.
Maybe these things will come in smart glasses format that we interact with primarily by voice, better smart watches that don't require a phone at all, or maybe it will be something like the star trek communicator?
Similarly, I've been watching the rise of the "minimal phone", and "analog tech" with interest lately.
People have lost agency to the degree that they're looking to the very tech that stole their agency for answers, and I view that a sign that perhaps the push-back is actually beginning in earnest.
Literacy rates have been declining in lock-step with the increase in social media usage. We are now at the point that 54% of Americans read below the sixth grade level. 1 in 5 are functionally illiterate. Those numbers will be worse next year, and probably in every subsequent year.
The average person now spends more than 4 hours per day looking at their phone, but only about 60% know that social media companies make their money via advertising. Around 48% know what a privacy policy is.
These massively uninformed, heavily manipulated citizens make up the majority of voters now and democracy may die because of it. Worse, anti-science madness in the form of anti-elitism and populist zero-sum economic lunacy have begun to prevail above reason.
Screens may still spell the end of personal liberty and an abrupt end to the forward march of human progress. It's just taken a bit longer than parents predicated when they tried to ban Beavis and Butthead.
Turns out that the poorer a nation is, the less reported autism they have. That could be because there is no benefit to the diagnosis or it could be because they have less healthcare in general and a real diagnosis can easily take 4-8 hours of clinical time.
It's not fun or easy for anyone to find a new job. However, it's usually less painful than staying if you're poorly suited to your current role.
We all have strengths and weaknesses. The secret to living a good life is learning to take an honest inventory of your personal capabilities and then figuring out how to work with what you have.
http://math.uchicago.edu/~shmuel/Network-course-readings/Mar...