GGretskovICD0006

Week 15 - Ethics

2021-05-11T06:41:00.005-07:00

Ethics

Act Utilitarianism

Act utilitarianism is the single most beneficial theory in the world, period. It narrates that the 'right' course of action in any situation is one that would grant the most overall positive net gain to every party involved (or the least negative gain). This means that in every case, following the theory would provide the most good - being, on a surface level, the clear cut winner. However, it skips out the individual part - as long as one person's individual suffering would pay for a multitude of other people being happier, then it is all good in the eyes of this theory. Furthermore, it is very difficult to quantify just how 'valuable' an action is to any given person, as everyone has a different measuring stick and there is a whole lot to leave for interpretation in these scenarios. But how does this tie into IT?

Well, for this topic, I will sadly have to be as bland as one possibly can be and talk about self-driving cars. I know, I know, very boring - but honestly ethics just aren't my thing. I am a very one-sided person when it comes to it, no matter how much I debate with other people - so I will always vouch for this. Self-driving cars are the most recent and clearest example of morality, and the statistics behind it are a great way to put a 'value' on any course of action or even a life. One great site that has come up with testing it is moralmachine.mit.edu. Using the statistics from the site as a baseline, we can calculate exactly how valuable the driver behind a car is compared to any combination of people, animals, ages, genders on the road. Getting stuck in an ethical dilemma does not provide any solutions - it only provides useless questions. Why are we even debating whether or not the driver should sacrifice his own life to save three innocent people? These types of questions should not even be debated over - their answer is clear, and anyone who says otherwise honestly seems like they are talking about justifying the murder of multiple individuals. A one for one example can be understood, but multiple people?

If we do not choose an ethical theory to follow, we'll never get anywhere significant on the topic of self-driving cars and other important things that AI will soon have to manage. However, this theory does bring out one issue. One that was ever-so-subtly hinted at way back in the day for example in the film 'Terminator'. Compared to the AI, we might be the most harmful factor. If we programmed all of our AI to be utilitarian, we would end up being classified as useless and be largely eliminated. What is the purpose of a human being once technological evolution catches up to the point where machines were able to learn at the same, or an even faster pace, than humans? Then again, what is the purpose of an AI without anything to provide for? Is the happiness of a human worth more than the environment? Is the life of a human worth more than the life of the native wildlife? Can we really even justify our own existence? Anyway that is the kind of existential dread spiral this topic leads into and it really isn't any fun to talk about, nor is it interesting to just write about without having an in-depth conversation with someone else. Everything in ethics is so incredibly subjective that the only thing a person can learn from talking about it with others is the others' views. That's it. No one will ever know any 'true' answer to ethics without also jeapordizing the entirety of society. It is futile. Just like our lives.

Hope you have a nice week :}

[1] - http://moralmachine.mit.edu/

Paper Review - Onions

2021-05-05T18:08:00.002-07:00

Onions can make people cry

The Form

Being the part of the article that drew me towards it in the first place, it also made me more skeptical towards the article as a whole. Whereas every single other project had a rather academic and concise name, this one had a name not perhaps very fitting of a regular Wikipedia article - instead seeming more like a journalist's take on a popular browser (Which the entire page reminded me of, though that is only natural, given that the light scope of the groupwork means going too in-depth is more of a detriment than anything else.

There were a few grammatical errors (Such as "Due to the bitcoin, the dark web has flourished"), but they were not all too prevalent throughout the entire page - one would assume that this entire thing was not really proofread either, given that it was mostly written just a few days before the final deadline. I am not sure if the group had a separate document file where they somehow shared and collaborated on their work (And if they did, why would one ever do that is beyond me), but all the contributions are made by a single person. If they really were alone, props to them for getting it done by themselves.

The Data

I was instantly caught by the "Dark Web: Unknown proportion". While it is true that we do not have knowledge of the exact amount of information in the dark web, we have a solid estimate (around 5% of total information). The most significant blunder was the description of the deep web noting that users need to use the hidden wiki to access the deep web. One would think that an article about the dark web and its browser wouldn't mix up the deep web [which does not require hidden wiki] and the dark web [which the hidden wiki is directly related to]. Despite the dark web being a subset of the deep web, it can really confuse people and it made me stop for a moment to just check if what I saw was correct. The deep web merely means that the content is not indexed to search engines and normally requires authorization or a direct link - that's it.

Aside from those very obvious blunders, not much negative sprung to mind. Everything was explained rather concisely and in a very clear and understandable manner using decent language. Every single paragraph was referenced (albeit some were very vague references which almost seemed like a reference for the sake of having a reference, even if it was common knowledge). Nevertheless, it made the text look more like a genuine Wikipedia article that is semi-trustworthy as it should be.

Structure

This is probably the best part of this article - it looks and feels almost like a real article without having enormous walls of text or pictures painted smack in the middle of two paragraphs (like some projects do). Everything is very clearly segmented and if I were curious about just one part, it would not be of any effort to find it and get a quick overview. As mentioned earlier, that is also one of the strengths of this article - the conciseness of it. There is not a lot of "talk for the sake of talk" and it serves its purpose of giving an uneducated person an express overview of the technology at hand. I do not know why, but it is simply just better to look at this than a few other examples. It might just be my preference for short text and consistent formatting, who knows.

Despite all that, the article is however a little short - which could potentially be attributed to there only seemingly being a single member, though if that is not the case, then it is definitely lacking. This also makes finding things to review or comment on a little difficult, since there's just.. not a whole lot of it - especially when it comes to the conclusion.. Does a wikipedia article even need a conclusion? It could also benefit from one-two more pictures, as the text feels dull without them and the only picture is a rather boring graph.

Conclusion

If it truly is the project of a single person, then it is a rather well-formatted and concise short article that conveys all the information it needs with just a few errors and plenty of references. If it is an actual groupwork, then it is cutting itself a little bit too short and bland, probably needing a few more vibrant examples and pictures to liven the wiki up. Nevertheless, definitely feels like a more-less solid and realistic Wikipedia article and that definitely deserves props.

Week 14 - Accessibility

2021-05-04T03:57:00.001-07:00

Accessibility

Lucy

On the same note as the forum topic mentioning eye tracking, I figured I would talk about something I have always been interested in for people with disabilities. I myself do not know any such people on a personal level, but I find this solution to be the neatest. I have always been interested in "eye tracking", but it can be a bit inaccurate at times, though I feel like it would be enough for most disabilities. However, there exists another solution as well, which works off the same principle. A specific example of this would be Lucy4. Pretty much equivalent to using eye tracking to control something, except instead of eyes, one uses their head! This is magnitudes more accurate than eye tracking and would even enable people with ticks (involuntary head control) to be able to accurately give input, lest the ticks are really extremely major.

Probably one of the main disadvantages I've encountered with eye tracking when I tested it was that it is really exhausting to use - it requires calibration and constantly keeping yourself in a very specific position so that the camera can actually track your eyes. Using something like a laser pen instead would allow the user to relax whenever they want instead of stress themselves out even more. It can be attached to whatever body part necessary, though it is meant for use with the head. It wouldn't really be as distracting as using voice commands (for an office environment, for example), and despite being made for keyboard input, it's.. it's a laser pointer. Come on. It's perfect for a mouse - a consistent hovering over an element could trigger a click or there could be some kind of external trigger (Probably the hardest part to figure out - how would someone left/right click with a laser pen?).

The problems with this though are the extra monitor required and the huge price tag, which makes literally no sense. It's a laser pointer with a screen that catches the laser. This should not be costing two thousand dollars, and I feel like any amateur who wants to set their mind to it could create something very similar at a much lower price point, which is something I feel like is kind of.. disgusting. Trying to gouge people with disabilities to pay more for something that really isn't worth its price tag in terms of functionality - yet not a lot of people think about these designs and cheaper alternatives are hard to come by.

However, I still cannot honestly imagine a more solid generic solution than something akin to a trackable laser that could be attached to any accurately movable body part (It doesn't even have to be that accurate, and it can definitely be very easily configurable). Despite all that, more specific solutions can still easily knock it out of the park if the user gets accustomed to them. My favourite example of such is a disabled CSGO person who has no hands, but is still really good at the game. Seeing him was probably my first gateway into looking at accessibility - he isn't even really using any significant accessibility solutions! (Given that he has to be able to use several functions effectively, as well as accurately control his movement and aim) [2].

[1] - https://touchthefuture.us/product/lucy4/

[2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZgUt7VHcis

Week 13 - Distros

2021-04-27T09:41:00.000-07:00

Distros

Arch

Arch, one of the few distros also well-known to outsiders. This is the only distro I myself have experience with as well, seeing as I decided to be real cocky and thought I was ready for the challenge. Honestly, what I did just reaffirms the main stereotype about Arch users. It is kind of notorious for being a 'hard' distro, but in reality it is a bragging distro. From my experience, and apparently that of many others, Arch users are obnoxiously loud about the fact that they use Arch - they shove it into every single conversation whenever it even lightly grazes on IT/distros/Linux etc. As such, they actually have a bit of a bad reputation. As for the distro itself, it's.. barely a distro, as far as comparing to others goes. It is barren, and that is its advantage - it is ready from the ground up to ~~use~~ set up! Every Arch installation is pretty unique in that it is designed by the person who installed it. Sure, other distros can be customized in such a way as well, but that would require replacing what is already there, and that is a lot more tedious than just building something from the ground-up. There's a reason why people often fully format their systems or completely start projects from scratch if they're not happy with it - it is a lot more smooth and zen to go from the beginning to the end in an even manner than it is to start fixing problems. That applies to everything, and Arch is the representation of 'not wanting to fix what is already there'. Arch is developed fully by unpaid volunteers, further reinforcing the mentality of picking something up and getting to work on it. If you install Arch, maybe one day you could also support its development? So other heavy enthusiasts get to experience the joy of setting something up from near-scratch~!

Live Raizo

Since I am a completely newbie when it comes to Linux and do not know a whole lot about certain distros in-depth, I decided to just search for some weird or more niche distros, and found this! It's a debian-based distro that is specifically made for network admins, coming with literally everything that could be needed to get started with it out of the box - both for messing around on a virtual network or on your network hardware. Speaking of virtual, the distro is built up with the tools to emulate both various networks and virtual machines to test around on - this is probably the main selling point of the distro and the reason to install it. It provides a very easy way to just get set up and start working on practicing network management. It also helps newbies such as myself by highlighting the most important parts of various commands, particularly ones related to network diagnostics. It was originally designed to assist in various networking and Linux admin courses in France, but is now available for everyone online :).

Week 12 - Ideals

2021-04-20T11:09:00.002-07:00

Ideals

Passion

Honestly, saying that "passion" should be an ideal to follow when choosing what you do is almost akin to saying that the sky is blue. It is utterly unnecessary as it applies to literally everything. No matter where you go, the phrase "you must be passionate about what you choose to follow" gets hammered into you, and it never really helps. If someone has the possibility and willpower to follow their passion, they will. If they don't, they will not. It just feels like bragging by people who have managed to land a good life with a profession that fits their passions.

Freedom

Definitely the most defining factor of the hacker culture, and one that is becoming more prevalent overall and is definitely a reason for more people getting into IT. Government censorship and regulations are becoming more and more restrictive, and even common people are getting hit by geographically locked content and starting to use VPNs to bypass that as well as gain more privacy. I would say this is the main reason people become interested in something like IT, especially cyber security. Most likely from personal experience and wanting to fight back against such oppression.

Work Ethic

This is something that we can see companies actually moving towards as well. A lot of the working process, especially in IT-focused companies, is becoming more freeform. There's a lot more comfortable and casual environments (such as Discord's workplace [1]) with an emphasis on hiring truly skilled people regardless of their background (also seen for example with Tesla). By making the entire working process more casual (whether by people themselves or company), creativity is increased significantly, which then further allows people to innovate and come up with new, exciting solutions to problems - rather than being forced into a strict, mundane routine where creativity decays.

Money Ethic

Honestly, I feel like outside of the hacker culture, this just does not hold up. People are intrinsically motivated towards getting money or some kind of value out of their actions. Even people who do charity and give away money etc [e.g. MrBeast] do it at least in some part for fame/influence and 'good guy points'. No one ever does anything for free, no matter what they say. Nothing anyone does is ever truly 'for the community'. True altruism simply.. does not exist in its purest form.

Network Ethic

I fail to see how this is all so different from the freedom section, apart from maybe having 'social norms' (which, by some, could also be seen as "censorship"?). The entire idea of having social norms feels a bit off to a culture that is meant to resist any type of social norms and focus solely on the content, not who it is coming from. Seems a bit odd to me, and perhaps even a little bit of an elitist double standard.

Caring

Again, this point seems to be so heavily related to another point, namely the entire money ethic topic. Though, there is some intrinsic value to the driving argument. A lot of people, both nowadays and in the past (This will likely never stop being an issue) focus so much on achieving a nigh-impossible goal and then going even further, that they fail to see.. anything else around it. They forget even why they are following that goal. Their entire life gets devoured by it and in the end, they achieve nothing. Even if they end up being the wealthiest and most powerful man in the world, they end up.. not having lived. They spent their entire lives reaching that point and have nothing to show for it in terms of actual content in their life.

Creativity

Aaaaaaaaand again related to a previous point, namely work ethic. Though a bit more loosely than the other ones. The trend towards a more creative society has been going hand in hand with work ethic, although the latter has been lagging behind quite significantly. No longer can you just get by on having read a manual and following its instructions word by word - it simply doesn't work. The landscape today is a very volatile and ever-changing one, and the truly creative and innovative minds are those who will prosper. Creativity must be encouraged, and that trend will only ever increase. It is probably the single most important tenet in this entire list.

[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hX9MOVIMYkg

Week 11 - Privacy

2021-04-13T09:21:00.000-07:00

Censorship and Privacy

Censorship - Hate Speech and the Western World

Usually, the West is viewed as a frontier for "democracy". A shining beacon for human rights and a general leader in how to treat one's citizens well. However, recently I feel like this is really going down the drain and the reason is one that I honestly did not expect when I was younger, but is painfully obviously used as a tool for censorship nowadays. Yes, I am talking about "hate speech". This wonderful, all-encompassing word is the main tool that is being used in order to drown out anything that the government or particular companies do not want to see. What exactly encompasses hate speech is immensely vague and that fact is becoming a larger and larger issue. With the UK making hate speech a criminally punishable offense and a lot of other countries following suit, it is difficult to see a light at the end of this tunnel, especially when companies are fast to follow.

My favourite case of this - one that happened several years ago but really started to spotlight just how far it has gone, was a video posted by someone with the alias 'CountDankula' on Youtube ~~that you should subscribe to~~. He posted a video titled 'M8 yer dugs a nazi' where he had taught his dog (as a VERY obvious joke) to raise his paw to 'sieg heil'. After a very long court process, which even included the Court of Justice of the European Union, he was sentenced to a fine but no prison sentence. The backlash by people was immense, with protests for free speech popping up and several public figures backing him up with the idea that "the right to free expression must include the right to offend, otherwise the freedom is meaningless". I have to agree with that wholeheartedly, and I am so very disappointed in Western sensitivity coming to a point where "it hurt my feels, even though it's not even about my culture" [Mostly it is people getting offended on others' behalf] is a valid reason for a court sentence. ~~This case actually pisses me off and I am truly worried for our future~~ [1]

Privacy - Facebook

You already know what's coming. It is no surprise to most people that Facebook is probably the most famous figure of collecting and stealing your personal data. A major issue that most even lightly tech-observant people have is where the data is stored, not just how - and that is where it becomes so painfully obvious that the current laws are not enough. Despite Facebook losing a case against the European Court of Justice on whether or not Facebook could store EU citizens' data in the US, it achieved almost literally nothing. The current privacy laws have a neat little contractual clause which allows companies outside of the European Union to transfer citizens' data to servers in their own country granted that they follow the EU Data and Privacy Laws, but is that enough? What if they decide that they no longer want to? Would there even be any real repercussions for malusing the data? The current ruling is obviously a rather unsure one, as a lot of people are concerned about the ramifications of the clause, but what would the solution even be? I fear for my data being abroad under such shaky foundations, but there really isn't much of a choice, is there? Companies drool at the thought of having local control over customers' data, and they will not stop at anything for it. [2]

[1] - https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43478925

[2] - https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/16/european-court-rules-on-facebook-vs-schrems-case.html

Week 10 - Mitnick

2021-04-06T08:52:00.002-07:00

Mitnick Formula

Technology

By a long shot probably the most advanced part of Estonia out of the three tenets. Estonia is rather widely known for having been 'ahead of the curve' due to taking a very IT-heavy focus after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and it is one of the only things making our country unique and stand out. However, even though Estonia has "internet as a human right" and WiFi all over the place, the security is often very subpar, especially in terms of training/policy. The ID card is the most important document for any Estonian, and the IT infrastructure surrounding it is rather immense. I do not have any secret insight to the inner workings of the card or the network, but I know that keeping it secure is a constant priority. [Even though, that being said, the software for it is god-awful and many people I know have suffered nonstop problems with it]. No matter what precautions are taken though, it is only a matter of time before another vulnerability is found. We were lucky to have ours discovered by P. Švenda back in 2017 and be notified of it, rather than have a malicious party stumble on a security flaw that would allow malicious parties to steal the digital identity of any individual. [1]

Training

The most vulnerable part of any system - the people using it. This is definitely not any type of exception in Estonia, either. Despite being a "technologically advanced" country, a lot of people who have access to restricted networks or just people who use the systems overall [E.g. the ID-card, which almost every Estonian is forced to use]. There is a distinct lack of personal training and I do not know how much it has advanced (given that my last four years have been spent either in the IT college or a high-end institution), but in my old school, I managed to break into the teacher wifi by literally just reading the back of a network amplifier that was in class - it simply just had the password written on it. This is.. the first law of IT security and it was so liberally breached. From more anecdotal experience, most teachers also fail to operate a projector - let alone manage proper security for their devices (often times leaving them logged on) and passwords (the back of the router).

Policy

Attributing to the overall IT focus of the country, Estonia really does try to enforce better solutions and more awareness with their cybersec policies.. at least that is what they claim. But then again, so does everyone. Estonia is so confident in their cybersecurity solutions that two of their primary strategic objectives have to do with maintaining international credibility and shipping out our solutions to the international market. There are several acknowledged flaws in the current system, namely the lack of cross-institutional situational awareness and insufficient understanding of cyber threats [2], both of which have a significant impact on the second part of the trinity (Training). Another big problem that Estonian cybersec policies aim to solve is the lack of new talent, though I fear that may not be solvable. Clearly Estonia has a reputation to uphold in terms of its IT, and the policies, at least on paper, try to reflect that. This is all I myself can say, as I am not very versed in the legal side of things - and any policies that institutions I have been to do have are really difficult to access/never explained or never presented.

[1] Infinion library security flaw - Accessed 04/06/21

https://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/307015

[2] Estonian cyber security policy - Accessed 04/06/21

https://www.mkm.ee/en/objectives-activities/cyber-security

Week 9 - HCI

2021-03-30T14:14:00.001-07:00

HCI

The bad

Ethiopian Airlines 302

Probably one of the most disastrous plane accidents in the recent years, the Ethiopian Airlines 302 flight was one with a very, very short life. The plane in question was a Boeing 737, which is a rather important detail to note. Most notably, it turns out that six months before the aforementioned accident, another Boeing 737 had crashed, the reason being a new MCAS automated flight system. Even though there was very heavy backlash to the plane being kept in service after that, it was neglected and thus, the second accident happened.

What happened was very simple - despite the plane managing to take off, one of its angle-of-attack sensors (A sensor that mostly measures the yaw of the plane) malfunctioned. Merely a minute after takeoff, after the additional takeoff flaps had been retracted - our lovely friend MCAS took over and apparently shot the plane straight into a diving position. The problem with the MCAS system was that it relied solely on a single sensor - which made it very, very prone for errors due to not checking for any sort of redundancies or backups.

Because the system itself was ill-known, not a lot was known on how to deal with it, other than an emergency response technique provided after the first crash caused by the MCAS system. Merely turn off the electronic system for the MCAS - it's that simple! Except, it was not. Flipping the switch also disabled the motor that would help recover control of the plane, and manually overriding it was nigh-impossible due to the aerodynamic forces affecting the trim. After having no success trying to manually overcome these forces for a few minutes now, the pilots reengaged the electric trim system - and thus also the MCAS, which instantly shot the plane into an even further dive - resulting in the plane crashing merely six minutes into its flight.

The system was a bit of a silly one overall, only having been designed to make the plane feel more like a previous model in terms of handling, despite the larger engines with different positioning. A mere convenience feature, but it was given such immense control over the plane that there was nearly nothing the crew could do, especially due to the lack of a good way to shut the system down - probably the most important lesson to take from here.

The good

Firefighter Exoskeletons

In my opinion, one of the most interesting accessibility technologies is one devised for firefighters (and soldiers). Despite not being for people that are already disabled, it is an important advancement in technology that sounds like it is straight out of science fiction. Rather than replacing a limb or helping someone disabled 'keep up', these systems instead heavily help heavy-duty operatives on the field further enhance their capabilities and be capable of getting access to places others would not be able to with the gear needed.

The systems are usually "air-powered", having a few compressed air tanks with the help of pneumatic pistons make it a lot easier to move around no matter the load that the wearer is carrying. Unlike the previous example, there is also an efficient failsafe (a quick release) mechanism implemented into the suit, as should be the case with anything that helps a person accomplish a task - it should always be supplementary and optional, never forced on the user.

Despite not helping prevent any accidents or something direct like that, an exoskeleton like that can definitely save a lot of lives and make the job of firefighters that much more efficient, especially if it gets to be proven safe over a longer period of time.

Sadly there were no IT related examples - they were all just extremely mundane or difficult to find, but I feel like there are lessons to take from these when implementing IT solutions. Something does not have to be directly word by word related to be useful for a person, and seeking for solutions from other fields is one of the first things one needs to learn ;)

Week 8 - Professionality

2021-03-22T13:48:00.001-07:00

Professionality

The topic of professionalism is one that is very vastly debated amongst people, especially when a generational difference comes into play. Far as my life has gone, that also holds true. This is perhaps one of the most prevalent things I have noticed in my interactions with my parents, with whom I actually share two generations of age difference.

I cannot say much about the past, other than what I have heard - and it certainly does seem to match a very 'traditional' view. According to most of the older generation, professionals were very strictly either one of two things, depending on who one talks to. Not to any major surprise, what people define as a professional depends largely on their own life experience and who they themselves are.

For example - my father, who is a rugged electrician and an engineer, sees a professional as largely practical. He expects them to be very hands-on in their field and does not care at all for 'professional speech' - solely results and work ethic. My mother, on the other hand, who had a more academic life and works in the service industry, sees a professional to be a more theoretical person. Someone who dresses up nice, gives speeches, and is 'pleasant to listen to' while 'sounding smart'. These views seem to be largely shared amongst their friend groups and people in their respective professions.

While that seemed like a bit of a tangent, it ties in with the IT profession just as well. Though I feel like back in the day, the IT profession was much more restricted and they were generally seen more like the latter (an academic, someone practicing the secret arts of technology), this discrepancy still existed. More laborious people tend to value practicality and work ethic more than anything else. They put in a lot of effort in order to get visible results, and as such, they also expect it from others. Clearly the highest factor in their opinion of someone else is how they view work and how 'effective' their work is. Usually a little bit more tempered as well, they are less receptive of bugs and issues and do not accept a more 'lackluster' approach.

On the other side of the coin, people in the service industry tend to appreciate theory and class more. People in a suit that say smart words (that might not even make sense) are the most appreciated there, seeing as it somewhat suits their line of work as well.

Now, far as depictions of IT professionals go, the trends should technically be linked with the timeframe. As we go from the past into the present, labor becomes more and more about 'thought' and less about hands-on work. So, one would expect that in the past - the practical view of an IT professional was more prevalent - where looks did not matter as much and functionality is all that people cared about, seeing a true professional as a smart, but most of all, a hardworking individual - and that in this day and age, a more theoretical view is prevalent - where intelligence is valued more than anything else and that a true professional in the IT field is more like a scientist.

However, the trends have actually seemed to be reverse (at least, in my humble eyes). When IT was more closed off, a professional in the IT scene was more 'rare' and 'unknown' - and, as we know from the past, the unknown seems like magic. Therefore, people working in the IT were seen as extremely competent individuals who were highly educated and performed 'wizardry' on technology. Nowadays, though, IT professionals are more often than not seen as rugged young people who do not always dress nice, or are just computer nerds. The reputation has certainly.. perhaps diminished a little bit. IT has become a lot more casual, and as such, professionals are no longer viewed as scientists, either. They are people like anyone else, and more often than not, they dress the most casually out of everyone. This backwards trend is very interesting, but perhaps somewhat explainable by people more and more needing figures that they can relate to, not look up to. That's just my two cents, though.

Week 7 - Netiquette

2021-03-16T12:57:00.003-07:00

Help keep flame wars under control

This commandment looks great. Six words, all short and tidy-I mean.. The moral looks great. 'Flaming' - the act of getting excessively upset about something and starting to insult other(s) around oneself in frustration is very, very common on the internet and its several forms, be it on forums or in games. On one hand, it helps to relieve the pressure and stress of the person who is flaming - somewhat like a type of venting for the socially inept. On the other, it impacts the moods of everyone around the person to a very negative degree. More often than not, the person flaming ruins the moods of everyone around him without even managing to vent off their own frustration - therefore it is universally seen as an immensely harmful act by everyone other than the flamers themselves.

The good

Helping calm down the person who is most frustrated (Or, at least, most publicly frustrated) can be a really difficult task, but managing to do it has a vast variety of benefits. At the very least, cooling off the flamer stops them from further diminishing the moods of others, at least for the short foreseeable future. It is also likely that, depending on the medium, some kind of trust or at least bond could be established with the person in question - maybe even opening up avenues to help them in a more permanent way. These types of people often have very deep issues of their own and are rather lonely at heart for one reason or another, and giving them company and a more controlled way of venting may be helpful.

Obviously, calming down does not go just for the original perpetrator. Flame wars are very rarely one-sided - even though one party might be the one to start it, others often make it so much worse than it has to be by interfering and trying to "win a flame war", not understanding that, much like in any other type of war, there are no winners. Therefore trying to calm the situation down can be very overwhelming - seeing as there are usually at least two parties, if not more, trying to insult each other to oblivion to win some kind of internet supremacy or make them feel better about themselves. When things have gotten so out of hand, it becomes very important to think if interfering is worth it or not - maybe the best course of action is to simply duck your head under the sand and not deal with it, especially if you have nothing to do with the argument.

The bad

Lightly mentioned in the previous section, interfering with a flame war can be a very dumb thing to do. Even though I myself can recall several times I have calmed down inters (Intentional feeders - people who try to lose the team the game as fast as possible because they did not get something they wanted), it is a double-edged sword. These people are often unreasonable and very hard to negotiate with, and poking one's nose into it can just lead to an even bigger flame war if one is not being cautious. It is very important to assess the situation and see if it is even worth it to interfere. One thing not mentioned a lot of the time about these situations is the effect it has on the person trying to resolve the conflict. It can be very, very emotionally draining to seek a solution for these situations, only to see it fail one after another. It is simply not worth it. Some people like to think about "the global average happiness" in these situations and whether something one does raises or lowers it - and I cannot help but feel that, unless you are a professional or very, very careful, it more often than not causes more harm than anything else. At best, destroying your own mental state. At worst, making the flaming so much worse and harming others' emotional state further. It is not worth it to interfere unless one is absolutely certain with a clear, rational mind.

Week 6 - Copyleft

2021-03-09T04:07:00.002-08:00

Copyleft

Having started out as a simple pun on the word 'copyright', copyleft soon evolved into an entire genre of funky iterations of copyright for technically free software. Nowadays, it is most often seen split into three distinct groups: Strong, weak, and no copyleft. There are some splinters, such as 'very strong copyleft', but those aren't formidable enough categories to stand on their own.

Strong copyleft

The most restrictive type of copyleft, it places a lot of restrictions on the further development of the software. Most notably of all, not being able to be made proprietary and experiencing heavy struggles when combining it with other software. Probably the best category for someone who is very adamant in the design philosophy of their written code - making sure it does not get used for 'the wrong purposes' or distributed solely with the intent of using another person's code to make profit for oneself. If a programmer is trying to write something that others could use in their own applications, but has a full set of functionality as an individual piece of software/data, then it is likely to be either strong or no copyleft.

Weak copyleft

Essentially what it says on the box - simply a weak version of strong copyleft. While it still requires holding on to original license, it serves much better for the purposes of being linked with various other programs or proprietary software. As already mentioned, it is very well suited for libraries. In essence, if a programmer is trying to write something that others could use in their own applications, but has limited or no full functionality on its own, it is very likely to be something with a weak copyleft - snippets of code or functions or tools that are best suited for use in a more larger engine that can make full use of them or improve on them. An example of this would be the WebKit engine, something that is absolutely essential in our concurrent day-to-day life - seeing as it powers most of the common browsers used nowadays, probably one of the few acts of kindness Apple has really done :).

No copyleft

No copyleft is truly "writing for the community". Without any derivative licensing limitations, anyone wanting to use snippets or full pieces of this data is free to do so and does not have to hold on to the original license at all. As mentioned before, any snippet eligible for strong copyleft is technically suitable for no copyleft as well, it is merely up to the developer(s) to decide on how generous they want to be. Continuity is solely up to the original developers or anyone who wants to keep working on it, therefore I fail to see how it would be massively compromised, seeing as anyone could pick the project up without any issue and work on it to improve it, modernize it, or simply keep up support for it.

This fully legal part of the week really was not all that enjoyable to me, and I apologize for the very mediocre blog post. Hopefully it can be made up later when more interesting topics come to play :).

Week 5 - Copyright

2021-03-02T10:32:00.005-08:00

A mess

The Pirate Party provides some very interesting viewpoints on existing laws, a few of which caught my particular interest.

File Sharing - Inherent Surveillance

A point that is way too often neglected was brought up here. To ban sharing copies of digital content would be to monitor the sending of said digital content. While a lot of places already do try to do this, they are limited in their capabilities and are not officially supported by the law in doing so. I fear for what may happen to our freedoms should official restrictions be placed on sharing things between individuals - as mentioned, it was completely okay in the past, yet is suddenly becoming a major issue.

B-but how will artists make money?

One of the main points brought up by copyright lobbyists with complete dishonesty. Big labels have zero regard for the artists under them - in fact they will do anything they can to leech off of them as much as possible. If one were to actually ask for the opinions of artists on publishers/labels, none of them would actually be positive. If at all possible, especially for smaller artists, they would prefer to avoid most bigger labels entirely. This backlash, to me initially, became evident ever since one of the musicians I follow creating a politically motivated song that had the intent to stop Article 13. [1] <--- A highly recommended watch by one of my favorite rappers that also received the support of many very, very popular content creators (It is remixed by grandayy, a popular memer - and it also has short clips with PewDiePie, Jacksepticeye, and Roomie).

The entire Article 13 fiasco sparked a heavy anti-copyright movement amongst artists and content creators, yet politicians are somehow still relatively blind to it. "How can we trust a robot that only sees the content, but context's invisible" - While this quote in its source is meant about the AI that usually implements copyright on the Internet, it actually applies very well to the politicians that vote for these laws. They do not see the actual people this affects. They only see the money, just like our mentioned Econodwarf.

DRM

DRM is an increasingly invasive measure to enforce copyright, used mostly by bigger companies to be able to be greedier. However, the sheer 'insolence' of these methods has not gone unnoticed. I am only qualified to talk about what I have most experience with - DRM in games. It is something that has become very prevalent with bigger studios, and it really seems to change how digital distribution works. No longer can you be sure that when you buy digital content that you own it. I am not sure how this kind of thing is even fully legal, but it is so widespread that it must be.. right? A tactic often used is "always-online DRM", requiring people to always be connected with a logged in account when trying to play a game that they purchased, but what happens when the servers stop being supported. As time goes on, we are seeing games completely die when their creators move on, simply because they require a connection to the main servers to be played, yet the main servers do not exist anymore - ending up with people who bought a product, yet have it completely taken away from them.

It has come to a point where games with DRM get review bombed and instantly plummet in ratings. Some big companies try to avoid it by implementing DRM a few weeks after the release, through the use of a mandatory update that brings it, though that is a disgusting tactic that brings even worse backlash. Distributions and developers are even using the lack of DRM as a selling point, and it works. An example that I remember vividly is a youtuber making a review on a game called "Star Sector", and providing a full copy/license to the game in his video for anyone to use. This actually resulted in very positive figures for the game, as people got to test the game out for themselves and if they liked it, they decided to support the developer - even though they technically already had the product. People were also happy about the developer's positive outlook on their game being shared freely, resulting in even better figures for them - as if one were to check the video's description, the developers even gave the content creator direct download links to share with his audience. People are getting sick of copyright, and the mob against it grows bigger and louder with every single annoying tactic that corporations use to enforce copyright. It is a nuisance that, in the case of many digital products, only reduces its value. [2] <- CD part timestamped, though I recommend the entire video - albeit it is a longer one. The game itself is set in a universe that has a lot of its aspects defined by very heavy copyright laws, which is mentioned in the video. :) [Also take note of the EXTREMELY long credits of the Patreon supporters - it is a very great example of people willing to pay for free content that they enjoy, Sseth earning 11,000 USD per video he creates]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvpWQkbyW2A - Accessed 02/03/21

[2] https://youtu.be/acqpulP1hLo?t=1033 - Accessed 02/03/21

Week 4 - The Present Future

2021-02-23T14:38:00.001-08:00

Trends now and before

The new global division of labour

One of the most commonly talked about trends in any business management class, this still holds true to this day. However, the scale at which this has been done is somewhat disturbing. A lot of the time, it is done with such carelessness that it leaves the people back at home without any jobs, seeing as they were specialized/had been working these more routine jobs for a long time and are perhaps even completely incapable of taking on a new job. To some extent, an example of this can be seen in Estonia with the old factories. Estonia focused so largely on being an e-country that it sold off a large share of its own manufacturing, leaving a lot of older people without any jobs [as well as the country with bad imports - mostly importing raw wood for example, rather than actually doing something with it].

Population aging

2010 [dark bars] vs predicted 2060 [light] EU ages

While there is not a lot to mention here, this also ties in with the previous section of outsourcing. The best people for creative, innovative jobs and the overall flagbearers of any shift in technology have been predominantly young people. What will happen to the EU when we take away the more routine jobs, but also face with an aging population that is more ill suited to be the pioneers of a more connected world? This also ties in with the fourth point of an increased welfare state, though, oddly enough, this is also being quite heavily pushed for by very young people [in their 20s] that have graduated from an economically insignificant major [such as gender science] and thus end up with low-paying jobs and university debts because they are unable to provide any real value to society.

The second phase of the information society: from technological to social development

The problem with any type of development has been that it is always a very careful balance between keeping the ways of old and integrating new into them. This becomes more and more true as the scale becomes larger - the resisting forces become much greater, and thus the change has to be implemented more subtly. However, technological progression is speeding up at an exponential rate, where the difference between 50 years ago and concurrent times grows larger with every passing year. I believe what is referenced here is the fact that our social development does not follow such a rapid expansion, and because of that, it becomes increasingly more likely for us to stumble on older values.

The advent of intelligent automation has been paving the way for the third industrial revolution for a while now, but are we really ready for both the horror and the glory that is to come with it? Albeit a bit of an extreme example, the luddites of old times [fore]saw the increasing gaps in our society that came with the industrial revolution. Although their methods were very extreme, their reasons were not. We can reflect on them in the concurrent era, complaining about the income gaps between the poorest and the richest, and yet the trends are hardly stopping. Were the next industrial revolution to truly happen, what would happen to those unable to procure a higher education/job? What can we even do? Should this progress be halted, or should we leave those worse off into the dust?

References:

[1]- https://web.archive.org/web/20170221105053/https://www.eduskunta.fi/FI/tietoaeduskunnasta/julkaisut/Documents/tuvje_1+2004.pdf - Accessed 02-23-21

[2]- Peter Jackson - The Luddites :}

[3]- https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Population_structure_and_ageing - Accessed 02-23-21

[[--I could have gone on for much longer but I was too scared to make this excessively long, seeing as commenting on any other trends would have resulted in at least another extra page, and it was mentioned that perhaps the blogs should not be overly long

Week 3 - Freedom, and its price.

2021-02-16T15:29:00.002-08:00

4chan

To anyone that knows this platform, simply hearing the name provokes a certain emotion. A lot of the times, said emotion is.. fear and confusion. 4chan is sometimes recognized as the 'dark web of the surface web'. Essentially, by a lot of people, it is merely considered a more serious/borderless version of reddit. With nearly no censorship, it is an anonymous 'bulletin board' that is a free for all outsiders normally dare not venture into. Even though times have changed quite a lot, I will mostly be talking about the 'classical' part of 4chan. The most famous part. /b/ and /pol/.

To anyone not familiar with its structure, these are simply subforums within 4chan. Two out of the total of 63 boards. However, those two... Are responsible for 4chan's entire reputation. They are the birthplace Anonymous, they are the brutal war command of the internet. The subforum names themselves seem harmless - /b/ standing for random and /pol/ standing for politically incorrect, though the latter is more understandable in just how it would end up as a brutal bulletin board.

In its essence, the anonymous and free nature of 4chan is responsible for everything that has come out of it and its unmoderated status gave birth to the dark side of internet culture. I am in no way condemning it, as I believe freedom of speech should be uncontested, but it is undeniable that some very dark events came out of it. It is also an example of why not to poke one's head into communities you do not fully understand, as these 'dark acts' are almost exclusively retaliatory or political. Instead of delving further into generics, I will simply talk about one of the earliest incidents of cyberbullying - originating from, of course, 4chan.

Jessi Slaughter

Perhaps one of the most known (and earliest) incidents of cyberbullying known to the general public. Jessi was a Youtuber that, at the age of 10, decided it was a great idea to start a public denunciation against 4chan [1]. To no surprise, the effects were pretty harsh, with her personal details being uncovered by 4chan promptly. It just so happened that there were rumors of Jessi dating the singer for Blood on the Dance Floor [David Torres]. This rumor gave birth to a myriad of images and videos mocking both Jessi and her father, the incident prompting the latter to start one of the earliest major public anti-cyberbullying campaigns in the media, albeit also provoking an even heavier reaction against the two by being part in one of Jessi's videos - evidently not the best idea in such an environment [2].

The incident resulted in several suicide attempts by Jessi, numerous sexual accusations against David Torres, and a failed police investigation. Though what happened is not justifiable by any means, it is a great representation of internet culture, and perhaps.. common sense. The original video by Jessi that provoked the reaction was heavily accusatory and loaded with swear-words [1], and serves as an example of the safety people feel behind the screen. The age of Internet has made people a lot verbose, thinking that they are safe and can go around insulting everyone merely because they are physically distant from them. Clearly, that is not the case - and this is one of the more high-profile incidents of that. The incident serves as a reminder that although you are not face-to-face with those that you communicate with over the Internet, common respect and decency should still be shown, or the consequences might be just as severe as they would if these words had been said face-to-face.

I realize this was a much darker post and a little bit all over the place, but I truly feel that the people advocating against freedom of speech on the Internet take the victim's part of the story, often ignoring the other side and what provoked the incident in the first place. Yes, the Internet is somewhat anonymous, but it does not give anyone the right to attack others through it. The perceivable safety of bulletin boards and long-distance communication has made certain people forget that, and sometimes they sadly pay a very heavy price for it.

[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajwoXsen6MI - Accessed 17-02-21

[2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEfY3kMnG4E - Accessed [17-02-21]

Week 2 - Failure.. and success!

2021-02-08T12:40:00.000-08:00

Academset

Technically just a more advanced version of the original Computing Center for Collective Use, the Academset was one of the only few examples of a 'decent' network structure during the Soviet era. Initially built only to serve the staff of the Leningrad Scientific Center, it began expanding during the late 70s, when various other institutions (such as factories), started becoming integrated into the network. After that point, it started growing more and more until it officially became the "Leningrad information-computer network of the SSSR" and was fully fledged into its 'final' iteration - the Academset, which also established links between the satellite countries under the Soviet reign.

The network had several issues, most notably the usage of the OSI protocol demanding a high amount of main memory from the central computers. After the fall of the Soviet union, the mainframe of the network was destroyed and Russia gained access to 'global' internet through Finland, thanks to a company called Relcom. Had Russia decided to spend more time and resources on developing this network, who knows what could have happened in the late 90s. [1] [2]

NSFNet

As a comparison to the Soviet network, NSFNet was one that actually manged to survive the rigors of time. The need for this network arose from the existence of several supercomputer centers that were established by NSF. The resources of the supercomputers were designed to be shared, however the bandwidth required for 'efficient' use of the supercomputers was beyond the capabilities of other existing precursor networks at the time. In '86, the network was brought online and connected all the supercomputer centers under NSF with a whopping speed of 7 kB/s. That, however, was not enough for a very long time, and was thus upgraded to 0.2 MB/s in '88. During its lifetime, the NSF offered free data transfer to all academic institutions that were able to reach it. Given the exponential growth of the amount of computers connected [More than 1000x more computers by 1991 than during its launch], another upgrade was necessary - this time to the fastest speed Internet network in the US: A 5.5 MB/s connection. At this point, due to the dissolution of the Soviet Union - the Russian counterpart of this network was destroyed.

A new era began for the NSFNet as well. Because of the rapid development of the internet, it started arousing commercial interest, creating a more familiar network structure to what is in place today - with multiple connection points for commercial networks, as well as an arbiter to oversee the network as a whole. In '95 , the backbone of the old NSFNet was decommissioned. Whether or not one marks this as the ''end'' of NSFNet is technically up to them, however the structure that it built up remains in use today, despite not being under the same direct name. As well as this, NSF still focuses a lot on improving network connectivity where it is needed - particularly to rural/poor areas in order to provide ''access to the world'' and the best study experience to everyone. One can wonder what could have gone differently had this network not been commercialized, and perhaps it could have even pioneered a movement for free internet for all - as per its original tenets. [3] [4]

[1] - https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/how-not-network-nation - Accessed 08-02-21

[2] - https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-94-009-3647-8 - Accessed 08-02-21

[3] - http://www.cybertelecom.org/notes/nsfnet.htm - Accessed 08-02-21

[4] - https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=103050 - Accessed 08-02-21

Week 1 - Failure.

2021-02-02T09:07:00.004-08:00

"Behind every success, are lots of failures"

Navdy

The goal of the company was to 'revolutionize automotive navigation'. They attempted to do this through the use of a HUD which would show various types of data to the user (Such as navigational data and the like). The point of the device was to make sure people would keep their eyes on the road, rather than peek down at their phones every now and then to check the map. It was meant to be configurable through a mobile app, and that was all the mobile input that was required - no looking at the device while driving. The reason for their failure was twofold: Money and actual usability.

While the idea itself sounds neat, the original price of $799 was far too great for the 'average Joe' that the product was aimed towards. Even though the price was soon cut down to $499, people started complaining about its actual usefulness. It turned out that the display itself would actually impair the user's line of view, unlike its high-end competitors that were inbuilt in more expensive vehicles - at which point a phone mount would have resulted in less direction than the HUD created to keep attention on the road. The final, albeit large nail in the coffin was their decision to try and make their own navigation system - something even the 'top dogs' of the business struggle with. It created unnecessary costs and diluted the production process, leading to the project's eventual demise in 2018. [1][2]

Ouya

Perhaps a great example of the complicated nature of the gap between expectations and reality is the massive mess that was Ouya. Ouya was marketed as a console for people who truly value gaming. It wanted to prove that concurrent gaming systems were vastly overpriced and that consumers should not be paying for them. During its kickstarter, it showed off a dozen seemingly great ideas, a polished user interface, and a meticulously designed controller - all backed by a company that 'cares about gamers'. It met its kickstarter goal nearly tenfold, yet it was one of the most legendary blunders in the gaming industry.

Its main cause of downfall was its 'best' feature. During the entire kickstarter process, one of the advertised tenets of the system was "Try it before you buy it. Every game is free, at least to try". This was later pulled back and cancelled, but I dare say it was their biggest mistake. It resulted in there being no actual games for the system for anyone to play. This entire promise made their target clientele a group of people who do not want to buy games. That, in turn, meant that developers had no incentive to create anything for the system. Why would anyone in their right mind devise a game for a small, vulnerable niche system and have their game played for free/cracked easily on the platform, if they could instead make a game for Steam or the PlayStation? The facts speak for themselves, and the return multi-platform developers earned, even per user, was abysmal on Ouya compared to platforms where a free trial/version was not forced. There are multiple other reasons for their failure, such as the actual rift the company had with its consumerbase (Every interview making it more and more apparent that they were entirely clueless on what gamers want and do), as well as the cheap quality and failure to keep promises despite meeting their funding goal several fold.

Microsoft Bob

The goal of Microsoft Bob was to make navigating a personal computer easier and more familiar. It replaced the desktop with a house that contained multiple rooms that the consumer could visit. These rooms contained familiar items such as a pen and paper or a clock - opening wordpad or telling the user the time, respectively. The program also featured a guide dog named Rover, who later made a 'cameo' in XP's "Search companions" feature. Despite being ahead of its time and being an amazing example of 'social interfacing', Bob was quite a heavy failure as it was criticized by both the media and its users.

One of the main reasons for its failure was that, even though its purpose was to replace the supposedly complicated 'desktop', it ended up being more complicated than what it sought to improve - requiring reading several manuals and books to master it. Another reason is that the application was customizable - which in its essence is a great thing, but there was no way to share one's unique creation. The rooms/house were your own. Unless someone else were to visit the user physically, all the effort would be wasted - there was no reason to try and customize this virtual house, as there was no one to differ from. To add on top of this, Microsoft's various 'helpers' are notorious for being.. downright annoying. This is something nearly everyone who has browsed the internet in the early 2010s can agree on, seeing the memes of the infamous clipboard. [5] [6]

[1] - https://www.failory.com/cemetery/navdy . Accessed at 02-02-2021.

[2] - https://businessinsight.blog/2018/11/11/reasons-why-hot-tech-startup-navdy-failed-and-what-we-can-learn/ . Accessed at 02-02-2021.

[3] https://www.xda-developers.com/a-look-back-at-the-ouya-a-tale-of-failure/ - Accessed at 02-02-2021

[4] https://slidebean.com/blog/startups-what-happened-with-ouya - Accessed at 02-02-2021

[5] https://www.technologizer.com/2010/03/29/a-guided-tour-of-microsoft-bob/6/ - Accessed at 02-02-2021

[6] https://web.archive.org/web/20050814234847/http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifeobsoleteproducts - Accessed at 02-02-2021

Test1

2021-02-02T08:25:00.000-08:00

Test1