(unrelated, but the cost of zero-trust can be measured quite directly by looking at the cost of making a Bitcoin transaction vs almost any other kind)
Just because someone doesn't agree with your view of the world doesn't automatically make them untrustworthy. From your perspective, maybe lives are more important than freedoms and you are willing to limit some freedoms temporarily or permanently if it means saving more lives. From someone else's perspective, maybe freedom is more important than lives, and they are willing to let some people (including themselves) die in order to avoid temporary or permanent limits on existing freedoms.
I think the point of the article is that if you suppress your instinct to mistrust people who think differently than you, your community will avoid incurring the social and economic costs that would otherwise accumulate.
> (including themselves)
Including others, which is against any serious code of ethics.
> From your perspective, maybe lives are more important than freedoms and you are willing to limit some freedoms temporarily or permanently if it means saving more lives.
It's extremely difficult for me to imagine a more fallacious argument than this.
The closest I can come is imagining a mass movement against DUI checkpoints by people who refuse to show their license, but who purposely get drunk before speeding through the checkpoint.
It is not only philosophically consistent to protest mask laws while at the same time wearing a mask during this pandemic-- it's ethically required. The fact that you don't seem to realize you've hard-coupled a defense of freedom with wanton irresponsibility is legitimately worrisome. It reeks of the success of online filter bubbles dividing consumers into the most destructive two poles of potential behavior/opinion.
Luckily, in my own community, talking in person to other humans, I don't witness anything like these two poles. Rather, I see a lot of pandemic fatigue, results of shit messaging from the government, some disinformation, and the occasional asshole who must be addicted to a political feed like a degenerate gambler in Vegas.
Honestly, for most people it's not going to matter what side of the political spectrum they were on. Nearly everyone has made at least one critical safety mistake, failing to protect themselves or their loved ones. At least in the U.S., noses peeking out from masks is a bi-partisan issue. High ground is a luxury of social media self-delusion.
@dang-- what the hell? There's no way somebody read this whole comment in that amount of time.
Is it just a given that bots can freely upvote/downvote and attempt to screw with the flow of messages on here?
I honestly cannot understand how HN has convinced a coterie of tinkerers and reverse engineers not to discuss the system that sorts and rates their own expressions of ideas.
Looking at costs alone without context is a bad idea here as it is for beancounters.
That's actually a pretty big mistake society has made. You emphatically don't need to share values with someone to get along with them or work with them or trust them.
Focusing on values instead of goals and behaviors creates the environment of mistrust, because you don't know when someone is going to decide you don't share their values strongly enough and try to purge you. It also creates an environment where the people you want least are most willing to lie to fit in, and it gives them a weapon to use to push out anyone they don't like by amping up the values rhetoric.
If you want to build a club of terrified pretenders, filter by and focus on values. If you want to get something done and build an environment of trust, focus on shared goals, behaviors, and outcomes, and learn how to disagree and move on where consensus can't be reached.
I guess it depends what "trust" means to you. to me it often means something like "I can expect this person to make the same (or similar) decision I would in situation X, therefore I do not need to watch them as closely". some values can be irrelevant in certain contexts. if I'm a communist and my coworker is an ancap, it probably doesn't affect our ability to work together on a software project. but if I'm very risk averse (in an engineering sense) and my coworker has a "move fast and break things" mindset, I am going to have to pay a lot more attention to their code reviews.
I'd also suggest that one of the reasons we are encouraged to seek diversity is because we benefit from having people around us who wouldn't make the same decisions we would make in every situation.
If I am reading between the lines correctly, it sounds like predictability is what you expect shared values to provide. I think a shared vision is more important than shared values in this case. You can still predict that with which you disagree, if you communicate mutual expectations for how to scope disagreement within collaboration.
You should win a prize for the only comment here to get it.
In the absence of both shared values and goals, trust is harmful.
You won't know who you can't trust to not be a fascist who would gladly see your life ruined for going outside alone, because it's "against the lockdown rules".
That is, you won't be able to tell who is someone like you.
Get it?
Your own words are taking what's left of trust, pissing all over it, covering it in petrol, and setting it on fire, then saying "shame that those other guys ruined everything".
Jesus wept.
(incidentally, social cohesion is what makes draconian lockdowns less justifiable. If everyone chooses to social distance and wear a mask when asked to by competent public health bodies, you can go a long way toward getting a handle on this thing. It's only when social cohesion is at a low ebb that the political drive for enforcing it with police powers kicks in)
I don't know if I could ever move to an area that didn't have high mask compliance during all this.
It's like living with someone who doesn't think playing with matches is a stupid risk to take. One day the house might burn down. It would be safer to live alone, or with people with similar attitudes to not playing with fire.
Interestingly, I wear none, and use that for signaling: I find that I associate more easily with people who also refuse the masquerade!
So you may have a point: mask offer the possibility to signal, which we can both use to refuse to associate given our difference in values.
If one would not live in a place without high mask compliance, why would one live in a place without 100% mask compliance? If not 100%, what is the number? Why stop at mask compliance?
I also wouldn't want to live somewhere with a high rate of drunk driving for similar reasons. Someone else's cultural comfort with getting behind the wheel while sloshed puts me at risk because we unavoidably share the same physical space.
Everyone, or almost everyone, has some objectionable material or behavior in their past, and if you start judging people on the worst they ever did, you will come to distrust everyone.