Stefan-H

In many engineering professions licenses and certifications require adherence to an ethical code, for instance the ISC2 certifications like the CISSP. So for one to be a professional in these fields one must actually act ethically.

"We only build and operate the orphan crushing machine, it's people that line up to turn the crank".

There was a sweet spot with computer technologies for some decades where hobbyists could afford to experiment and even push the envelope in the nascent field of computing - similar to genetic radiation, many niches were formed and rapidly filled. The computing biome has evolved to the point where most entities are not operating at the low-level abstractions that were once the only means of interacting with the computing environment, instead they operate now at the highest levels of abstraction we are capable, so called "natural language".

"The difficulty was the knowledge. You came to know that machine the way you come to know anything that pushes back. The resistance was the whole medium. You only ever know the things that you can lose to."

We who grew up in this era formed a hands-on engineer's knowledge of these systems, built from experience and practice, learning these layers of abstraction as the bleeding edge developed. Many these days have entered into a world where there are easy answers abound, they just might not be right, and one has to gauge how much they care about correctness.

The amount of "it's not..., it's..." is excruciating. Especially since I find this an important area of discussion.

By that logic, most everything other than a club to the head is "just stories". Hume points out in a Treatise on Human Nature that most of how we interact with the world is through a coherent hallucination provided by sense organs that tell very narrow stories, but when stitched together form a cohesive whole. You're almost doing the equivalent of saying that gravity is "just a theory".

No, my apologies, I actually mis-attributed the etymology of stoic to a group that did identify with reduced emotionality, but yes, out of Greece. That’s not how the snipe was intended.

You might need to inspect the etymology of that word and take a look at where the concept is rooted.

Consider 2 researchers, Alice and Bob. Lets say that Alice has developed a cool way to analyze gene data, and she uses it on her gene data and gets cool information, so naturally Bob would like to do the same analysis. How does Bob securely get his data analyzed with Alice's intellectual property (which she wants to keep secret as well), enter homomorphic encryption! Bob can encrypt his data in such a way that Alice can run her analysis on it, without Alice ever knowing the content of Bob's data. Alice can get neither Bob's data nor the analysis of it.

My issue with the strawberry example is different than yours - the items the author listed that we miss out on ("The texture, the juiciness, the complexity of the flavor, the imperfections, the joy of finding a particularly good one, the cosmic horror of eating a wormy one, the nostalgia of having your grandma's strawberry jam with dozens of individually unique strawberries in it.") amount to little of objective value. I would argue the greatest value that eating a real strawberry as opposed to a fake strawberry product provided was this very article. Where else has "memory of texture and flavor combinations" been brought to bear? I can agree that there is virtue in having tasty and interesting things to eat, but I don't see how missing out on a specific combination is all that terrible.

The "stories" I reference are the wide ranges of events, decisions, and conversations that went into the camera's placement. Are the cameras just for show? Have they recently modernized? Were there discussions and arguments around employee or patron privacy? Are the videos watched incessantly or left to molder? Cameras are rarely mundane, they are a very visible representation of controls related to trust and privacy.

You are asking me why I can't write plainly, but I believe you're confusing me for the author, but I'll answer you anyways. "Plain" language removes nuance. Example: "She sat on the chair". The number of ways that action can be described are as innumerable as the ways it can be done, and then some - as different people may describe an act in different ways. Communication in all forms is lossy, but you can convey more than just direct ideas by adding subtext or using language that draws the reader to make comparisons new comparisons. Perhaps the author used gaze to anthropomorphize the camera to add on the layer of judgement or shame that the camera conveys, perhaps to an employee that is not trusted to manage a till.

What came to mind is a camera pointed at the cash register tells a very different story than the camera pointed at the ATM, or pointing from the ATM for that matter. Placement and the stories behind them offer interesting perspectives on what the observers are trying to catch or deter.

"We don't have a dedicated security team because security and privacy are integral to all aspects of our service".

Do you have people whose role is explicitly security? Who are the security SMEs in your organization if not? I personally find the "Security is so important to us that we don't have a team dedicated to it" argument weak, and often results in misaligned incentives - if individuals have to alternate hats from "deliver results" to "properly vet security", the business push to deliver tends to win out. I'd be very curious to hear how you ensure your team doesn't fall into that trap.