grovulent's comments

He's on now - but I have no idea what on earth he's going on about

One of the things I admire about the tech community is their willingness to just give away their code for free. This is a cultural fact that has underpinned such an enormous collective gain of everyone in the entire world that I get genuinely worried when I see people get that mad at open source maintainers.

I look at the scientific community and their inability to share their data with one another out of paranoia, publishing incentives etc... it's not just bad for science, it's bad for their community - their ability to enjoy each other's company on a daily basis.

So you know - I just feel you gotta be kind to open source maintainers. They didn't break anyone's app. They just released new code that you don't have to use.

On chrome there's a bug showing the console that's preventing it from going beyond the start screen.

On Firefox when using the arrow keys to read through the next, a single click renders two screens of text too quickly for me to read the first of them.

Yeah - the trade off between this lesson and being woken up late at night because nightmares...

I wonder if younger folk today watch that and think how quaint, old and dated it seems... or if they see it and wonder if their current modern cinema fair is really missing something these strange films had.

Such intensity of hate. It's like he's the sith lord of game developers. So weird.

Indeed - what happens when the contract itself states explicitly that there is NO intent above and beyond the code?

Contract law exists above and beyond what the DAO t&c states - and it varies from country to country.

In Australia for instance - the high court apparently keeps changing its mind about whether or not ambiguity in a contract is needed before context and intent can be considered. Earlier on they strictly claimed that ambiguity must be present, later decisions seemed to imply that there didn't need to be any ambiguity in the text of a contract for the court to consider the context surrounding the creation of the contract.

So who knows - under Australian law what the outcome would be - the DAO folk could try to argue that even though the t&c effectively waives any possibility of ambiguity, still their intent, and the context of what they were trying to achieve with the DAO should be taken into consideration. But this won't be of use if the high court remains strict about requiring ambiguity.

And that's just one country.

http://www.corrs.com.au/publications/corrs-in-brief/uncertai...

The DAO folks are in deep shit methinks.

I think they have to hard fork. Because if they don't - they may find themselves fighting lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions - with the aggrieved parties claiming their own personal contractual intent was violated. If they do - it's only one law suit they will have to fight at most.

>Is it really that bad?

I was going to agree with you and admit I was being melodramatic...(well - I mean, saying that it makes me cry was certainly melodramatic - I don't really), but y'know what... it's definitely not ideal.

e.g. Scrolling in my ide.. sometimes lines of code don't refresh properly until I scroll back and forward a few times.

And with dev server, webpack watchers, test watchers open plus browser with a few tabs... yeah - it can get pretty sluggish. Maybe I'll try throwing a few more gig ram at the VM.

I'm using atom - I wonder if it has a plugin that will ease ssh pain... thanks for the suggest!

OMG best answer. Thank... you!

I think this move by MS is wonderful and I support it completely - but there is one concern that you've left out that makes me more worried than anything.

I'm someone who doggedly persisted trying to dev on my windows box because the stability, speed, app support, GUI niceness of windows is just far superior to Ubuntu (I won't speak to OS X since I've only done minimal dev on it). I won't go into a lengthy defense of this claim - but will if pressed.

I put up with all the failed python module installations - the hunting around for the right VisualStudio compiler... the 64bit python install issues... on and on... I put up with it all... only to be defeated in the end by various node modules failing to install because they use ridiculous depth in their directory file structure that the windows filesystem can't handle. Our projected needed those dependencies. Something had to give.

So I tried vagrant VM with virtualbox - and shared folders... so I could keep my windows GUIs without needing to sshing everything to the VM. Somehow - even though the shared folders thing means the VM is ultimately using the windows filesystem - the node modules would install okay. BUt then I had problems with symlinks (which was solveable with effort)... But the worst thing was that various files, and sometimes whole directories would randomly have their permissions changed inextricably such that NO ONE - not even an admin user could touch them. The VM would get locked out, I would get locked out... it was horrid. It happened in the middle of a rebase once. Sad times... Sad... sad times.

So - I ditched vagrant and shared folders and use a totally contained VM with the ubuntu GUI... it's slow and horrid and it makes me cry... but at least I can alt-tab and waste time in a browser in the windows GUI if I want to.

So anyhoo - my concern. This approach by MS is going to mean everything plays with the same windows file-structure yeah? Or does the ubuntu thing get it's own self contained filey-bits to play with?

Cause if the former... then I will have the fear... THE FEAR... when I try to use it.

As others have pointed out - it's arguable that publishing any claim about the identity of SN - puts the target in considerable, potential danger.

Now I can understand that there is a public interest component in knowing SN's identity. And I'd even be willing to accept (but really only for sake of argument) that this public interest overrides SN's own right to privacy and safety.

But to make these accusations when you yourself admit - as the article does - that there is a substantial degree of doubt, is to put at risk the safety and privacy of a person who doesn't deserve it in the least.

This is an absolutely appalling thing to do to anyone. And it should be prima-facie obvious to you as to why.

While I don't condone bullying of any sort - it really is the least of what these authors deserve. I personally don't feel Kanzure is bullying - merely pointing out how appalling this behaviour is, and this absolutely needs to be pointed out.

>And now you get to judge whether I'm piling lies upon lies in a scramble to retract a broad insult to my peers, or whether I've been expressing a consistent belief system this whole time. Darned if I know any way to make that judgement easy for you)

Well kudos for updating your self-presentation on this matter. It's the example I thought that set which was the most concerning thing. As for your soul... well - establishing authenticity of an individual is hard enough in real life let alone on the internet. But I'm not all that interested in your soul anyway. You and god can sort that out later. :)

>It's a case where it's all but certain that a big chunk of the enthusiastic public is getting set up for a fall. This goes beyond the challenges of your UR-FACT: something is clearly wrong in how this piece of science is being communicated to the public.

It doesn't go beyond the UR-FACT though. The UR-FACT is what prevents your patient explanations from being successful in changing people's minds, and helping them realise the nature of this mis-representation.

>And at that point, if I as an expert see someone selling snake oil (regardless of whether they believe in it themselves), don't I have some sort of obligation to warn people not to buy into their so-appealing patter?

Well - I don't envy you the responsibility of having to overcome a fundamental constraint in human communicative ability. There is no solution to the UR-FACT... period. Even if we embark on a massive education campaign... institutional science is too big. There is simply too much to know. And therefore, on most scientific questions, EVERY individual is in the position of not being able to know for themselves if a given result is true or not. It just takes too much time.

Of course - you don't believe the UR-FACT, or you wouldn't express this responsibility, nor have any hope that you could ever meet it.

There is only one way you can to any degree meet this responsibility - and that is by expending the time in inducting new people into the institution of science. You can't bridge the gap to lay people - but you can convert a small number of them into professionals. As a professor you are in a privileged position to do that. If you are research only, and have no PhD students - get one. Pay for that time by staying off hacker news.

>but isn't one big purpose for society in training and supporting experts to ensure that there's someone around who can police this sort of thing?

Well - this goes back to the UR-QUESTION. If engaging with the public has no chance to change their opinions because of the UR-FACT, and if the public ultimately determines scientific funding via democracy - how can we protect the authority of scientific institutions? The problem is that lots of you guys are taxpayer funded - so these lay people are your boss. And imagine showing up for work every day at a job where your boss barked commands at you that were literally impossible to fulfill? Yeah - that's your nightmare...

That's a problem universities are increasingly facing. Right now scientific institutions are reasonably insulated - but they are already starting to shut down liberal arts degrees like philosophy... but science won't stay insulated forever. Politics is getting increasingly polarised - and more and more extreme nutters from both the left and the right are getting closer to real power. When science outputs things they don't want to believe - you better believe they'll try to shut you down.

As a bulwark against barbarism, if you have any responsibility whatsoever - it is to protect yourself. And as you have admitted, naive attempts at engagement aren't getting you anywhere. So - why aren't you being more scientific about it? Find a better model of human communicative interaction and apply it.

>Maybe it's all some sort of status-driven signalling, as you suggest, and my chatter about the public good is just so much self-deception. There may be value to the recommendation that you've made on that basis. But I'm not sure that I could live my life (or any life) with that framework as my premise.

Oh dear lord... now it's my turn to be frustrated. If the signalling hypothesis I suggested is correct - but implies a reality that is so abhorrent that you couldn't bear to live in it... then why would you be so upset about folks wanting to believe in the fantasy of em-drives? That's like being disappointed in a child for believing in Santa when you are unwilling to accept that unicorns might not exist.

Look - I'm not saying I know my hypothesis is correct. I don't. But you're hitting a brick wall by your own admission. So your model is likely wrong. Holy crap - your a scientist... run some damn science!

I really wonder why outside their specific domain of expertise - it's so common to see scientists throw all their training out the window. And trust me - I've met a LOT of scientists. This is common.

When I worked in university admin, I used to watch scientists come down to our office to send faxes... and many would just stand and stare at it doing nothing... and eventually - without trying anything - they would come and interrupt one of us admin folk and ask us for help. We didn't mind helping of course - but it always astonished me that all their training as scientists just flew out the window when faced with the simple task of sending a fax. Here is a bunch of people trained to run experiments, isolate variables and determine causality... the very bedrock of existence - and they can't find the self-confidence to just press a button on a machine to see what happens.

I kinda feel that way with you right now. You know your approach is not working. So do some research! Find an alternative. You don't have to accept mine - but if you take your responsibility seriously, then you DO have to find your own - and it has to get results...

Note - it has to serve as a better model for your own behaviour as well... you need an answer to the UR-QUESTION... why are you expending all this time speaking to lay people? You know that it doesn't achieve anything. But then you express this hope that somehow you're making a little bit of a difference - all the while feeling this frustration.

And as for the signalling idea, it aint so bad once you get used to it. I know - it'sis not particularly appealing. It's not what we want to believe about ourselves. But if that's what's stopping you from considering it - you're not so different from the people wanting to believe in em-drives afterall. (There are plenty of good scientific reasons to challenge it - mind you).

Anyway - I'm quite happy to admit that I'm at least partly expending all this energy in the hope that a Professor of Physics out there somewhere thinks I'm bright chap. But I'm cool with this... who doesn't want to be regarded well by bright people?

Well - I'm struggling to understand what your beliefs about the scientific community actually are. You very clearly stated - in no uncertain terms - that the scientific community had significant numbers of crackpots... You're now backing away from this claim... and are now stating that this em-drive situation is just an isolated anomaly from an institutional point of view and that your real frustration is with the untrained public that won't listen to what you say.

Okay - I'm happy to roll whatever direction you're rolling - so long as we signpost the forks in the road clearly along the way. We're no longer talking about professional, institutional crack-pottery - we are talking about the untrained public. Signposted.

I won't abstract away from this particular example just yet - as there is a clear point of dis-analogy between your hypothetical and this em-drive case... in this case there is a prestigious institution backing this research. It is impossible for non-trained people to make an independent assessment of the cost vs benefits of this research. So it's entirely reasonable for them to be interested and excited when they see such an institution running experiments on what otherwise seems like a moonshot.

Even if other institutional voices like yours are arguing against it - in such cases - it's still quite reasonable for a layperson to shrug and say - well, I see the institutional powers that be disagreeing, but the outcome would be so cool if it turns out to be correct. So meh - let's give it a shot.

And I contend that this is an entirely reasonable response of the layperson in this SPECIFIC case. If it turns out to be the case that this was an egregious waste of money, then the public shouldn't be blamed. And if it is also true that this is an isolated case of institutional failure (as you now seem to believe) - i.e. something which was not a result of systemic flaws in the institution of science - then it's just one of those things... a fuck-up that couldn't be helped because you can't control everything in complex science, and giant institutions.

So in THIS case - just chill. It's not a big deal.

Turning to your hypothetical case - which seems to assume that there is no institutional disagreement whatsoever... well that's a different story. Here your frustration with the public is understandable... although I would tend to diagnose that you have a bad habit of taking it out of your colleagues and the public in cases like the em-drive one where they probably don't deserve it. I probably shouldn't have been so hard on you for that - I'm certainly guilty in the past of having been less than generous to my opponents.

So in the interest of all round good mental health - since this is likely the TRUE source of the frustration... perhaps it's worthwhile thinking it over a little bit for both if respective sanities.

Here is what I believe to be the UR-FACT of public/scientific(academic) interaction.

UR-FACT: It is IMPOSSIBLE to communicate modern science to lay people - unless they go through a significant number of the same hoops required to become a scientist.

Let me qualify this. You can communicate its results, models and data in various high level, poetic and metaphorical language. But you cannot communicate it in such a way so as to enable a layperson to examine a particular result and make an independent and accurate judgement as to whether or not that result is true or not... unless you start from scratch and properly induct that person into the institution of science.

I'm not going to argue at length for the UR-FACT unless you challenge me on it. It's prima-facie true.

Let's now evaluate your frustration in light of the UR-FACT. You mention that you are getting frustrated because you have tried "patient explanation", but people still don't agree with you. Well - given the UR-FACT, it's clear that patient explanation was never going to get you anywhere.

So here's a question you need to be asking yourself VERY SERIOUSLY. I'm going to call this question the UR-QUESTION of public/scientific(academic) interaction.

UR-QUESTION: If the public is in general incapable of any genuine understanding of scientific practice as per the UR-FACT, why do scientists (like yourself) take the time out to give ANY sort of explanation at all?

I can't overstate the importance of this question... because if it turns out that there is NO value to this process of engagement between science and the general public, then this has very broad and extreme implications for human progress and its political organisation. If the progress that science makes possible must be protected and if we can't protect this progress through engagement with a democratic polity - then the democratic nature of that polity will have to be eradicated, and the institution of science defended through force.

This would be a nightmarish scenario - so until we are really SURE that engagement has NO value, we had better start coming up with some good models of what the value of that engagement might be, and start applying those models in practice so that we can realise whatever value is there.

But what possible value is there in engagement with the public if it's not to produce understanding?

Here's one possible hypothesis I think is worth considering. Public engagement derives its value not from any understanding it produces, but in the signalling act between scientist and layman.

What do I mean by "signalling act" - well it's a long story. It derives from the concept of signalling in evolutionary biology - which has since been applied to behavioural economics and other domains. The gist is - people employ signals to covertly convey information to other humans about things like status, tribal loyalty, mate fitness and reliability - stuff that was basic to survival back in the day. So we drive fast cars to signal status... we buy expensive rings to signal mate reliability.. etc.

So what is going on then between scientist and layman when they get into arguments about funding priorities in science? If it isn't about actually exchanging understanding, then what explains the behaviour? Why would humans have evolved to waste THAT much time on such a waste of time? The signalling hypothesis suggests that what is going on is a status game between scientist the layperson. The scientist demands to be agreed with - i.e. requests a signal of his/her status, and when the layperson refuses to give that agreement, it is taken by the scientist that their status is being challenged.

Status was important back in the day. Those at the bottom of the tribe status-wise faired poorly. So we evolved psychological mechanisms to motivate us to seek status. That frustration you feel when you "patient explanations" didn't work? That's negative affect that your brain evolved to make you feel miserable at your perceived loss of status.

So if this hypothesis is true - and it is just a hypothesis (google "costly signalling theory" and go nuts). What advice would it suggest in terms of managing relations between scientific institutions and the public?

Well - I think it would suggest that you as Scientist should do better to control your own signalling behaviours driving you to seek recognition of your status and start thinking about what the public's own signalling behaviours imply they need and want - what will placate them?

And what they want - is the same thing you want. Status. So just give it to them. It's the EASIEST thing in the world. Rather than hitting them over the head with your technical, long winded "patient" explanations - that ring in their brains as nothing more as another status play by the know-it-all scientist... instead, praise their passion, tell them that you scientists are indeed working on every conceivable angle - really show that you are engaging with their suggestions - no matter how crack-potty they may actually be. And maybe at the end of your comment just throw in something like: "but of course we need to be really cautious, because of concerns x,y,z..." - so that your comment has a little educational value as well.

And if this means blowing a few million here or there on some dumb projects so the public feels like the things it cares about are being looked at - then it's probably worth the cost - insofar as we interpret that as a signalling act that conveys the idea that they do have status, they are part of the process... etc.. I'm sure that with practice - we could get the costs of these faux labs/experiments down to a minimum, while getting maximum signalling yield out of them.

But doing what your doing - self-deceptively going about on forums with your so called "patient explanations" as if you don't actually care about your status being ignored, when you clearly do, given how you erupted to accuse not just the public, but the whole institution of science of being guilty of crack-pottery - this behaviour is incredibly harmful when you view it from the point of view of the status signalling that is in play.

This is my advice to you OH PROFESSOR OF PHYSICS! Take it or leave it. :)

Steuard was directly talking about "the scientific community" and employees of NASA.

I wasn't going to give your reply further consideration than what I gave... It doesn't deserve more. But I really feel something needs to be said here - given that you are in a position of power, and imo - setting an appalling example.

Since we're citing experience - let me give you some of mine. I have been in academia for many years as both a PhD student and an administrator. I have worked in many different departments - with many different types of academics. I have studied under them, I have sat in their committee meetings, I have gotten drunk with them.

The majority of them are just decent folk. Sure, there were some weirdos, some lazy... and plenty whose research is questionable.

But I would say with supreme confidence that exactly 0 of these people deserved to be called a "crackpot"... i.e. deserving of the implication of being totally divorced from reality.

But there was a significant minority (20% approx) that I would quite happily describe as arrogant, status obsessed assholes, who would sooner shove their own colleagues under a bus than acknowledge the SLIGHTEST value in what they were doing.

So no - my mental model of science does not include large numbers of crackpots. And I will rejoinder if your mental model doesn't include large numbers of arrogant, status obsessed assholes, then YOUR mental model of science is wrong.

I will further retort, that if you are going around calling significant numbers of your peers "crackpots", then you need to seriously consider that you might be one of those assholes I just described. And if this is something you really can't bring yourself to do - I would advise a more general maxim as a matter of simple pragmatic, self preservation:

Stop whining about what's in your neighbour's bowl. It just doesn't play well.

Crackpots get jobs at NASA apparently. See point 3).

That's quite a reasonable, if cynical, reply.

To be honest I don't know how to evaluate the which of these two explanations of the scientist's behaviour are more likely.

I'd like to see some data on how much one can obtain funding by performing what is, given your beliefs, literally garbage science.

If we can establish at least precedent that scientists can attract funding on the basis of their projects that were (at the time, not in hindsight) - un-controversially junk research. Then your explanation would have the upper hand.

If we can establish a clear pattern of such rewards, then you win a slam dunk.

If you believe we do indeed have that degree of certainty - then you believe the experiments are indeed a waste of time, and that the experimenters are behaving irrationally - contra 3).

I think they are rational - and certainly it's rational for me to defer to their judgement on the matter.

That's fine if you don't agree. But if you're replying in order to help me update my beliefs, then you'll need to provide a rebuttal to 3) - which you haven't. :)

'know it doesn't work' - seems a bit strong here.

1) While a violation of a widely accepted law of nature is indeed unlikely - it's not like it hasn't happened before.

2) There may yet still be some way to model the experimental data that at once makes the em-drive viable, while still preserving conservation of momentum. Still unlikely, but arguably more likely than 1).

3) And while these both remain unlikely - it is yet rational to have an increased credence for them while the experimental data remains unaccounted for. In fact, it's arguable that this increase of credence is significant - for if it were not, performing the necessary experiments to find out either way would be a waste of time. There are of course some very smart domain experts performing these experiments. Your tone and use of the word 'know' implies their irrationality. I would advise greater humility.