tripu @tripu@qoto.org

@freemo

/cc @torgo

@torgo

Where is that? mastodon.social?

@freemo, I CAN HAZ?

I can be a #vegan for life as long as there is _nachos con guacamole_

@gasull

Somewhat trollish but mostly honest answer:

80-char-limit-lines is SO outdated and inefficient as general advice.

> _GitHub forces you to scroll horizontally for long lines_

Whut? Definitely not over 80 chars ([eg](https://github.com/tripu/superscript/blob/master/server.js#L55), [eg](https://github.com/tripu/glypher/blob/master/js/glyphs.js#L27)).

> _Some people do code reviews on their cell phones_

That sounds horrible to me. And in any case, it's not my fault. What if some people do code reviews on their smartwatches?

> _Who are you to claim all my screen real state?_

Shorter lines take exactly the same real estate (just distributed differently). And in any case, I'm not claiming anything: you can enable line wrapping (and scroll).

> _Long lines aren't very readable anyway_

Perhaps. But over 80 chars isn't always “long”. In certain languages there are typically long identifiers and long chained properties (eg, Java). Add four or five levels of indentation, and you're well over 80 before you realise it. Splitting that one line into two or three shorter lines may well make that _less_ readable, not more.

@admitsWrongIfProven

Yes, but consequences of the #FTX fiasco are even broader: people stop trusting #EA, and politicians seize the opportunity to meddle with blockchains for their own gain.

I think "people stop trusting crypto" is a bad thing. But that's debatable.

You are right in that ripples of bad actions are also consequences and thus should be considered by consequentialists. But then, someone secretly committing a crime or deception for the greater good, and never being caught, is a good thing? That's the riddle for hard-core consequentialists.

/cc @shadowsonawall

@shadowsonawall

“There’s no way of escaping the fallibility of a moral system, no matter which one you pick”

≠
“All moral systems are equally fallible”

The impossibility to achieve perfection is no excuse not to try to get as close as we can.

Besides, it's just impossible not to have a “moral system”. Who doesn't have one? You have to be a rock or an automaton not to.

So, let's keep refining them.

@fidel

I'm focusing on the #EA reputation angle here because that's the angle I care most about — more than the future of #crypto regulation, political corruption, or the specific shape of the fraud.

But those are very important too, no doubt.

@ImperfectIdea

> _Anyway, as you say, we don't even know exactly what he's done_

Yeah. That was more true a few days ago. It's starting to be clearer by the day, by SBF's own words 😞

> _There are reasonable and unreasonable risks and no one would be outraged for a reasonable risk that goes wrong_

If only! Embedded in my larger point was the idea that unfortunately society tends to judge people and institutions based on _actual outcomes_ and not on _probable outcomes_. For good, and for bad.

eg: when a nuclear accident happens, the media, politicians, etc all rush to attack nuclear power and to find who to blame for deciding to build and keep running the nuclear station. That happens even when that was a very rare, unfortunate accident, and when the right answer would be: “ah, the plant was OK, we just were unlucky! Still nuclear is the best alternative.”

And the opposite is true, also: a politician who cuts funding for epidemic preparedness, or issues a lot of additional debt, or does a similarly risky thing, will rarely be criticised (let alone impeached or prosecuted) if he simply gets lucky and the (unwise) gamble turns out favourably for the country.

I hate that.

wrt #FTX, it seems to me we're judging according to what happened, not to what was most likely to happen (getting way with it in the end, with no victims?). I think both should count, somehow — not sure exactly how, though.

I think this 💩 confirms my interpretation of what happened with #SBF / #FTX:

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23462333/sam-bankman-fried-ftx-cryptocurrency-effective-altruism-crypto-bahamas-philanthropy

So shocking, sad and disappointing.

(I meant @ourmaninjapan)

@privacyfirstjobs

* [Fastmail (called Masked Email)](https://www.fastmail.help/hc/en-us/articles/4406536368911-Masked-Email)

/cc @ourmaninjapan

@loretahur

En estas profesiones había mayoría de hombres en muchos países hace menos de dos décadas, y ahora son mayoritariamente femeninas: veterinarios, farmacéuticos, escritores, periodistas, redactores técnicos, odontólogos, psicólogos, gestores de cuentas…

¿Es porque esas profesiones han perdido prestigio social? La mayoría están bastante bien pagadas.

Por no hablar de médicos, abogados, científicos, o profesores universitarios: en según qué países y especialidades, son mayoría de mujeres hace ya años; y en la mayoría de los otros casos, lo van a ser muy pronto de seguir la tendencia.

Pocas profesiones tienen más prestigio social que científico o profesor en la universidad. Y las dos carreras típicas que las familias siempre han deseado (y siguen deseando) para hijos o hijas prometedores son justo abogacía y medicina (mayoría muy amplia de mujeres).

No digo que no fuese eso lo que pasó en la NASA, pero creo que no funciona como diagnóstico general hoy en día.

This is the right answer for anyone arguing that #Apple is not a #surveillance machine because, since they chose “privacy” as their unique selling proposition, their incentive to maximise revenue is to give users precisely that — #privacy.

@ImperfectIdea

As individuals, we do face _analogous_ trade-offs daily. From time to time, we even face trade-offs involving other people's lives, well-being and property, indirectly — and sometimes, very directly.

Institutions you are part of and fund (and supposedly govern with others through democracy) routinely do. UN, NATO, WTO, EU, your country, your region, your city: they start wars, defend other countries, incarcerate people, pardon criminals, decide on asylum claims, deny treatment for certain illnesses, provide public pensions, cut taxes, expropriate private property, retire the custody of minors, perform abortions, etc _all the time_.

If all that seems too far removed from your sphere of influence: What are you trading, if not convenience, safety and human lives (your own, and others'), every time that you decide whether to drive or not after having had a drink or two at the pub? Whose health are you protecting (or not) by bothering to wear a mask on public transport or to shut yourself away at home while you are contagious (or not), if not other people's health? Whose money are you playing with if you support any taxation at all and defend laws to prosecute tax evaders, if not other people's money?

I think we can claim quantitative differences (#FTX had a much higher responsibility), but not qualitative ones.