austin-cheney

I am putting off hardware upgrades because it’s 3.5x more expensive than it was 2 years ago.

There is a stereotype that males in software are more inclined to be on the ASD spectrum. According to my wife, and all her coworkers that I have spoken to, education lives up to that stereotype in spades. It is likely a gravity for people on the spectrum because it is a highly structured environment and if you are in elementary education your primary audience will never question the insanity.

BTW, there is a common assumption about the correlation between autism and low social intelligence. While that may or may not be true more often than not it is not universally correlated.

Maybe... maybe Pyron from the article is a toxic expert. Its hard to say because the article is entirely one sided.

A problem that is encountered frequently among people with exceptionally low social intelligence is the inability to separate agreeability from social intelligence. Those concepts are completely unrelated.

Agreeability is the need to please others and to a lesser extent seek reciprocity for kindness. Kindness lives here. This is completely and utterly unrelated to social intelligence and when signals are confused acts in opposition to social intelligence.

Social intelligence is a perceptual skill. It is the ability to both introspect and perceive the motivations of others. You can have exceptionally high social intelligence and still be a cold asshole.

For people with exceptionally low social intelligence they lack the perceptual skills required to both introspect and discern the emotional communication of others. So... they may confuse that with something else, like kindness, where they strive to fill an unfillable gap.

It is fun talking about this with my wife. I am a software developer and software is staffed with males with low social intelligence at a much higher rate than the population at large. My wife works in education and its the same thing there for females.

Determining proximity to harm is the excuse people are looking for to justify allowed malicious intent.

Do those organizations determine your acceptable level of practice? I would argue they do not and are thus not relevant to this conversation.

What was your last employer that asked for your license number of member ID from any of those organizations? I am guessing it has never happened.

Normally when people try this argument they are hoping a for a dog whistle to shift ground because they don't want to be regulated.

Constitutional rights extend everywhere the Constitution covers regardless of immigration status. If ICE is conducting business in opposition to rights conveyed by the Constitution then you have found a far more grave concern to address.

If you have ever worked in almost any other industry your first question quickly answers itself. If you have never worked in an industry principally governed by ethical standards it would be challenging for me to describe it to you. I cannot give you what your perspective has never before imagined.

Think about it like this: What makes software any more or less of a profession than working at your favorite burger joint in terms of industry wide criteria?

So, what are the harms? This is the very first question that comes up in any form of judicial review. If there exists vast increases of surveillance and law enforcement is forbidden from using it is there still a harm? There absolutely could be, but that is what must be addressed to provide the proper regulation.

The forth amendment is not modified merely because the technology evolves. This is the kind of thing defense lawyers look for. To permit evolving technology to be used as evidence in violation of privacy generally requires new law.

I am not making a pro-surveillance argument, though. I am merely stating there are malicious concerns that if left unaddressed will continue to be malicious irrespective of any technology.

> These entities are independent from government and set their own standards.

As they should. Industries should be self regulating. While these industries form their own standards of practice they do so with the blessing of government, typically under state government supervision/authorization in the US, and are held to account by government. A lawyer or doctor who violates their standards of practice could very likely be guilty of criminal law and find themselves in prison depending upon the violation even when no other criminal actions occurred.

Even bus drivers are held to higher standards of practice than software developers.

Surveillance in combination with law enforcement is not the immediate problem, and so blaming ills on extended surveillance provides a smoke screen to ignore the actual problems.

The two problems of surveillance are misuse by government for political reasons in opposition to constitutional rights and misuse of surveillance by non-government agents who are not held to the same high ethical standards/limitations. These two concerns of misuse will continue their malicious growth until they are challenged regardless of the increases to surveillance technology.

Yes, in most cases a religious exemption requires approval after a formal review regardless of the reason or its merits.

Software is an employment rather than a profession. That distinction is important. Here is a definition of profession:

Traditional professions share essential characteristics. They provide a vital service to society, requiring expertise and skill developed through years of training, education, and experience. Professions establish standards of practice and certify that their members are qualified to serve the needs of society.

--US Army, ADP 6-22, Army Leadership and the Profession

Software does not have explicit standards of practice or a required body of certifications for its practitioners. Software, as an employment, is whatever an employer wants or is willing to accept at any given moment.