Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
samir, talks too much's posts Post Back to profile
Top-level
levampyre

@samir My guess is that about 99% of professional devs work on either pointless or actively harmful stuff. But my definition of 'pointless' is wide. Anything that serves capitalist goals, i.e. exists for the purpose of profitability or financial growths is pointless in my view. Most of the not pointless stuff is developed by volunteers, i.e. unpaid devs or scientists, who need software for doing their science, but who are not software engineers by profession.

19 June at 18:00 | Wall-to-wall | Open on chaos.social
25 comments
james

@levampyre @samir

I’m genuinely just curious: can we not assume some of those scientists doing software development could also be acting harmfully or pointlessly?

19 June at 18:29 | Open on strangeobject.space
betalars :antifa:

@james yeah but the argument was about non pointless software development, not science in general.

And a lot of the software development that is not pointless happens in science.

19 June at 18:44 | Open on chaos.social
james

@betalars and I was wanting to talk about scientists doing software development, not scientists in general. I do not know how we can conclude that most scientists are acting good™️, so I am genuinely curious if we can and if so, how. I’ll edit my post as I did not make this clear, thank you.

19 June at 19:27 | Open on strangeobject.space
betalars :antifa:

@james ah okay.

In that sense: I think some scientists will probably claim moral neutrality and I would disagree with that.

Because while I think the scientific process can be described as morally neutral or positive depending on your world view, the question of what is being researched is a highly moral one.

Besides that there's without a doubt scientists acting in bad faith too ... although I feel like science is less lucrative and less vulnerable compared to other fields.

19 June at 22:46 | Open on chaos.social
up&

@betalars @james the problem isn't just bad faith research, it's also that science is an industry and research tends to happen because military or other unethical body wants it.

20 June at 5:33 | Open on babka.social
betalars :antifa:

@em
"the question of what is being researched is a highly moral one. "

That is what I was trying to say here.

20 June at 8:34 | Open on chaos.social
Steve

@betalars @james the funding mechanism and publication metric creates a great many perverse incentives in science. Scientists developing software in private sector have performance metrics layered on top. All of these are served first and anything else is a happy coincidence.

20 June at 7:16 | Open on fosstodon.org
levampyre

@james No, I agree, we absolutely can. All this weapon and war technology is developed at subsidized programmes in universities to just name one area of actively harmful.

But I also think that there is some genuinely good science being done of software developed, that is actually helping humanity or the planet (weather forecasts, climate data analytics, etc). It's just by no means the majority. Or often times the very same tech can be used for good and evil and it's an ethical dilemma.

@samir

19 June at 20:29 | Open on chaos.social
levampyre

@james So, no, in conclusion, we cannot and should not assume that all science or all software developed by scientists is necessarily good or absolutely valuable. To most software there's a caveat. And be it just the fact that processing and storing data costs a shitload of energy, and burns fossil fuels like crazy, which we cannot actually afford anymore.

@samir

19 June at 20:35 | Open on chaos.social
pixx

@james @levampyre @samir also, some scientists get paid?

if a corporation sponsors what was previously a volunteer project, does that automatically make it less valuable / more harmful?

19 June at 22:10 | Open on merveilles.town
levampyre

@pixx Well, if they do, i.e. if they suddenly show interest in your product, you should ask yourself why next. The answer might point you towards spoting the harmful aspect that you had missed previously.
@james @samir

20 June at 4:17 | Open on chaos.social
pixx

@levampyre @james @samir hot take: not everything involving money is inherently evil???

20 June at 4:48 | Open on merveilles.town
pixx

@levampyre @james @samir not every company is Raytheon or Amazon.

20 June at 4:49 | Open on merveilles.town
pixx

@levampyre @james @samir (not to say corporations are "generally good", don't get me wrong, not even slightly! but it seems pretty wild to argue that _choosing to pay_ volunteer scientists is a likely indicator of evil??)

20 June at 4:49 | Open on merveilles.town
levampyre

@pixx If it's done by a corporation or an individual that's already very rich and thus investing strategically and not an individual by personal choice, it's a pretty good indicator in my opinion. At least, it's an immediate red flag to me.

@james @samir

20 June at 5:51 | Open on chaos.social
levampyre

@pixx That's your personal belief, not mine. Sorry. Whenever I analyse what's wrong with this world (of the aspects that we as a society could change, of course) money is where I land. It incentivices egoism when instead we need to stand together to care for each other and empathise. It incentivices greed and exploitation of everything and everyone we perceive as less powerful or worthy than ourselves.

@james @samir

20 June at 5:43 | Open on chaos.social
Morgan

@james @levampyre @samir I think you might have accidentally read "most of the non-pointless software is being made by ... scientists" as "most of the scientists developing software are making non-pointless software," but I don't think that was ever said. Like if someone said most NASA engineers are neurodivergent, it wouldn't mean most neurodivergent people are NASA engineers
But like I get it, I switch things like that all the time

20 June at 4:01 | Open on disabled.social
james

@raphaelmorgan @levampyre @samir

I didn’t, no.

I was simply wondering how levampyre could come to the conclusion that of the non-pointless software out there, is mostly made by scientists and the like. And not generic non-scientist developers.

I did not think the suggestion was that most scientists make non-pointless software.

Whilst I understand you were trying to be helpful, it’s really uncomfortable to be told by someone else what I was thinking and have it framed in this way.

Perhaps it was my wording that I fucked up, but I’d appreciate requests to explain rather than being told I did wrong.

@raphaelmorgan @levampyre @samir

I didn’t, no.

I was simply wondering how levampyre could come to the conclusion that of the non-pointless software out there, is mostly made by scientists and the like. And not generic non-scientist developers.

I did not think the suggestion was that most scientists make non-pointless software.

20 June at 4:24 | Open on strangeobject.space
levampyre

@james Oh, scientists amongst others, because people, who are neither developers, nor scientists in some way, have a personal need to write a lot of software. It's an assumption, true. Convince me otherwise. I'm open to learning.

@raphaelmorgan @samir

20 June at 4:37 | Open on chaos.social
james

@levampyre @raphaelmorgan @samir

I don’t want to convince you, I just wanted to learn more about what you thought and why :)

Like, “this is interesting, but I don’t know how they reached this conclusion, I would like to learn more about their experiences, perhaps they have worked in both of these fields and saw a trend?”.

That’s it :)

Anyway, I’ll wish you all a nice day

20 June at 4:42 | Open on strangeobject.space
levampyre

@james Ah, yeah, I've indeed worked in both of these fields and saw trends. Not science directly, but humanities/academia and some scientist friends. So there's where that assumption comes from.

@raphaelmorgan @samir

20 June at 5:39 | Open on chaos.social
Morgan

@james sorry for causing you discomfort. I have a tendency to try and clear up misunderstandings because that's what I would want in the situation, but I'm reminded I can't assume others think like me even if I relate to a lot of the things they say. I'll make a note not to do that to you in the future.
And thank you for explaining what you were saying, because evidently I was confused 😅

20 June at 4:38 | Open on disabled.social
james

@raphaelmorgan

I definitely understand, and can and do the same, hashtag James has autism.

in my specific instance I didn’t misunderstand at all which is where the upset comes from. I’m someone who struggles to be understood a lot and it’s quite a challenge for me as an autistic person, so when someone tells me I am communicating or interpreting wrong, I believe them. But then I saw that no, I didn’t have a wrong interpretation.

As I said, it’d be better to frame it as questions. Like tell me you don’t understand, could I re explain? Not tell me I don’t understand.

@raphaelmorgan

I definitely understand, and can and do the same, hashtag James has autism.

in my specific instance I didn’t misunderstand at all which is where the upset comes from. I’m someone who struggles to be understood a lot and it’s quite a challenge for me as an autistic person, so when someone tells me I am communicating or interpreting wrong, I believe them. But then I saw that no, I didn’t have a wrong interpretation.

20 June at 4:46 | Open on strangeobject.space
levampyre

@raphaelmorgan I might have written that in an unusual way. I'm not native in English and tend to use German structures for nested sentences a lot. Which understandably confuses natives. But you explained correctly what I meant.
@james @samir

20 June at 4:27 | Open on chaos.social
james

@levampyre @raphaelmorgan @samir

That is indeed what I read, you did not write in an unusual way.

Evidently, I did, if everyone is misunderstanding me. I apologise.

20 June at 4:29 | Open on strangeobject.space
Go Up