171 karma · joined September 25, 2017
Requiring Rust as a CPython dependency would be to abandon all their users stuck in obscure environments.
The thousand-plus data integrity tests I've written in pandas tell a different story...
function mkcd {
newdir=$1
mkdir -p $newdir
cd $newdir
}Is there anyone for whom this phrasing has a clarity advantage over "So I asked myself..."/"So I thought to myself..." ?
> Take this one: "27 percent of a large sample of eminent physicians smoke Throaties--more than any other brand." The figure itself may be phony, of course, in any of several ways, but that really doesn't make any difference. The only answer to a figure so irrelevant is "So what?" With all proper respect toward the medical profession, do doctors know any more about tobacco brands than you do? Do they have any inside information that permits them to choose the least harmful among cigarettes? Of course they don't, and your doctor would be the first to say so. Yet that "27 percent" somehow manages to sound as if it meant something.
That book specifies many other examples (from this time period in America) of misleading claims that sound statistically significant upon an uncritical, cursory reading.
Not to imply that it's in any way a quality peculiar to those who write poetry in their free time (I know it isn't), but my need for creative expression regularly seeps into the coding standards to which I hold myself, insofar as I demand a certain beauty-- such as such a thing is ever even possible-- out of the libraries I write.
Protonmail can still be the best choice for a pseudonymous mail service so long as it's combined with diligent, consistent IP address obfuscation. Protonmail will continue to allow logins and new account creations over Tor. All the major free email providers have long since disallowed new signups over Tor, and most have some form of degraded user experience when logging in over Tor, if they allow it at all. Small, niche email providers appear and disappear so often that relying on them still to exist even a few months into the future is a big gamble. Hosting one's own email requires payment of some type to the hosting provider, so it is not anonymous. Other privacy-oriented free email providers, such as riseup, will do exactly what protonmail did, because if they refuse, their only option is to go the way of lavabit.
What is evil? If it's violations of the law, then why not "Don't break the law"? (That certainly gives off stronger "already answered my t-shirt" vibes).
Does 'Don't be Evil' mean not violating any principles of Sartrean humanism? Those are all perfectly clear, right? Does it mean keeping the Judeo-Christian decalogue? The Confucian analects? Good thing there are no ongoing debates problematizing those! Or maybe it requires performing Utilitarian harm reduction calculations before all decisions? That's easily calculable, though, isn't it? Or, perhaps it involves abstaining from all meat, alcohol, and cigarettes? Some Jains wear special shoes to avoid accidentally crushing insects while treading, while Mormon ethics require the donning of special undergarments. Will corporate provide either of those?
Aside from the fact that the existence or non-existence of metaphysical evil is still debated both in secular-rational and theological contexts, it's unavoidable that many ethical ideologies fundamentally contradict one another. One can either choose one and rule out all others, hoping that the chosen model proves internally consistent and unambiguous, or one can accept that, as Philip K. Dick once said, "We are all doomed to commit acts of cruelty or violence or evil; that is our destiny, due to ancient factors. Our karma." Neither choice sounds ideal!
Friedrich Nietzsche's theory on the inevitable "transvaluation of all values" lends some weight to the impossibility of retaining this maxim in Google's corporate code of conduct forever. Reading into Google's abandonment of 'Don't Be Evil' this uncharitable idea that leadership has decided "evil" (whatever that is) is ok now, actually, leaves one with the unsatisfactory feeling of missing some perspective.
Instead, I think, the decision shows us that even the most simply worded of slogans, with the best of intentions, are inadequate as frameworks to think deeply about the often impossible contradictions of our beliefs and commitments. Ethical action requires deep thought. It's not a consensus, and it's not majority rule either (probably!). Not doing evil is complicated, and hard. It's not something that every preschooler inherently understands at playtime. And even if we follow through on the most informed decisions, supported by the all-true suppositions and ironclad logic, we may still find ourselves doubting that course of action years down the line as new outcomes are disclosed.