[Arm-netbook] Logging and journaling

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Wolfgang Romey <hier at wolfgangromey.de> wrote:

> I will put something on top of it because I am getting angry:
> Unfortunately Luke is or is becoming a Ethics-Extremist. Extremism
> allways does harm.

 i've since discovered a more "understandable" version of the bill of
ethics, known as the titanian's "code of honour".  it boils down to
"we do no harm; we always do good; the code applies at all times, no
exceptions; everyone knows the code".

 sticking to an ethical code 100% is *really tough* wolfgang, even
when the code says (in essence), "we do no harm".  now, note that it
does NOT say "we keep everybody HAPPY".  studies have repeatedly shown
that using "happiness" as a metric results in pathological group
behaviour.

 one other aspect of the titanian's code of honour is: constructive
feedback should always be sought and, if provided, NEVER denied.

 so i appreciate your perspective, wolfgang, but bear in mind that
someone who is *aware* of the Bill of Ethics should *never* be
"causing harm".

 bear in mind, though that people (or entities) who (or which) are not
self-aware are *automatically* excluded from the protections of the
Bill of Ethics.


> So it is hurting the project (and Lukes health). Out
> of his extremism he uses an extreme language. He calls for example
> enterprises and people criminal, which never have broken any law. One
> could write, that have conducted completely wrong, but calling them
> criminal is burning bridges. This extreme language is one of the reasons
> for the heated discussion on the list.

 apologies, wolfgang, but denial of the facts - even complex ones -
doesn't help.  i freely admit that i have no idea how to present these
things to people without them getting extremely upset.  perhaps you
could advise on how the perspective that i have should be presented...
but bear in mind that neither the analysis nor the conclusions nor the
ethics themselves on which i base the perspective that i hold are up
for debate or negotiable.

 so many people compromise on things that really do matter, it's up to
me to say "no" and to *find* a way.

> If Luke is so extrem about ethics, how can he distribute hardware at
> all? There is no ethical hardware: they get gold and/or other material
> from warlords or other criminals, the working conditions are ruining the
> health of the workers, chip-production does great harm to the
> enviroment, ...

 *sigh* i know.  i can't tackle everything at once, so i had to make a
decision on what - at the *current* level of resources - *can* be
tackled.

 other issues will be tackled later, *once* the power and influence
has extended to that level.

> One last example: Luke hates Fairphone too

 did you know that experiencing hate *literally* causes your body to
create toxins with similar chemical properties to snake venom?
knowing this to be the case, and not wishing to (literally) poison
myself, we may logically conclude your observation to be false.

> and calls them a criminal enterprise.

 if they've distributed copyright-violating code, and haven't fixed
that, then yes.  do you deny that they've distributed
copyright-violating code in the past?

> So for me there are limits in being ethical. You can be ethical in only
> part of your life.

 we all make choices, wolfgang.  there are so many people in the world
who choose to compromise, who choose an ordinary and "mundane"
existence, i am intelligent enough to realise that i would be doing
myself and the world a huge dis-service to make the compromises that
you are (indirectly) implying.

 i'm sure you've heard this hilarious quote before:

 the reasonable man adapts himself to the world
 the unreasonable man adapts the world to himself
 therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.

 after learning that the definition of "reasonable" is literally
"reason-able" as in "has the ability to reason", i actually disagree
with the _literal_ meaning of this quote, but i still like it anyway
and i know what it's getting at.

l.