I'm glad you got out, but given your vantage point what would you say to those who feel pressured to do these types of jobs? Would you say more "it isn't worth it" or "if you have to... but get out as fast as possible" or something else?
It is definitely ethically unsound and it is definitely a common example even related to Nazis. Similar to "just following orders". Which I'll remind everyone, will not save you in a court of law[0]...
You are abdicating your own moral responsibility on the assumption of a deterministic reality.
The literal textbook version of this ethical issue, one you'll find in literally any intro to ethics class is
If I don't do this job then somebody else will. The only difference is that I will not get paid and if I get paid I will do good with that money where as if somebody else gets paid they might not.
Sometimes a variant will be introduced with a direct acknowledgement of like donating 10% of your earnings to charity to "offset" your misgivings (ᶜᵒᵘᵍʰ ᴱᶠᶠᵉᶜᵗᶦᵛᵉ ᴬˡᵗʳᵘᶦˢᵐ ᶜᵒᵘᵍʰ).
But either way, it is you abdicating your personal responsibility and making the assumption that the job will be done regardless. But think about the logic here. If people do not think like you then the employer must then start offering higher wages in order to entice others. As there is some function describing people's individual moral lines and their desire for money. Even if the employer must pay more you are then helping deter that behavior because you are making it harder to implement. Alternatively the other person that does the job might not be as good at the job as you, making the damage done less than had you done the job. It's not hard to see that often this will result in the job not even existing as truthfully these immoral jobs are scraping the bottom of the barrel. Even if you are making the assumption that the job will be done it would be more naive to assume the job is done to the same quality. (But kudos on you for the lack of ego and thinking you aren't better than other devs)
Most of those convicted at the Nuremberg trials eventually had their sentences commuted and only served a fraction of their time. Only a few were convicted and executed. Justice rarely prevails.
I'm a noob at this, but can you do that when it is DoT or DoH? Like I thought the point of them is that you can't forget the DNS request. Even harder with oDoH, right? So does that really get around them?
If you're tracking packets can't you tell by the data size? A 4k image is a lot more data than a hash.
I do suspect you're right since they would want to reduce bandwidth, especially since residential upload speeds are slow but this is pretty close to verifiable, right?
Also just curious, what happens if you block those requests? I can say Samsung TVs really don't like it... but they will be fine if you take them fully offline.
> If you're tracking packets can't you tell by the data size? A 4k image is a lot more data than a hash.
I admit, I've not gotten around to properly dumping that traffic. For anyone wanting to do this, there's also a spike of DNS requests every hour on the hour, even if tv is off(well, asleep). Would be interesting to see those too. Might be a fun NY holiday project right there. Even without decrypting (hopefully) encrypted traffic, it should be verifiable.
> Also just curious, what happens if you block those requests?
Due to `*.roku.com` DNS black hole, roku showed no ads but things like Netflix and YouTube using standard roku apps("channels") worked fine. I now moved on to playing content using nvidia shield and blocking outside traffic completely. Only odd thing is that the TV occasionally keeps blinking and complains about lack of network if I misclick and start something except HDMI input.
Apple was the first $1T company, the first $2T company, and the first $3T company. Okay, they weren't the first $4T company, but also Nvidia is an admittedly freak situation and isn't in direct competition with Apple.
Point being, why fuck with a strategy that is working? Is being #1 so important that you'll throw it all away because of an unpredictable and outlier event that isn't in competition with you? That seems incredibly irrational and a great way to lost your market advantage. It is incredibly myopic.
> I’d rather pay an extra $100 for the phone than have ads all over it.
Wasn't that part of the deal with iPhones in the first place? You pay more for less but you get a "more premium" experience.
Though lately I feel like Apple is just really bad at being... Apple
It's like they are dumping all the good parts and doubling down on all the bad parts. Things are far from "just working", have more glitches/bugs, but at the same time they're increasing hostility towards developers and walled garden. At least with Android (or linux) I can fix any issues but with Apple it's more "fuck you, deal with it." This was frustrating but passable when it was more streamlined but now? God fucking damnit I swiped one word just fine but when swiping the second word you decide the first word wasn't correct and none of the suggestions are what I'm intending to type but pressing delete deletes both words and now I can't swipe the original word because you already decided I'm not trying to type that word because I pressed delete? This is version of Apple is just rotten... When literally typing on a phone is a daily frustrating experience you know you fucked up. I mean how long have they even failed to capitalize a singular "i"? What the fuck is going on over there?
Side note:
Try searching "Claude" in the iPhone app store. For me I get a half page ad for Gemini, a small result for Claude, and then a larger result for Grok. Literally the thing I searched for, and has an unambiguous result, is the smallest thing on the page! This is some bullshit dark patterns that is very anti-user.
I think if you leave authors alone they will be more likely to write in the first category rather than the second. After all, papers are mainly written to communicate your findings to your direct peers. So information dense isn't bad because the target audience understands.
Of course that makes it harder for people outside to penetrate but this also depends on the culture of the specific domain and there's usually people writing summaries and surveys. Great task for grad students tbh (you read a ton of papers, summarize, and by that point you should have a good understanding of what needs to be worked on in the field and not just dragged through by your advisor)
Agreed: information-dense isn't bad at all. It's a reason for peer review, though: people other than peers in the field have a much harder time reviewing an article for legitimacy, because they lack the context.
> However, I think it's high time to reconsider what scientific review is supposed to be
I've been arguing for years we should publish to platforms like OpenReview and that basically we check for plagiarism and obvious errors but otherwise publish.
The old days the bottleneck was the physical sending out of papers. Now that's cheap. So make comments public. We're all on the same side. The people that will leave reviews are more likely to actually be invested in the topic rather than doing review as purely a service. It's not perfect but no system will be and we currently waste lots of time chasing reviewers
I agree. OpenReview is a good initiative, and while it has its own flaws, it's definitely a step in the right direction.
The arXiv and the derivative preprint repositories (e.g., bioRxiv) are other good initiatives.
However, I don't think it's enough to leave the content review completely to the community. There's are known issues with researchers using arXiv, for example, to stake claims on novel things, or readers jumping on the claims made by well-known institutions in preprints, which may turn out to be overconfident or bogus.
I believe that a number of checks (beyond plagiarism) need to happen before the paper is endorsed by a journal or a conference. Some of these can and should be done in a peer review-like format, but it needs to be heavily redesigned to support review quality without sacrificing speed. Also, there are things that we have good tools for (e.g., checking citation formatting), so this part should be integrated.
Plus, time may be one of the bottlenecks, but that's partly because publishers take money from academic institutions, yet expect voluntary service. There's no reason for this asymmetry, IMO.
I cannot currently test the Mullvad browser, can you tell us whether it supports Ublock Origin or another competent ad-blocker (is there even another?). Because, frankly the ad-blocker is a make-or-break for me.
It really just is Firefox with more privacy tuning. As far as I'm aware all the add-ons work as expected. I've used it as a trial and can confirm ublock works perfectly fine but that's the only add-on I tested.
Also, it is bundled with a mullvad add-on, but it is easy to remove.
You should also go to the Privacy and Security tab in the browser. By default it is set to Max Protection with Mullvad DNS by default. Even their lowest security is better than Firefox. But I would suggest editing this the "Mullvad (Ad-blocking)" option. I believe this is the same DNS as adblock.dns.mullvad.net (194.242.2.3)[0], which (base.dns.mullvad.net (194.242.2.4) is better) will be pretty similar to PiHole style ad-blocking.
I haven't tested in browser (I did test when setting up my PiHole) but Mullvad DNS can be a little slower compared to quad9 or cloudflare. But I don't think those two have ad blocking (and DNS ad blocking can be better in a lot of ways because it is not being blocked user side)
Btw, you can do this DNS stuff in vanilla Firefox too.
(For those confused: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Russian_annexation_of_Cri...)
reply