catshirt

thank you for a thoughtful response.

your first point regarding "no non-controversial statements" points out a flaw in my logic that i hope we can move past to my example.

i try to illustrate, that the graph of `ACTIONS <-> PEOPLE + TOOLS <-> MAKERS OF TOOLS` has been an obviously controversial one in the past as applied to weaponry, using guns as an example. so why should it not be equally controversial for any profession? the tool is variable.

which you answer with your last point: "guns don't kill people" and an admittance of ethical responsibility are not mutually exclusive. and maybe there has never been a controversy like i am suggesting. which is a great point and presses me to reiterate: where is this programmer who does not believe his job has ethical implications?

and IF IT IS a falsehood programmers believe: you think telling some number of programmers they are ethically insufficient could not possibly lead to a controversial discussion?

so if i can repurpose someone else's example:

you're suggesting that if i make a knife for buttering bread and it kills someone because i was careless in my creating of the knife, there is "obviously" no ethical impact because my intent was good?

and this leads to my real point. find me 1 programmer who perpetuates this myth that there exists an engineer who says its impossible for their job to invoke ethics.

funny that the top of this list says it's a "falsehood programmers believe" yet not a single person here wants to take that side. either it's painfully obvious or it's not a myth. pick one.

> A brittle blade that was made to save money but shatters and slices flesh on a bone was an ethical impact.

by that logic, basically every decision we ever make has an ethical impact. which is probably true but kind of watered down.

> Making a non-reflective tactical assault blade with a knuckle grip and claiming that you did not think about it’s uses is a little silly right?

most certainly. therefor, it would also be a little silly to act like knife makers consider ethics of their job a "falsehood".

you can't have your cake and eat it too. either it's so obvious that that programmers are subject to ethics that THERE IS NO MYTH and no one actually believes this, or the myth exists for a reason.

the fact that i might disagree with it (never said i did by the way), would suggest that others might disagree with it, would suggest it is definitively controversial.

a lot of the country would argue that gun makers don't have too much an ethical concern when building guns. surely you have heard the phrase "guns don't kill people". and so how dare me try and apply that argument here on their behalf.

i think the easiest way to point out the controversy in the statement is that NO ONE HERE SEEMS TO BELIEVE IT? SO HOW IS IT A "FALSEHOOD PROGRAMMERS BELIEVE"?

the reason i am being downvoted is because hacker news is fucking garbage now. too many insecure, underqualified jackasses looking for a reason to argue.

and saying "they have an app" is ignoring OP's actual point, which is all i am trying to defend. no one is calling into question the merit it's taken to build Shazam as a company.

how do i find myself defending the most ridiculous shit here?... like an algorithm can't work without a UI.

> guy 1: "index the Fourier Transform of all songs"

> guy 2: "[don't forget about] their huge database[!]"

how is this not contrarian? biz guy spotted? the dude straight up fucking said to build a database of "ALL SONGS". if you think that's simple you're either not thinking hard enough or you have no idea what he's talking about.

what is your point?

saying the algorithm "wouldn't work" without an app is like saying my door doesn't work without a doorknob.

OP made a point: Shazam is not magic, and people have the opportunity to compete or DIY. to me, it seems simple/contrarian/not helpful to respond with "they have an app too"

it’s just a button. and in a perfect world I wouldn’t even need a button

and the ones you do...

thread i participated in yesterday would suggest about half of HN welcomes it with open arms.

my only point is that however you interpret the article, pivoting your response towards mocking conspiracy theorists speaks more towards a personal peeve than an objective analysis of the documents. at best it's almost irrelevant. at worst it's ironic.

i don't think your analogy is strong. but instead of continuing to mince words... s/*/plan/ for literally whatever word you choose. and my point stands. discussed? evaluated? none of it makes me feel better.

sorry, I’ve edited the word “planned” into my post as to not seem misleading. (forgive me for paraphrasing the title of the thread incorrectly).

unsurprisingly, it doesn’t actually change my point in the slightest. maybe we can have a more interesting conversation now.

“a provocation operation in which Soviet aircraft would appear to attack US or friendly installations to provide an excuse for U.S. intervention”

what is that, if not a fake attack for political purposes?