Might be a poor comparison, but that doesn’t mean it’s necessarily a bad way to present it to thier boss. If the analogy, however flawed, communicates the underlying idea to the listener, then it was effective.

The concept here is very related to why “ceci n’est pas un pipe” is/was compelling.

I appreciated it too! You weren’t obnoxious, very much the opposite. Curious, patient, thoughtful, well reasoned. It’s obvious to me yours IS a mind that I would want to exercise against. And any discussion rooted in pragmatic outcomes would just be agreement. I think we want the world to be the same.

Ok. I think I need to tap out. I don’t think we can have the same conversation. And that isn’t a judgement or anything about you, or your points, or anything. I think that fundamentally we’re just trying to have two similar but distinct conversations.

There are two conversations: one about exploring and establishing a model of moral evaluation of action, and one about how a hospital should be run, dignity, how to organize a society for the betterment of its members, etc etc. They’re both great conversations. I’ll happily concede that yours is more important.

I keep trying to talk about morality and ethics. To me, it’s the much more interesting conversation. It’s extremely rare to actually get the opportunity to get into moral philosophy, so even fucking roadkill is great.

It’s not that I necessarily disagree with what you’re saying. It’s just that you’re not at all talking about morals and ethics, and each attempt i make to pull you back in is met in failure. Now you’re talking about “fault” which is a completely distinct philosophical concept and “failure of the hospital system” which is not really anything.

Yeah hospitals should treat everyone. I have universal Healthcare. How to run a hospital or a health system is a tedious conversation for me. The moral and ethical discussion and examination of right and wrong of actions when a moral agent is part of a social collective with health support and limited resources is interesting.

If we just talked about your thing… we’d basically just be two people roughly agreeing with each other. Which is fine, it’s just that isn’t really a valuable conversation for either of us. We’re already like 99% aligned, there is nothing material to explore or debate. I can’t offer you anything in that conversation that you don’t already have and vice versa.

Kinda, I think we’re in the same zone, but I feel you’re kinda glancing off some important points, and also bringing in unrelated concepts.

What if the money spent on the mri could have been spent on alzheimers?

Well, if at the time it was reasonable to expect that the investment in MRIs was the most effective thing to do for society that’s fine. That’s just a choice made with reasonable expectations of a positive outcome that ultimately turned out to be suboptimal. It isn’t reasonable to expect that smoking won’t statistically be detrimental to your health. It’s a self-inflicted wound, done knowing this was a likly outcome. This is the critical difference there.

Now, as for unrelated topics, you’ve muddled two distinct ideas: “moral evaluation of actions”, and “evaluation of worthiness to recieve care”.

If you need an ER doctor to pull a dildo out of your ass, but didn’t reasonably expect to demand society to end up having to pay for it, then I see no moral issue, just like if someone forgets thier hair straightener on and thier house lights on fire and the firefighters risk thier lives to rescue you.

If you fully expected to require an ER doctor beforehand, yah, morality issue there. If you light your own house on fire on purpose because you wanted to get carried down a ladder, same deal.

Doesn’t mean you don’t deserve to be helped. Doesn’t imply that you must not, may, or are obligated to feel contempt or whatever. Evaluating the STATE of a moral agent RESPONDING to a moral transgression of another is several steps removed from the ideas of the morality of self-harm in a social collective with finite support resources.

Anyways, long story short… I don’t mean to say that the two cases are morally identical. They’re both actions that needlessly risk degrading the overall health of your society. I think if you want to frame ONE as a moral issue, they BOTH are.

So, to my original point… I don’t know if the public health angle for the moral evaluation is a great one here. I think it’s hard to build a consistent and reliable moral model around.

Yeah, that’s basically it.

Harm is harm. If my recklessness gives you covid, that’s harm. I harmed you. If my wanton habits strain the Healthcare system such that they’re expending money on my emphasima instead of more MRIs, and the lack of MRIs mean the diagnostic delays kept you from finding a brain tumor before it became inoperable, that’s harm too. I harmed you.

It’s comfortable to hide behind layers of abstraction. That’s just morality laundering.

If I give you covid, and you die, that’s bad.

If I give you covid, and you spread it to your grandma and she dies, that’s bad.

If I give you covid, and you give someone else covid, and THEY give it to THIER grandma and she dies, that’s bad.

And if I give… etc etc etc etc. How far down this chain do I gotta go before you say “ah ok, no morality issue there”?

Does it matter if you expose people but none actually get it? Does it matter if people get it, but as a result of the chain reaction nobody dies?

Probably not, right? The irresponsibility of the act has already established that it was wrong, regardless of the dilution along a chain and regardless of the actual outcome. You don’t KNOW what will happen, you just have statistical models.

You might never know WHICH bean made you fart. It doesn’t matter. The collective effect produced a result.

I have the great privilege of living in a society with socialized Healthcare, so these questions do come up from time to time.

The lifetime Healthcare costs for people who have conditions which can be mitigated by lifestyle choices is a real thing. Smoking, being an obvious example much less touchy than obesity. Even if I’m extremely comfortable with the slice of my taxes that go to Healthcare… wouldn’t it be great if we got to spend less on smoking-related issues, and could instead buy more MRI machines. Merely pay for more doctors? Nurses? Expand the treatments we can even offer?

Just because they’re abstract, doesn’t make it any less of a question of morality. I don’t see any moral difference between the contaigen and smoking from the perspective of the personal responsibility of maintaining the overall health of your society. One is just accepted by society.

The idea that you’re morally obligated to maximize your own health to minimize your burden on society usually doesn’t stand up well to follow up questions.

Realistically, the societal health costs of being obese would be statistically higher than fucking roadkill. I think most people would find themselves pausing before suggesting to an obese person that thier obesity is more morally problematic than fucking roadkill.

There is something to health of an individual in a society and morality, it’s pretty hard for me to ignore that intuition. I just don’t know a real formulation which doesn’t introduce more issues to a system of morality than it resolves? Curious if anyone had one.

Hell yah brother noting gay about pounding another dude as long as that dude is super masculine.

This is where I’m really fuzzy on the mechanics.

Any authentication is to establish an identity. At what point does that involve getting a unique id associated with an OS installation instance?

My original question is how the hardware id and ngrok get associated at all.

So, after getting frustrated and just going to sign up for an account myself, it looks like ngrok has options to sign is as a Google account, or sign in as a github account.

I’m guessing they picked github, and that’s why Microsoft had any visibility at all on the fact that they accessed a site that isn’t owned by Microsoft.

It still doesn’t answer the question of how the browser knows this id which is set at the os level. It still begs the question of what github authentication looks like differently between operating systems. Obviously a osx or Linux machine wouldn’t have that id at all. Is it part of the initial authentication request? Is there some kind of challenge and response?

This seems the most likely… but still I want clarity on the mechanism. An identifying token defined in the registry is being sent over the wire. That mechanic is pretty substantial, and I’m surprised a bigger fuss hasn’t been made about that. This is pretty far beyond conventional header fingerprinting.

From the article:

Microsoft’s records showed that at that exact same minute, a Windows device carrying GDID g:6755467234350028 had visited the ngrok signup page.

Why does Microsoft have a record that includes both the GDID and a web addresses? I am confused by this mechanism.

I think there are a lot of things at play here. Ultimately I don’t think you should, though.

The fact that you still want to tell them is suspicious. I think you’re not being honest with yourself. Your ulterior end game is a hope of some type of reciprocation. You haven’t moved on.

Just because (assuming it’s even true) a statistical model of a gender says “they probably would like it” is irrelevant. Would this individual like to hear it? It sounds like you don’t know. If you don’t know them well enough to anticipate how they would react, then I think it’s pretty safe to say they don’t know you well enough to receive the message “I used to love you” in a way that could ever come out as a net benefit to them.

I empathize immensely regarding your position. But as a 3rd party observer, don’t do it.

Lol party all you want. I’m not OP. I don’t hold absolutist views on the morality of celebrating a death.

But the moral evaluation of an agent celebrating the death of another has absolutely nothing, at all, to do with the “Paradox of Tolerance”. At the first whisper of critical thought applied to the concept, you’ll find that people will always motte-and-bailey to “It is a descriptive paradox and prescribes nothing”. So even if it was conceptually relevant, suggesting the the paradox of tolerance actually “suggests” any action is already a misapplication.

You are free. You don’t need to appeal to anything. The guy was hurting people and now he can’t anymore. You don’t need any to reference any philosopher to give yourself permission to accept 1+1=2.

We cheer when the firefighters extinguish a blaze. We don’t mourn the loss of a jagged edge on a hand railing after a craftsman sands it smooth. I’m pretty comfortable with feeling relief when I land at a toilet when I rreeaallyy have to take a shit. The hangup that you can’t be happy that something that was hurting you is gone is the weird thing. It’s incumbent on anyone to explain why you shouldn’t celebrate, not to justify why you can.

Yeah, I conceded that your call to action was correct.

Just wanted to add colour so people understand the mechanics at play. When you understand them, it lets people evaluate other things, without needing you to tell them what to do.

For example, if your comprehension of these companies is that the companies are acting with the goal of profitability l, they would see something like a fast-track onto an index post IPO as a bid for legitimacy, some kind of ego play.

If you comprehend it as a beast that can only subsist on funding with no viable product, it entirely changes how you comprehend the post IPO index listing desire.

Counterpoint:

They already are losing money. They themselves do not project that they will be profitable until 2030. The idea that “smart people with spreadsheets won’t let them lose money” is obviously wrong because they have done nothing except lose money, ever.

They get thier operating capital from funding, not sales.

Now, I agree that the gambit is wrong. So you’re right. You’re just right for the wrong reason.

Funding is just the cash value of market optimism for the future of your product. High usage props up optimism. Social media IPOs were valued very much based on active users, the idea being that more users meant more opportunity for profit.

The more people actively using these tools, even if they’re just maliciously burning tokens, just add to the “active users” metric. Which makes funding easier. And funding is the ACTUAL way these companies “make thier money”.

Minors can legally own shares of a private company.

I’m not saying THIS child does… and out of EVERYONE on the list that kid is entirely morally absolved anyways by virtue of being a little kid.

But, they can own shares.

Another payment option is not tackling it at all and just “paying the interest” by having a larger engineering team to wrangle the beast than you would otherwise have needed.

I can point to examples of many civilizational collapses based on comparatively minor climate abnormalities in the last mere 7,000 years, and can say with certainty the earth has gone at least 5,000,000,000 without being bombarded by even one gamma ray burst.

I think any alien civilization with basic math would prioritize the bird-in-hand.

They’re asking us to scale back our usage.

I give it another year. The markets are souring on it, big time. Unless something big and good happens w/ spaceX (because retail investors are underwater on that) the next set of AI IPOs are going to be a disaster.

Ask yourself why all these companies are scrambling to IPO now. Thier investors see the writing on the wall: it isn’t going to happen. The breakthrough. The singularity. An army of virtual workers with the ability to actually do the job. The only thing left for investors to do is push the IPOs to get any kind of return.

They think we’re at a peak of perceived value, and a higher plateau isn’t anywhere in the foreseeable future. Judging by how quickly ALL these private companies are suddenly interested in IPOs, I actually think they think they’ve passed the peak already and are sliding.

You gotta understand, the C-Suite, even the CTO, need to collectively “paint a picture” for investors. And that is art, and art is subjective. If investors wanna hear “we are prepared to leverage a new technology so that we can remain competitive”, then you gotta paint that picture. The buy in, the double down… take it for what it’s worth.

Did you think your C-Suite has ever actually been honest with you about plans, priorities, the value proposition of your work… anything really? Don’t ever confuse what they “say” with what the actually think or believe.

You SHOULD quit, I WISH I was in a position to do so. I’d spin by we could crack a cold one. Hella jealous.

Just like… for your soul… don’t think this is the new normal. Some neat and good and useful stuff is going to come out of this… but the impact that this tech will have on the workforce is being wildly overestimated.