ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
No bio...
User ID: 626
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3hr ago
Please specify which of the above you disagree with.
I disagree with your constant immature behavior. The deliberate exaggeration of your opponent's views even as you do the same the same to them. Accusing others of lying about your views even as you are lying about your own views. I don't particularly like the constant deflections either.
Now that you have discovered that your proposal will destroy a culture (as determined by Nybbler), are you willing to pursue it?
-
Yes.
-
What the hell does Nybbler's opinion of my views have to do with my willingness to pursue the solution I proposed?
-
You are, again, deliberately misrepresenting his views.
This is not what I have said. Not even remotely. I would be perfectly happy with actions that don't end all of tinkering. I would prefer them!
And you have also explicitly said that if actions that would not end all tinkering are not enough, you would end all tinkering. You may prefer less drastic solutions, but if you are open to the possibility of ending all tinkering, then I have described your views 100% correctly.
We can move this to the other thread, because this was your solution.
Stop. I only brought this up as evidence that I have correctly characterized your views. Stop shifting your the responsibility for your responses on Nybbler, you're the one that said this.
but first let's see if you're willing to proceed with your own solution.
What the hell is that supposed to mean? I'm not the Nybbler. It is, in fact, my solution, so yes I'm willing to proceed with it. But I'm not willing to work with someone who's open to the option of abolishing all tinkering.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
4hr ago
I'm not offended, I just think your behavior is immature, and it's bizarre you expect a response that is not like-for-like. One of your objections early on in our exchange was:
Some folks have quadrupled down on this hyperbolic claim, and are now claiming that I am making a hyperbolic reverse claim - that regulation cannot possibly impact innovation in any way. This is a bullshit strawman.
I don't understand what's wrong with that from your point of view. You love doing that shit yourself, so just let others do it as well.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
4hr ago
Again, explain to me, why are you expecting a reasonable response if this is how you interact with people?
I don't know what you mean by this. What is "the trivial solution"?
Whatever you meant when you said "(and by the way, we can do so trivially)".
I am not injured in any such way. I explicitly presented the value of stopping the deluge of trivially-hackable devices with default passwords as a terminal value. You're just really off the mark.
I think you're being rather coy about it. When you tell me things like:
If you want to characterize any version of "we need to fix this problem (and by the way, we can do so trivially)" as being "my way or the highway", I think this is just a fully-general argument against fixing any problems ever, even the most trivial ones.
That means you're proposing a trivially simple fix, and consider me to be stubbornly and unreasonably standing in their way. That does not come off, "default passwords must be purged from the face of the Earth, even if it means the end of all tinkering". You do say the latter when someone talks to you for a bit, but this is after posts and posts of portraying anyone that objects as unreasonable and hyperbolic.
I actually explicitly said that I would consider all possible ideas, and that I was even open to the possibility that all options genuinely have too many demerits to implement. Literally in the comment you were just replying to. Please don't lie about what I've said.
You're the one lying about what you've said:
Nybbler would declare that this is, in fact, changing the culture of people who mass produce end-use consumer goods. That this is the only way, that we have to change their culture. If that is required, I am willing to do it.
You were literally explaining to me how getting rid of default passwords is a terminal values of yours just a moment ago. What are you even doing?
I would be perfectly happy not driving a steamroller over anyone's culture. But billions of trivially-hackable devices with default passwords is truly unacceptable. If you want to characterize any version of "we need to fix this problem (and by the way, we can do so trivially)" as being "my way or the highway", I think this is just a fully-general argument against fixing any problems ever, even the most trivial ones.
Uuh... I feel like I'm being uno-reversoed here. I specifically said I would be in favor of fixing the problem, particularly when it can be done trivially, and you explicitly said that my approach is reasonable. So you cannot I'm characterizing any version of "we need to fix this problem" as "my way or the highway". This cannot be down to a misunderstanding at this point, we've been through this several times. What I am characterizing as "my way or the highway" is your explicit admission that if the trivial solution does not work, you won't think twice about destroying the tinkerers' culture. If you want to make the claim that the utter destruction of it is worth it to get rid of the scourge of default passwords, but you can't claim that you just want a trivial fix, and you'll leave everyone alone.
It's just that their way is the other way. Why aren't you rejecting their position on the grounds of it being "my way or the highway"?
Because they're not trying to sell themselves as "hey, just implement this trivial fix, and we'll leave you alone". All terminal values are "my way or the highway", but everybody has terminal values of some sort. My complaint with you is that you're acting injured that anyone would portray your values as terminal, when you said you'd destroy innovation and tinkering if other solutions won't work. You sneer at people for suggesting it might go that far, and then happily admit you'd have absolutely no issue of taking it to that point, if that's what it takes.
I don't know what you mean by this.
You write in a vaguely antagonistic shit-posty style, that implicitly asks to be taken with a grain of salt, but when people respond in kind you demand that their stylized arguments be taken deadly serious.
Can you link me?
Here, you even responded to it.
If you truly believe his silence means that we can do it, fix the problem, and not destroy the culture, it may actually be mission accomplished.
My problem here is that if it doesn't work, you explicitly said you won't stop at it.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
7hr ago
It is not "my way or the highway". Again, if you can come up with any other way to make it so that we don't have billions of trivially-hackable shit with default passwords, sign me up.
You are still effectively saying "get rid of things that annoy me, or I'll drive a steamroller over your culture", even if you don't particularly care how those things or gotten rid of, in my opinion that's still accurately described as "my way or the highway"?
But I keep getting told this is my only option! It's not even "my way"! It's the only option! That this is a fact about the universe! Nothing to do with me at all!
You're getting tit for tat, and are acting upset about it, I really don't get it.
EDIT: Give me "your way"! Make it an option! If you can do so in a way that won't result in Nybber telling us that "your way" would break their culture, great! But he keeps telling me that you can't.
I did, and he didn't seem to say anything in response to me, so mission accomplished?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
8hr ago
But they keep telling me that we can't do that! That we have to change their culture! That that's the only option!
He's mistrustful of people who request minor reasonable regulations, for fear that they will stay neither. Given the history of law, culture, and social movements in his country, I think that's a largely justified fear. There's ways of having a productive conversation with people who have such fears, but you seem determined to strongly signal you are exactly the kind of person they shouldn't trust. For example:
That this is the only way, that we have to change their culture. If that is required, I am willing to do it.
Ok, in that case I'm out. If it's your way or the highway, and forcing change on a culture doesn't even phase you, I don't know how you can pretend to only want some reasonable regulations.
The culture that I dislike is the "we can keep pumping out trivially-hackable shit because it might be slightly boring to take the basic steps everyone knows and nobody's going to do anything about it" culture.
Tell me again why you were upset about being mischaracterized by Nybbler.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
8hr ago
If there is literally no way to change the culture to something that doesn't have trivially-hackable default passwords on billions of devices
The approach I outlined earlier, which you called reasonable, was to regulate mass produced end-user consumer goods, and let people who build stuff on their own, or otherwise are reasonably expected to know what they're getting into, have a large degree of freedom. There wasn't a word there about changing anyone's culture, in fact the whole approach is designed to let everyone keep their culture the way they like it.
if this is honestly the dichotomy that you think exists in the world
I don't think it does, but I think the things you are saying here strongly imply that trivially hackable default passwords are just an excuse for you to destroy a culture you hate.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
8hr ago
If your idea is to change the culture of tinkerers, then I must withdraw what I said about you, and conclude you're not interested in reasonable regulations at all, but rather are getting off on imposing your views on others / are seething that so many people have managed to escape you for so long.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
Is that worth saving the nightmare of having billions of adversarial objects, likely quickly and easily controlled by the Chinese or Russians, literally everywhere on all our networks? Maybe not. But maybe so?
I'm in the curious position of not particularly caring about the Russians running botnets on your vacuum cleaner, but hating IoT with a passion, and being prepared to murder anyone that tries to sell me a toaster that connects to the Internet. What do?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
I think that would be a clear case of malicious regulation
I might end up having to do a walk of shame around here, and self-flaggelate about how I mistreated Elon, but I think that SpaceX is going to be seen as an example of "move fast and break things" being applied where it doesn't belong.
I guess "lack of regulation" isn't the right term, because there's been some bizarre political decisions in the process.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
I don't know if I agree.
I might end up eating my words, but there's a decent chance that after a series of underwhelming Starship launches, New Glenn ends up going straight to Mars on first attempt. They both operate in the same regulatory environment, so if that happens I'd say it's down to how each company is run.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
Now Space X
Careful. You might be using it as an example of the disasters lack of regulation will bring, before you know it.
By all means, bite.
I meant something more abstract (but still not necessarily complete). As a kind of meta-moderate between you and Nybbler, I'm interested in the general question between some and no regulation. By heart, I am exactly the kind of "move fast an break things" type you criticized, but some amount of breaking things, and seeing things broken by others, has taught me that there are places where "think before you do" is a better approach, and once good approaches are discovered, it might even be a good idea to codify them. On the other hand, I think there does need to be room for good old-fashioned anarchy in a society, for reasons ranging from (as other pointed out) innovation, through having a lower bound on the quality of goods and services delivered by major producers, and all the way just to plain having a life worth living. My personal way of squaring that circle is that I'm open to regulation on mass-produced end-user consumer goods, and a more freedom on anything that requires some deliberate action.
But they do actually mean that, in that moment, instantaneously, the game is over, the logic is iron-clad, the implications flow immediately, and the only conclusion is absolute death.
Look, I think that whole conversation got off on the wrong foot, and if you guys want it to go anywhere, you need a reset. I understand your frustration with lazy "regulation bad" arguments, and I understand his frustration with underhanded slippery-slope denialism. What I'm guessing is that neither of you is as bad as the other thinks.
I have never done this. Stop lying about what I've done.
I can concede a misunderstanding, but then I'm confused why are you criticizing them for bad arguments, if that's not an implicit demand to bring better ones (as the ones outlined in your examples)
I never said that they claimed that it was instantaneous. Stop lying about what I've said.
A quote from you:
but have objected to hyperbolic versions of them, that any epsilon amount of regulation instantly kills innovation to zero, for example. Some folks have quadrupled down on this hyperbolic claim
So it seems you are, again, accusing others of what you do yourself.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
You have opened with sneers, the relevant fragments were already quoted to you. I never said you should put forward a complete framework. Much like you are demanding of others and are refusing to give yourself, I said you should start with anything anyone can bite into. You have baited people into a low-quality pissing contest, and are acting upset that they took the bait.
I never once misrepresented my opponents' views. They still explicitly claim that I represented them appropriately.
Again: where is the part where they say they death of innovation is instantaneous and absolute? If you can't show that part, you have misrepresented their view precisely to the amount you are claiming they have misrepresented yours.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
We're having a nice conversation here about the regulation in question. That is a good way of having a discussion about having non-zero regulation, but hopefully not too much of it
As interesting as that conversation is, I don't see how it's relevant to my arguments.
One could even go after a "framework for analyzing", even in slippery slope situations. Here's a good example of how to construct such a framework (...)
But they're still refusing to have any sort of framework, discuss any sort of specifics, nothing.
And they're 100% correct to do so. Again, you opened with sneers, no framework of your own, and only vague hints at your own position. Much like you misrepresented your opponents views, while demanding they get yours exactly right, you seem to be demanding a higher standard then you're setting for yourself. I don't think it's a "mess the other guys are doing", you are a significant part of it.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
Let's look at the tape
I'm confused, when you give link like this, aren't they supposed to prove your point, rather than disprove it? I don't see any claims of instantenous absolute killing of innovation. I could understand if you're being figurative here, but since you insist that your opponents get your position absolutely right when responding, I don't understand why you think it's fair for you to portray their claims in such a way.
The latter obstinately refuses to make any more specific claims
And so do you. Normally when someone tries to have this sort of conversation in a productive manner, they tend to put forward some kind of framework for analyzing specific situations, so others can run it through various scenarios. I take you are in favor of some regulation, but not too much. How much is too much? Can we know in advance? Is there something we can do to prevent it from going too far? What can be done if it does? If you bothered answering any if these questions in advance, rather than strawmanning your opponents, and then complaining about being strawmanned, the conversation would be a lot more productive, probably.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
What are you confused about?
Your specific position. You've come in sneering at your perceived opponents, and when they respond you object that they got your position wrong. For example:
but have objected to hyperbolic versions of them, that any epsilon amount of regulation instantly kills innovation to zero, for example. Some folks have quadrupled down on this hyperbolic claim
No they haven't. Why do others have to get your position 100% right, while you're allowed to caricature theirs freely?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
I'm following this conversation from the sidelines, and you're sure not making it easy to understand what you're actually saying, or what's it you're interested in debating, beyond generic sneering.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3d ago
Chill the hell out, man. This place isn't your private toilet.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3d ago
Are you talking about legality, or are you talking about lack of enforcement? Because, although it was a while back, I distinctly remember stuff like a SWAT raid on a raw-milk co-op.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3d ago
I have heard of it happening now and again, or in an emergency, but it is absolutely not a regular thing
Weird, was pretty common when I was a kid.
it was definitely not illegal to watch each other's kids
Yeah, it's also not illegal to invite someone over to dinner, that doesn't mean you can sell your food.
More options
Context Copy link