"But the industry sure wants to convince us that scalability is the most important property of infrastructure, because then they can sell us complicated tech we don't need and support contracts to help us use it."
And lets not forget: replace any and all efforts at code optimization with "just throw another rack of blades at it".
What salient factors distinguish a cable company from a "mere" streaming video service? Demand programming? Nope. Time shifting? Nope. Advertisement? Nope. Other than the literal media the data flows over, what is the legally meaningful difference?
The (scientist approved) test for determining basic matter phases is very rudimentary. Put the object/quantity in question in a can. Does it fill the whole space of the can, no matter what size can you use? Then it's a gas. Does it fill just the bottom of the can? Then it's a liquid. Does it instead retain its shape? Then it's a solid.
Not if the only measure of interest used is literally self-reporting a binary "interested/not interested", like it is here. This is deceptioneering through statistics.
>For some reason when we apply the same principle to being respectful to people who don't want to relive a trauma they themselves lived, it's ridiculous.
Part of the ridiculousness is that although it's relatively easy to know when you would be spoiling a show, anything can be a trigger. So it isn't even possible to supply a meaningfully comprehensive "trigger warning".
What a bunch of colonialist garbage. You're probably Israeli, right?
"Rational nations"? Get real. No nations are rational. Nations are driven by political systems that are driven by the emotions of the populations of those places. Are human emotions rational? Are human emotions more rational in Israel than they are in Ghana or North Korea?
I won't pardon that, because it shows your bad priorities of style over substance. That kind of flawed reasoning has too many negative consequences for me to merely overlook. Sorry.
Whether or not a message is perceived as rude is irrelevant and a matter of selfishness. Whether or not it is true is what you should concern yourself with if you mean to get things done.
It is if you're an overly sensitive SJW twat. Otherwise, no. It isn't insulting to desert-dwelling transgendered Mongolians, just a humorous ad lib pulled from the speaker's memory based on something they happened to have read recently.
>FWIW this is the talk that got them (Ben Nagy and The Grugq) thrown out of Kiwicon
See, fuck this. We are all fucked if style begins to trump substance in infosec, like it has in most everything else. Fucking marketing turds. The Grugq is dropping pearls before swine.
>Though I don’t consider it legally practicable, as a moral matter I’d be fine if every such man were thrown in prison for life.
I was with the author right up until this. Mr. Aaronson here declares that, were it legally practicable, he believes that THOUGHT POLICE would be a very good thing. He proposes life imprisonment for "wrong" belief, not wrong action.
At that point, I ceased to care much at all about what Scott Aaronson believes.