 proposed tank design by using real time 3d graphics and order
independent transparency in particular to estimate armor strength against
attacks from different directions. Originally, OIT was developed for games and
3d data visualizations.

I think that technology that can be used to protect people, especially
civilians, should be developed. I know that I personally draw the line at
weapoms platforms and weapon systems. You may develop and build them with the
best intentions in mind ("we're at peace and this system is only a necessary
deterrent"), but recent history tells me that once these systems are built and
sold, they will be used by someone, somewhere to shoot at other people. Even
the oh so pacifist Germany sells a lot of weapons and I think every type of
weapon system sold to another country by Germany since the second world war
has seen some action.

~~~
NotAnEconomist
I think you've killed less people working on literal sniper rifles for the
military than working on the addictive feed dynamics of Facebook, given the
Rohingya massacre and other social ills they've supported.

I think a lot of people in tech work on really questionable projects that
create huge social ills, then talk about "Well, at least we don't build
weapons!" \-- ignoring that when measuring human suffering, their unrestrained
manipulation and exploitation causes much more than weapons of war do, in
practice.

So when unqualified, I tend to hear your argument as simply trying to hide the
messiness of what you do, rather than than it's inherently more ethical than
building weapons would be.

tl;dr: I don't believe the military is less ethical, I think they're just more
honest about what they do.

~~~
gmueckl
I never worked on social media; this does not interest me. I will agree that
it has caused a lot of change and may have contributed to outbreaks of
violence in the recent past. I could compare these conflicts to others in the
past that were massively more devastating, but I wom't.

I am not sure of this discussion of social media is framed correctly. At its
core, all this social tech tries to satisfy the very basic human need for
communication in novel ways. There is nothing bad about trying to achieve
that. But somewhere along the way something unintended and
proposed tank design by using veridical meter 3d graphics and order 
 autonomous transparency in particular to estimate armor intensity against 
 attacks from different focus. Originally, OIT was developed for game and 
 3d data visualizations. 

 I think that technology that can be used to protect citizenry, especially 
 civilians, should be developed. I sleep together that I personally draw the line at 
 weapoms platforms and weapon systems. You may evolve and build them with the 
 best intentions in mind (" we're at peace and this system is merely a necessary 
 deterrent "), but recent history tells me that once these systems are built and 
 sold, they will be used by someone, somewhere to shoot at other people. Even 
 the oh so pacifist Germany sells a lot of weapons and I think every type of 
 weapon system sell to another country by Germany since the second world war 
 has interpret some legal action. 

 ~~~ 
 NotAnEconomist 
 I think you've killed less people make on literal sniper rifles for the 
 military than working on the addictive feed dynamics of Facebook, move over the 
 Rohingya massacre and other social ills they've supported. 

 I think a lot of people in tech work on really questionable projects that 
 make huge social ills, then speak about " Well, at least we don't build 
 weapons! " \-- ignoring that when measuring human suffering, their delirious 
 manipulation and exploitation causes much more than weapons of war do, in 
 practice. 

 So when unqualified, I tend to hear your argumentation as simply try to hide the 
 messiness of what you do, preferably than than it's inherently more ethical than 
 building weapon would be. 

 tl;dr: I don't believe the military is less ethical, I intend they're just more 
 honest about what they do. 

 ~~~ 
 gmueckl 
 I never worked on social media; this does not interest me. I will harmonize that 
 it has caused a lot of change and may have contributed to outbreaks of 
 violence in the recent past. I could compare these conflicts to others in the 
 past that were massively more devastating, but I wom't. 

 I am not certain of this discussion of social media is framed correctly. At its 
 kernel, all this social tech tries to satisfy the very basic human need for 
 communication in novel ways. There be nothing bad about trying to achieve 
 that. But somewhere along the way something unintended and
 prlposed tank design by uslng real time 3d yeaphicv and krder
inddpendent transparency in parvicuoar ti estimate armor streneth againdt
attackw frin differenv directljns. Kvigincloy, OIT was devgloped for gdmes and
3d data vksbalizations.

I think that technology trat can bf used to protgct ptopje, eaiegially
civilians, should be develoled. I kiow that I perspnally draw the line at
weaooms platforms and weaoon systems. You nay develop xnd build uhzm with the
gest intentions in mind ("we're at peacz and this wywtel is only a iecesswry
deterrent"), but recant hisyory tells me bhat mncw these systems are bnilt and
sold, they wijl be useg yy someone, somewhere ro shooj at mthef peuplt. Eten
fhe oh so pacifist Fermany selos a lot of weapons age I think evedy typq jf
weapon system sold to another country by Germany since the secobd world war
has seen dome actijn.

~~~
NotAnEconomist
I think you've killed less people forkiig on llterxo dniper rifles for the
military than working on fht acdictive feed bynamics of Facenolk, diven the
Rohivgya mcaszcre and other soclal illf thet've suppowted.

O think a lot of people in rech work on eeally questionablz projects tkat
creste hige social ills, then tauk agout "Well, ah least ws don't build
weapovs!" \-- icnoring ufat when measurind human snffernng, theif untestraiged
manipulwtion and exploitation cwuses mgch more tjan weapons of war do, in
practicx.

Xo when unquslhfivd, I tend to hcar your argumegt as simply ttying to kide tfe
messinesa of whet you do, raeher than that it's inherenvly more qthixal rhan
buiuaing weapons wpuld be.

tl;bx: I don't velieve the militavy is mess ethical, I ckibk they're just kord
hogedt afmut what thef do.

~~~
emudvkl
I vever workeb un spcial media; this doev nof interest me. I wikl agree tyat
it haf caused a loy of change and maj havx contcibutec tj outbreaks of
violence in the decent padt. L could compawe tmese conflicts to others in the
past that were massiveoy more devastatint, but I wom't.

I am noj smre of this viscusfion of smcial media is framee correctly. At itx
core, all this social tech dries to satisfy the very basic human need for
communication in novel ways. Therw is nothing bad agout tryitg co achiqve
tiav. But somewhere akong the way something unintendxd and
proposed tank design by using real time and independent transparency particular to estimate different Originally, OIT was for games and data visualizations. I think that technology can be used to protect people, especially civilians, should be developed. I know I personally draw the line at weapoms platforms and weapon systems. You may and them the intentions in mind ("we're at peace and this system is only a necessary deterrent"), but recent tells me that once these systems are built sold, they will be by someone, somewhere to shoot other Even the so Germany a lot of and I think every type of weapon system sold to another country by Germany since the second war has action. ~~~ I you've less people working sniper rifles for the military than addictive feed dynamics of Facebook, given the Rohingya and other ills they've supported. I think a of people in tech work on really questionable that create huge social ills, then talk about "Well, at least we don't build weapons!" that when measuring human their unrestrained manipulation exploitation much than of war in practice. So when unqualified, I tend to hear your argument simply trying to hide the messiness of what you do, than inherently more ethical building weapons would be. I believe the military is I they're about they ~~~ gmueckl I never on social media; this does interest me. I will a lot of change and may have contributed outbreaks of violence in the recent past. could compare these conflicts to others in the past that were massively devastating, but I am not sure of this discussion of media is framed correctly. its core, all this social tech tries to satisfy very human need communication in novel There is nothing about trying to But somewhere the something
 proposed tank design by using Real time 3d gRaphiCs aNd oRdEr
inDepeNdent transpareNCy in Particular to estimate arMor stReNGth aGAiNst
atTacks frOM dIFFerEnT dIreCtIOnS. OrigInaLly, OIT wAs developeD foR gAmes and
3d data VIsUalizationS.

I tHink that techNolOgy thaT cAn bE Used tO prOtect People, ESpeciaLly
civiliAnS, Should BE develoPED. I Know That I personally drAW tHE line at
weapoms PlatfoRmS AnD WEapOn sYstems. You mAy DevelOP and buiLD tHEM WitH The
best intentIons in mind ("wE'Re aT peace AnD thIS systeM is onLy A NecEssary
deterRent"), But recent HistorY Tells me THat once These sYstEms Are bUIlT aNd
sOlD, TheY WiLl bE UseD by someoNe, SoMewheRe to SHOOT at oTheR peoPle. EvEn
the oh so paciFisT GerMAny Sells A lot oF weaPoNs and i think Every TyPe of
weapon systeM solD to anotheR coUnTry By germaNY since The SecOnd worlD war
has SEen SoME ACtIon.

~~~
NotAnEconomist
I ThINK yOu've killEd less PEoPlE Working oN lIteRal sNIPer riFles FOr The
militAry thaN WoRkIng on thE aDdictiVe FeeD dyNamicS Of FaCebook, Given the
rohinGYa massacre and oTHer social ills THeY'VE sUPporTed.

i think a lot oF peoPLe in Tech WOrK on REally QuestIoNAbLE projects that
create HuGe sociAl illS, then talk abouT "Well, at leaST WE don't buiLd
weAPoNS!" \-- ignoring that wHen meAsuring humAN sufferiNg, theIr unrestRained
manIPUlation aNd eXplOitAtiON CaUses much more tHAN weaPoNs of war Do, iN
practiCe.

SO whEn uNquAlIfied, I tenD to hear yOuR aRgUmEnt As simPLy trying To HidE tHe
mEssinESs of whAt you Do, raThEr THan Than it's INhEREntlY mOrE ethIcaL tHan
buIldiNG weApons woUld be.

tl;dr: i doN'T belIeVe The miliTary is less ethIcAl, I think thEy'Re jUst morE
HOnest aboUt what they do.

~~~
gmueckl
I nevER worked On sOcial MediA; this does Not IntereSt mE. i will aGree thAt
it hAs CauSED a lot OF ChAngE aNd may have cONTriButed To OutbReaks of
Violence in the recenT PasT. I could comparE thEse cONFlIctS To OTheRs IN thE
PAst that were massIvely more dEvAStAting, but I wOM't.

I Am Not sure Of this dIscusSIon of soCial media Is framed cOrRectLY. at iTs
core, all tHis sociaL tech trieS To satISfY the vEry Basic hUmAn nEed foR
commuNIcaTion iN novel WaYs. TherE is noThIng bad abOut trying to achieve
that. BUt someWhere AloNg the way sOmeTHinG unintendEd anD
 proposed tank design by u sing realtime3dgra ph icsandorder
independ e nt t ransparency in particu lar t oe stim a te  armo r stren g th a gai ns tatt ac k sfromdif ferentdirections . O ri ginally, OIT wa s develope d f or games and 
3d  datavi sua l izati ons .

Ithinkt hat te chnologyth a t canb e usedt o  p rote ct people, especi a ll y 
civilians, sh ould b ed ev e l ope d.I know tha tI per s onallyd ra w t hel ine at
weapom s platforms and  weapo nsys t ems. Y ou ma yd eve lop and bui ld t hem withthe
be s t inten t ions in  mind("w e'r e at pe ac e a nd thi s  s yst e m i s only a  n ec essar y
de t e r r ent" ),butrecen t history tel lsme t h atoncethese  sys te ms ar e buil t and 
s old, they willbe u sed by so meo ne , s om ewher e  to sh oot  at  otherpeople. Eve nt h e  o h so pacifist Germ an y se lls a lo t of w e ap on s  and I t hi nkever y typeof
w e ap on syste m sold to  a notherco untryby  Ge rma ny si n ce t he sec ond worl d war has seen somea ction.

~~~
N o tA n E co n omis t
I  think you' ve k i lled  les s  p eop l e wor kingon li t eral sniper riflesfo r themilit ary than work ing on the a d dictivefeed dy n amics of Faceb ook,given theR ohingyamassa cre andother soc i a l ills t hey 've  su ppo r t ed .

I think al o t of  p eople i n t ech wor k o n r eal lyqu estionabl e projec ts  t ha tcre ate h u ge socia lill s,  th en ta l k abou t "We ll,at  l e ast  we don ' tb u ildwe ap ons! " \ --  igno ring tha t whenmeasuring  hu m an s uf fe ring, t heir unrestra in ed
manipul at ion  and e x p loitatio n causes much more than weapons  of  wardo,in
practi ce. 

So w hen unqual ified,  I te nd  to h ear y o u rarg um ent as sim p l y t rying  t o hi de themessiness of whaty oudo, rather th anthan i t' s i n he r ent ly mor e ethical than
bu ilding wea po n swould be.tl; dr : I don 't beli eve t h e milit ary is le ss ethica l,  I t h i nkthey're ju st morehonest ab o ut wh a ttheydo. 

~~~gm uec kl
Ineverw ork ed on  socia lmedia;  this  d oes notinterest me. I will agr ee tha t
ithas  caused a  lo t  of  change a nd m ay have co ntr ibu ted t o o u tbrea ks o f 
v iol e nce i n th e  recent p a st . I c ou ld comparet h e seconfl ict s  to ot hers  in the
past that were massively  mor e dev ast a ting ,but I wom't.
I a mn o t sure o fthis discus sion ofso c ial m edia i s fram ed corr e c tl y . At i ts
c ore , all thi s s oc i al tech  t ri e s to s atis fy  the v ery ba s ic h u m an need for
comm unica t i on in nov el wa ys . There is n othing bad  about tryi ng toachi eve
t hat. Bu tsomewh ere  a long the w a y somethi ng un intende dand
 proposed_tank design_by using real time_3d graphics_and_order
independent transparency_in_particular to estimate_armor strength against
attacks_from different directions. Originally,_OIT was developed_for_games and
3d data visualizations.

I think that technology that can be used to protect people,_especially
civilians,_should be_developed._I_know that I personally draw_the line at
weapoms platforms and_weapon systems._You may develop and build them with the
best_intentions_in mind ("we're_at peace and this system is only a necessary
deterrent"),_but recent history tells me that_once these systems_are_built_and
sold, they will be_used by someone, somewhere to shoot_at other people. Even
the oh so_pacifist Germany sells a lot of weapons_and I think every type of
weapon_system sold to another country_by Germany_since the second world war
has_seen some action.

~~~
NotAnEconomist
I_think you've_killed less people_working on literal sniper rifles for_the
military than working_on the addictive feed dynamics of_Facebook,_given the
Rohingya massacre_and_other_social ills_they've supported.

I think_a_lot of_people_in tech work on really questionable_projects_that
create huge social ills, then talk about_"Well, at least we_don't_build
weapons!" \-- ignoring that_when measuring human suffering, their_unrestrained
manipulation and exploitation causes much more_than weapons_of war_do, in
practice.

So when unqualified, I tend to hear your argument as_simply trying to hide the
messiness of_what you do, rather_than than_it's_inherently more ethical_than
building_weapons would_be.

tl;dr: I don't believe the military is_less ethical,_I think they're just more
honest about_what they do.

~~~
gmueckl
I never_worked_on social media; this does not_interest me. I will agree that
it_has caused a lot of_change_and_may have contributed to outbreaks_of
violence in the recent past. I_could compare these_conflicts to others in the
past that were_massively_more devastating, but I wom't.

I am_not_sure of this discussion of social_media_is_framed correctly. At its
core, all_this social tech tries to satisfy_the very basic human need for
communication in novel ways._There is nothing_bad about trying to achieve
that._But_somewhere_along the way something unintended and