Well, my take is not equivalent to OP, in that I actually don't agree :) I am a human-centered empiricist.
I think OP's logic flows the other way: skeptical of human-centeredness position (like you) and from that skeptical of going purely empirical (not like you/me).
I'd say LIGO described phenomena as gravitational waves through the interaction of the experiment. They didn't detect anything because that would go beyond empiricism into assuming the existence of a thing beyond the interaction
That was my reply to you, not the original point. If it helps:
I think the GP implied with the statement that we should subscribe to some non-empirical theories ("outside spacetime"), because the endeavour is not supposed to be human-centered.
1. You said that the observations are not human-centered since we need to make machines, so the GP does not need to be suspicious and should stick to empiricism.
2. Both you and the GP seem to assume that the endeavour is not supposed to be human-centered
3. I say it is human-centered because we make the machines for us as observers at the center, so your argument doesn't quite work
4. I think our science is entangled with us as observers on many levels, and it should be. So the GP's statement should actually be pushed through suspicion towards neccessity.
In that humans built LIGO to bring forth phenomena for them. There is no science without an observer. The universe might exist without us, but without an observer there is no-one to describe it.
Why does language matter to you? Is it a tool to entrenching your identity and present the world as a battleground between your groups? Or does language serve you as an individual to have dialog and develop? If you choose resentment then don't pull others along with you. What meaning does language have?
To understand that terms like mankind already refer to all humanity is a small part of it. Another part is that communication serves us in finding suitable mates and manipulation of language towards social goals is likely to have outcomes that are eventually counter to what is meaningful to us as individuals.
I'd also disagree that expanding a language carefully is what is being done here. It is unlikely towards the goal of expressing ourselves more clearly.
Truthful description of relevant info is most important. The constructed profile of the person I'm talking to online is uninteresting to me. You might actually be a dog for all I know. If you want me to play along so you're never confronted with being identified as a dog... then I'm not sure I'm really doing you a favor. Maybe the kindest thing is not to play along with your language game.
Indeed. The biggest immediate risk to a newly developed product is that it won't even have any users, much less a sufficiently interested attacker. So why add initial obstacles for yourself, right? So yeah, if effort to increase security is not valued by the buyer it ain't gonna happen.