All this talk of "truth" and "duty" implies some larger context in which such abstractions would be evaluated.
One continues to be fascinated by the very human dichotomy in which (the global) "we" want to allude to, or leverage, these concepts, while stridently avoiding evaluating them in any way that might lead to behavioral conclusions.
For a specific example, consider: International Law, in all its emphemerality.
> Members of the IEEE commit, for example, "to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public..." without that duty being limited to hazards arising from projects employing the Engineer in question: The duty "to disclose promptly" vests in any Engineer who recognizes that the hazard exists.
As an active member of the IEEE for over a decade now, I have never seen anyone (aside from the author here) take this duty seriously. There are plenty of IEEE members working on things that directly cause such hazards.
> Timing exploits has been known to the security community since the mid-nineties. From a real world standpoint the attack is not practical.
And this is basically the state of the art today, even with Spectre. You can demonstrate the vulnerability under controlled conditions but having those conditions arise in production is not practical in the engineering sense.
> While I had some bills to cover — being a type 1 diabetic, I had to purchase insulin — living in Canada meant that I didn't need to worry about the risk of extraordinary costs from a hospital stay. Had I been living in the USA, I would have needed to prioritize seeking employment and medical insurance and likely would not have been able to discharge the duty which fate had thrust upon me.
It varies by state. Many states by now have programs capping it at 35$/mo, but I believe that often entails being insured under their state public insurance or another plan operating in that state (and so may not count as “uninsured cost”).
And what pray tell do you think modern academia is about?
I have trouble understanding why so many Hacker Newsies have such disdain for a class of people whose main objective in life is to discover and share knowledge, and have sacrificed tremendous amounts of their time, and potential money, to do so.
Yeah, those greedy guys just want to (1) keep their (underpaid) jobs and (2) have a bit more money to increase pay for their (underpaid) students. :)
As with software engineers, and every other job, some academics are crappy and some are amazing. Let's not paint everybody with the same brush.
As for incremental, well, the AI you're all so fond of was incremental academic research for a couple decades before it was this sudden world changing thing.
Readers might also consider my 2020 post "On the use of a life" to be an interesting companion piece: https://www.daemonology.net/blog/2020-09-20-On-the-use-of-a-...
One continues to be fascinated by the very human dichotomy in which (the global) "we" want to allude to, or leverage, these concepts, while stridently avoiding evaluating them in any way that might lead to behavioral conclusions.
For a specific example, consider: International Law, in all its emphemerality.
As an active member of the IEEE for over a decade now, I have never seen anyone (aside from the author here) take this duty seriously. There are plenty of IEEE members working on things that directly cause such hazards.
> Timing exploits has been known to the security community since the mid-nineties. From a real world standpoint the attack is not practical.
And this is basically the state of the art today, even with Spectre. You can demonstrate the vulnerability under controlled conditions but having those conditions arise in production is not practical in the engineering sense.
Today, it would be a bigger deal. In the age of AI, exploiting hard to exploit holes is so much easier. AI has patience limited only by your budget.
[1] https://www.itnews.com.au/news/intel-soothes-hyperthreading-...
God bless Canada.
This is unfortunate.
https://cdn.vanderbilt.edu/vu-wpfsx/wp-content/uploads/sites...