Having worked on APIs at very large software companies, the critiques of the principal resonate strongly for me. Your contract is not what you say, but what you do—as soon as you allow a broken usage, you can NEVER upgrade or tighten it up without breaking your customer. The best time to deny a broken request is before people are taking it for granted—the very first time (and every time) you see it.
It’s absolutely allowed to EXPAND the spec to allow new variations. Doing so, you recognize and accept the complexity cost, and think about any security or ambiguity issues being introduced. But don’t silently guess the intent (or accept the mistake) and just carry on.
IMO, this carries forth to social and moral topics. If you disagree with something, you _may_ have the privilege of ignoring it. But you shouldn’t blindly just accept it—you should recognize that it’s wrong, and actively decide what to do about it. Don’t update on malformed beliefs, don’t nod in agreement with incorrect generalizations, don’t let bad LessWrong arguments pass without inspection.
“silence is consent” is a common phrase, with which I do not fully agree, and would prefer that’s not how people work. But many times, it’s a good predictor of how your acceptance will be seen, even if it’s not your wish.
“What would Jesus do?” Not just stand there and accept a broken situation. He’d tear down the moneychangers at the temple and get himself crucified by the Romans.
[ Note: in reality, I’m both passive and uncertain of myself, and I tend NOT to challenge things very strongly. I have great luck in having enough resources that it’s generally a matter of intellectual interest when I disagree, rather than my identity or survival being threatened. But I don’t think this policy generalizes, and I’m not sure what parameters can be distilled on LW to say when to resist and when to accept.]
Fully agree with the technical critiques. I’m less certain that equivalent critiques apply to the social/moral, but I can see the argument. I think it depends on how close you care to wander to true moral relativism. Thanks for this, I’m going to think about it some more.
Having worked on APIs at very large software companies, the critiques of the principal resonate strongly for me. Your contract is not what you say, but what you do—as soon as you allow a broken usage, you can NEVER upgrade or tighten it up without breaking your customer. The best time to deny a broken request is before people are taking it for granted—the very first time (and every time) you see it.
It’s absolutely allowed to EXPAND the spec to allow new variations. Doing so, you recognize and accept the complexity cost, and think about any security or ambiguity issues being introduced. But don’t silently guess the intent (or accept the mistake) and just carry on.
IMO, this carries forth to social and moral topics. If you disagree with something, you _may_ have the privilege of ignoring it. But you shouldn’t blindly just accept it—you should recognize that it’s wrong, and actively decide what to do about it. Don’t update on malformed beliefs, don’t nod in agreement with incorrect generalizations, don’t let bad LessWrong arguments pass without inspection.
“silence is consent” is a common phrase, with which I do not fully agree, and would prefer that’s not how people work. But many times, it’s a good predictor of how your acceptance will be seen, even if it’s not your wish.
“What would Jesus do?” Not just stand there and accept a broken situation. He’d tear down the moneychangers at the temple and get himself crucified by the Romans.
[ Note: in reality, I’m both passive and uncertain of myself, and I tend NOT to challenge things very strongly. I have great luck in having enough resources that it’s generally a matter of intellectual interest when I disagree, rather than my identity or survival being threatened. But I don’t think this policy generalizes, and I’m not sure what parameters can be distilled on LW to say when to resist and when to accept.]
Fully agree with the technical critiques. I’m less certain that equivalent critiques apply to the social/moral, but I can see the argument. I think it depends on how close you care to wander to true moral relativism. Thanks for this, I’m going to think about it some more.