emotionalcode

> And then you have open source software which is heavily used in a lot of commercial products that might get attacked. With this kind of thing there's a big incentive not to report bugs to the project but to sell them to a company who has no incentive to see them fixed...

Then a lot of people need to revisit their own thoughts on exactly why they use open source, and the consequences of what happens if it goes away.

> For example, will we see these companies hiring ex-developers and testers from software product companies, as they might have inside knowledge of where products are weak.

That might happen, but it depends on intent. Products may be realized to be weak afterwards, due to a changing software landscape, so the company hiring them is a good thing - the software gets fixed in some way, and a need was fulfilled.

Then the question becomes: how likely do you think it is that someone purposefully creates a flawed product in order to make a gain later, after the project has been completed, released; after they have left the job; after they have been hired by these testing companies? It sounds as likely to me as people purposefully putting back-doors into software for future self interest. There exists another outlet for unethical intent, but in my opinion, the problem begins with ethics to begin with.

Software is too complex to perfect. There will always be bugs. Regulation of industry and regulation of the regulatory bodies is additionally, very complex. The idea of regulating where knowledge is allowed to flow on top of that horrifies me: i.e., whether a developer is allowed to work at one of these companies eventually, in judgment of prior work.

I wish people had greater incentive to maintain a standardization of ethics, but this is all theoretical to begin with, at least from my direct observations. There is nothing to judge unless it happens, and then the best one can do is act.

Why do you think peer accountability will work? This is a genuine question of mine; please do not infer ulterior intention.

There's stuff you expect (or have read, heard, thought about, observed) science to be about, and there's stuff you don't expect science to be about. The stuff you don't expect science to be about is the stuff that concerns me.

I don't know whether I can convey the change in understandings I've had about science since leaving academia. I don't want it to be typical, nor do I want it to be atypical in that the definition of atypical is dependent on the opposite of what is typical.

I don't know, maybe a survey should be conducted across the scientific body, and some data should be collected.

I don't really know, honestly. When groups are arguing between opposing world views, all of which can appear equally likely depending on data selection, I find that absolutely frightening that our current scientific process of peer review can not help us tell our heads from our asses. Or it does so often enough, that it's doing a very good job at keeping the bulk of knowledge stable. Science can be frightening.

Personally, I think it might take a lot more time than I've been alive to come close to a solution. I don't feel comfortable having an opinion on this, but I'm fine having questions. I don't intend to make implications with my questions, they are not consciously intentionally leading.

I don't have firsthand experience publishing in a peer reviewed journal, but from all my experience in academia, some of which involved very close observances, it doesn't seem to be a perfect solution.

No, I mean, that there is some probability that someone intelligent within the system is manipulating the infrastructure of the peer review system for an advantage.

I don't understand why I was downvoted for asking a question. I just meant to imply that there must exist some middle infrastructure, and I do not believe that it is a trivial problem to solve.

Source: I studied computer security systems that attempted to automate the flow of information to maintain security level thresholds on information types. When code 'touches' other code, meaning that it uses code with information at one security level to reason about code with information at another security level, unless you are particularly careful in the structure and organization of the code, information can leak out, structures can be manipulated, rules can be broken.

I am not saying scientists are unethical, I am saying they are human and prone to emotional reaction occasionally before objectivity (unless they are perfect). Combining information inference, intelligence, and an understanding of the flaws of an automated system; they are capable of 'accidentally' tweaking those things in their favor. It's not in the interest of science when this happens, and it requires a substantial amount of real intelligence to moderate. It's basically 'accidental bias'.

What if you can't trust the other scientists to review the work of their peers fairly?

Thank you, you have made me very fruitkerfluffle with your well-phrased response.

I was talking about people who have 'stress induced depression because they have huge goals and occasionally need to be strong enough to be their own motivation because it seems like begging for other people to tell them what they want to hear' mental thing. I didn't call it an illness, I only know that I've experienced it.

I can't ask people to tell me I'm going to be the greatest computer scientist just to get myself to code or learn something new every day. I just have to dedicate my life to it until I am proud of what I am and what I strive to be.

That said, the right medication helps. So can having people to talk to. I don't like paying to have people to talk to about my people theories, or explain category theory to, because that's what I wind up doing in therapy.