Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

[Thejaswi Udupa]

My column this week was triggered, so to say, by this thread.

http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/upstart-rewarded-responsibility-international-technology/article22797716.ece

Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

Should be fixed now 









On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 10:45 AM +0530, "Udhay Shankar N"  
wrote:










On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 10:26 PM, Tomasz Rola  wrote:

> Looks like the IP block of lists.hserus.net is on Microsoft's
> > blocklist. Not Tomasz's.
>
> That was my thought too, but I asked Udhay offlist for more
> details. No problem either way.
>

​Correct. I jumped the gun.​


​Udhay​
-- 

((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))

Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

[Udhay Shankar N]

On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 10:26 PM, Tomasz Rola  wrote:

> Looks like the IP block of lists.hserus.net is on Microsoft's
> > blocklist. Not Tomasz's.
>
> That was my thought too, but I asked Udhay offlist for more
> details. No problem either way.
>

​Correct. I jumped the gun.​


​Udhay​
-- 

((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))

Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

[Tomasz Rola]

On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 09:04:28AM +0200, Bharath Chari wrote:
> On 02/09/2018 04:11 AM, Udhay Shankar N wrote:
> >On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 7:22 AM, Tomasz Rola  wrote:
> >
> >Lo and behold, my connection has been cut off for few hours...
> >​It looks like your ISP is on Microsoft's blocklist. You should check with
> >them. See below, ​your message is bouncing to all silklist addresses within
> >the Microsoft universe:
> >
> > 550 5.7.1 Unfortunately, messages from [50.23.85.242] weren't sent.
> >Please contact your Internet service provider since part of their network
> >is on our block list (AS3140). You can also refer your provider to
> >http://mail.live.com/mail/troubleshooting.aspx#errors. [
> >DM3NAM03FT057.eop-NAM03.prod.protection.outlook.com]
> >
> >
> Looks like the IP block of lists.hserus.net is on Microsoft's
> blocklist. Not Tomasz's.

That was my thought too, but I asked Udhay offlist for more
details. No problem either way.

-- 
Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.  **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home**
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...  **
** **
** Tomasz Rola  mailto:tomasz_r...@bigfoot.com **

Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

That'd be IBM / Softlayer.  My usual long time contact there for security stuff 
quit along with their former CEO, and both of them went off and started a new 
company (Stackpath) with the 4 billion IBM paid him for acquisition, once he 
got passed over for the top cloud role at IBM in favour of a lifer IBM exec.

Stackpath is currently eating the lunch of quite a few outfits in the network 
security space, and most everyone is eating IBM's lunch in the cloud space in 
any case.  And a lot of the top talent at Softlayer seems to have moved along 
with those two to Stackpath.

So got to see who is left out there with a reasonable amount of abuse / policy 
enforcement clue.

If this isn't resolved I'll move my hosting elsewhere.

--srs

On 09/02/18, 12:34 PM, "silklist on behalf of Bharath Chari" 
 wrote:

On 02/09/2018 04:11 AM, Udhay Shankar N wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 7:22 AM, Tomasz Rola  wrote:
>
> Lo and behold, my connection has been cut off for few hours...
> ​It looks like your ISP is on Microsoft's blocklist. You should check with
> them. See below, ​your message is bouncing to all silklist addresses 
within
> the Microsoft universe:
>
>  550 5.7.1 Unfortunately, messages from [50.23.85.242] weren't sent.
> Please contact your Internet service provider since part of their network
> is on our block list (AS3140). You can also refer your provider to
> http://mail.live.com/mail/troubleshooting.aspx#errors. [
> DM3NAM03FT057.eop-NAM03.prod.protection.outlook.com]
>
>
Looks like the IP block of lists.hserus.net is on Microsoft's blocklist. 
Not Tomasz's.

Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

[Bharath Chari]

On 02/09/2018 04:11 AM, Udhay Shankar N wrote:

On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 7:22 AM, Tomasz Rola  wrote:

Lo and behold, my connection has been cut off for few hours...
​It looks like your ISP is on Microsoft's blocklist. You should check with
them. See below, ​your message is bouncing to all silklist addresses within
the Microsoft universe:

 550 5.7.1 Unfortunately, messages from [50.23.85.242] weren't sent.
Please contact your Internet service provider since part of their network
is on our block list (AS3140). You can also refer your provider to
http://mail.live.com/mail/troubleshooting.aspx#errors. [
DM3NAM03FT057.eop-NAM03.prod.protection.outlook.com]


Looks like the IP block of lists.hserus.net is on Microsoft's blocklist. 
Not Tomasz's.

Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

[Udhay Shankar N]

On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 7:22 AM, Tomasz Rola  wrote:

Lo and behold, my connection has been cut off for few hours...
>

​It looks like your ISP is on Microsoft's blocklist. You should check with
them. See below, ​your message is bouncing to all silklist addresses within
the Microsoft universe:

550 5.7.1 Unfortunately, messages from [50.23.85.242] weren't sent.
Please contact your Internet service provider since part of their network
is on our block list (AS3140). You can also refer your provider to
http://mail.live.com/mail/troubleshooting.aspx#errors. [
DM3NAM03FT057.eop-NAM03.prod.protection.outlook.com]


-- 

((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))

Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

[Tomasz Rola]

On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 04:23:22AM +, Ashim D'Silva wrote:
> Yup, I think we’re about done at this point. I do like that you’re
> optimistic about people wanting to know how things work—there’s just too
> much going into a device these days for anyone to know everything
> about it.

You are very kind (ahem!) but I emulate realist on this issue: some
peple will want to know, the rest will think it does not matter.

> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 9:26 AM Tomasz Rola  wrote:
> 
[...]
> > I guess it would be kinder to confine me and cut off my Internet, so I
> > do not go on bragging on mailing lists... which makes me look like I
> > do not want to play nicely and flow with the flow without objecting
> > problematic ideas.

Lo and behold, my connection has been cut off for few hours...

Ok, enough is enough.

-- 
Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.  **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home**
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...  **
** **
** Tomasz Rola  mailto:tomasz_r...@bigfoot.com **

Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

[Ashim D'Silva]

Yup, I think we’re about done at this point. I do like that you’re
optimistic about people wanting to know how things work—there’s just too
much going into a device these days for anyone to know everything about it.
And with machine learning, it’s going to be literally impossible.
Instruments to deal with unkind humans is really important too. And I guess
that means we’ll have to develop more structured ways to deal with unkind
technology and the humans that control it.

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 9:26 AM Tomasz Rola  wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 07:00:21AM +, Ashim D'Silva wrote:
> > Right, fair enough. Definitely a definitional difference then; that’s
> > specifically the use of a particular meaning of the word kind. Kind
> doesn’t
> > need this active component you mention—a deed can be kind, or kind
> regards,
> > as can climate or detergent
> > , kind on your
> hands. It
> > does however come from “kin” and that leads more into whether you wish to
> > have a kinship with your technology. Considering how much time we spent
> > with technology, I think there is a strange kinship we already have.
>
> Yes. But I am afraid the extent and nature of this kinship is hardly
> realized by majority of users. This gradually goes down to situation
> when we have more and more powerful tools about which we have no
> idea. Using expressions like "kind technology" is only going to lull
> us into thinking that we control something or understand it. The only
> way of dealing with technology that I can imagine is to understand as
> much of it as possible. Once we start telling ourselves this
> technology is kind, we may loose motivation (well, maybe not me) to
> understand "how it works under the hood".
>
> > To that end, it is the designers, the people, that are actively
> > considerate, but the medium through which they express their kindness is
> to
> > instil those values into the ways in which technology works.
>
> This is exactly how I would like things to be - people behind the
> wheel and kindly considering needs of their fellows.
>
> > How active that kindness will be in the long run as machines make
> > more decisions themselves is a continuing problem—the Asimov-esque
> > question, is it kinder to confine you to your house so you are not
> > harmed by the outside world…?
>
> I guess it would be kinder to confine me and cut off my Internet, so I
> do not go on bragging on mailing lists... which makes me look like I
> do not want to play nicely and flow with the flow without objecting
> problematic ideas.
>
> > That decision though, will not come from technology directly, but
> > from the values we give technology when making it.
>
> Here you seem to be extremely optimistic.
>
> > [...] Or we design technology that is inherently kinder, that is
> > harder to be misused.
>
> I would have been very happy if this came to be.
>
> > Both humans and technology have the potential to be unkind, but by
> ideally
> > we only control one.
>
> We have instruments to deal with unkind humans. We are totally caught
> by surprise each time technology does something it was not supposed
> to. By claiming that it is kind, we are merely making it possible to
> be harmed even more in a future, because nobody expects being hurt by
> kind person - but technology is not kind and it is not a person, even
> if we were calling it so. Just like a lion is not kind, even when
> tamed and fed.
>
> > For an example, the automobile was designed without safety features as
> > simple as seatbelts and crumple zones. Early lobbyists for the auto
> > industry fought off safety research because they believed cars were
> > inherently dangerous and was simply what the tool was. “Cars don’t kill
> > people, drivers do.” We’ve since been able to improve the technology
> itself
> > to be kinder to the human body, even if the human driver and the crash
> > speed is much worse. That is instilling the value of human life into the
> > way a car reacts to an impact; I’d say that’s kind technology.
>
> This is very good example, but it also serves my purpose :-). See,
> from time to time an airbag goes off (maybe because of an accident)
> and sometimes it breakes driver's ribs, nose or jaw. All technology
> comes with flaws. I do not think it would be good idea to claim that
> "kind car broke someone's rib". Actually, if a person was very nice
> for a whole year except this one day when he went around, picked a
> passerby randomly (including his family members) and broke his nose,
> then I could call him few words, but kind is not one of
> them. Actually, describing such guy as "kind" smells very much like
> Stockholm syndrome.
>
> Ok, I do not think we are going to agree on this, right? So be it. I
> am done, unless you have some other argument to convince me.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Tomasz Rola
>
> --
> ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.  **
> ** As the 

Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

[Tomasz Rola]

On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 07:00:21AM +, Ashim D'Silva wrote:
> Right, fair enough. Definitely a definitional difference then; that’s
> specifically the use of a particular meaning of the word kind. Kind doesn’t
> need this active component you mention—a deed can be kind, or kind regards,
> as can climate or detergent
> , kind on your hands. It
> does however come from “kin” and that leads more into whether you wish to
> have a kinship with your technology. Considering how much time we spent
> with technology, I think there is a strange kinship we already have.

Yes. But I am afraid the extent and nature of this kinship is hardly
realized by majority of users. This gradually goes down to situation
when we have more and more powerful tools about which we have no
idea. Using expressions like "kind technology" is only going to lull
us into thinking that we control something or understand it. The only
way of dealing with technology that I can imagine is to understand as
much of it as possible. Once we start telling ourselves this
technology is kind, we may loose motivation (well, maybe not me) to
understand "how it works under the hood".

> To that end, it is the designers, the people, that are actively
> considerate, but the medium through which they express their kindness is to
> instil those values into the ways in which technology works.

This is exactly how I would like things to be - people behind the
wheel and kindly considering needs of their fellows.

> How active that kindness will be in the long run as machines make
> more decisions themselves is a continuing problem—the Asimov-esque
> question, is it kinder to confine you to your house so you are not
> harmed by the outside world…?

I guess it would be kinder to confine me and cut off my Internet, so I
do not go on bragging on mailing lists... which makes me look like I
do not want to play nicely and flow with the flow without objecting
problematic ideas.

> That decision though, will not come from technology directly, but
> from the values we give technology when making it.

Here you seem to be extremely optimistic.

> [...] Or we design technology that is inherently kinder, that is
> harder to be misused.

I would have been very happy if this came to be.

> Both humans and technology have the potential to be unkind, but by ideally
> we only control one.

We have instruments to deal with unkind humans. We are totally caught
by surprise each time technology does something it was not supposed
to. By claiming that it is kind, we are merely making it possible to
be harmed even more in a future, because nobody expects being hurt by
kind person - but technology is not kind and it is not a person, even
if we were calling it so. Just like a lion is not kind, even when
tamed and fed.

> For an example, the automobile was designed without safety features as
> simple as seatbelts and crumple zones. Early lobbyists for the auto
> industry fought off safety research because they believed cars were
> inherently dangerous and was simply what the tool was. “Cars don’t kill
> people, drivers do.” We’ve since been able to improve the technology itself
> to be kinder to the human body, even if the human driver and the crash
> speed is much worse. That is instilling the value of human life into the
> way a car reacts to an impact; I’d say that’s kind technology.

This is very good example, but it also serves my purpose :-). See,
from time to time an airbag goes off (maybe because of an accident)
and sometimes it breakes driver's ribs, nose or jaw. All technology
comes with flaws. I do not think it would be good idea to claim that
"kind car broke someone's rib". Actually, if a person was very nice
for a whole year except this one day when he went around, picked a
passerby randomly (including his family members) and broke his nose,
then I could call him few words, but kind is not one of
them. Actually, describing such guy as "kind" smells very much like
Stockholm syndrome.

Ok, I do not think we are going to agree on this, right? So be it. I
am done, unless you have some other argument to convince me.

-- 
Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.  **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home**
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...  **
** **
** Tomasz Rola  mailto:tomasz_r...@bigfoot.com **

Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

[Ashim D'Silva]

Right, fair enough. Definitely a definitional difference then; that’s
specifically the use of a particular meaning of the word kind. Kind doesn’t
need this active component you mention—a deed can be kind, or kind regards,
as can climate or detergent
, kind on your hands. It
does however come from “kin” and that leads more into whether you wish to
have a kinship with your technology. Considering how much time we spent
with technology, I think there is a strange kinship we already have.

To that end, it is the designers, the people, that are actively
considerate, but the medium through which they express their kindness is to
instil those values into the ways in which technology works. How active
that kindness will be in the long run as machines make more decisions
themselves is a continuing problem—the Asimov-esque question, is it kinder
to confine you to your house so you are not harmed by the outside world…?

That decision though, will not come from technology directly, but from the
values we give technology when making it. It is more a utilitarian argument
that political oppression for a positive end goal is an acceptable stance.
Either we believe oppression is a tool, and we trust that all humans will
use it kindly for good. Or we design technology that is inherently kinder,
that is harder to be misused.

Both humans and technology have the potential to be unkind, but by ideally
we only control one.

For an example, the automobile was designed without safety features as
simple as seatbelts and crumple zones. Early lobbyists for the auto
industry fought off safety research because they believed cars were
inherently dangerous and was simply what the tool was. “Cars don’t kill
people, drivers do.” We’ve since been able to improve the technology itself
to be kinder to the human body, even if the human driver and the crash
speed is much worse. That is instilling the value of human life into the
way a car reacts to an impact; I’d say that’s kind technology.

On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 9:12 AM Tomasz Rola  wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 05:40:06AM +, Ashim D'Silva wrote:
> > >
> [...]
> >
> > >
> > > As of "kind technology", this is exactly a connection of words that
> > > wants to revolt my stomach. I put great value in useful technology,
> > > also in predictable one, and have great respect to those who can
> > > design it. "Kind", however, is not in my dictionary for such
> > > context. I would rather not hear torpedo boat or meat grinder declare
> > > love towards me. Of course, if this is what some people desire, it is
> > > their choice. My desire is to have screwdriver that does a job and
> > > does not ask me stupid questions. Or any questions at all, actually.
> > >
> >
> > Kind technology again might be a semantic concern. Your screwdriver does
> > not need to ask you how your day’s going. But a kind screwdriver might be
> > one with a grip developed for weaker grip strength, or people with
> > arthritis or carpal tunnel. The most efficient screwdriver might not be
> > that useful if you can’t grip it firmly and designing for a rarer use
> case
> > can be “kind”. Steve Jobs’ “You’re holding it wrong” comes to mind…
>
> This may be a fighting over words, but words have meanings. And "kind"
> includes the part which means "actively care". I do not want things to
> "actively care" for me, because if they were so "active" and on their
> own, then maybe one day they would decide to "actively hate" me, based
> on some unclear algorithm.
>
> I want _people_ to be kind towards other people and design screwdriver
> which is usable and accessible by people with arthritis etc. I want
> _people_ to be actively caring for other poeple's needs. I do not want
> to make _things_ to be responsible for wellbeing of other people, this
> responsibility should be taken by the people, for the people.
>
> I think we should be very careful when wording our wishes. And I find
> usage of "kind" for describing "technology" to be extremely
> disturbing. "Kindness" is not technology's task. Technology's task is
> to help solve a problem. Technology can be designed and built to help
> people with the problem, because some designer-builder is kind.  A
> person. In a future, there may be an artificial person, whoose caring
> I may accept (if it chooses to offer it), but I insist that this must
> be a person. Intelligent being. My equal. Not a car, phone or whatnot,
> which is equal to an insect, in best case.
>
> I do not want "kind cities". I want a city with lots of green areas,
> designed - if possible - in such way that majority of daily matters
> can be done by going on foot or by short (up to 10 minutes) commute
> with city transport. With houses built in such patterns, that wind can
> blow out smog. The "kind city" smells like city-sized prison to me.
>
> And I do not want "kind English", or any other "kind language". The
> language has a function, which 

Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

[Tomasz Rola]

On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 05:40:06AM +, Ashim D'Silva wrote:
> >
[...]
> 
> >
> > As of "kind technology", this is exactly a connection of words that
> > wants to revolt my stomach. I put great value in useful technology,
> > also in predictable one, and have great respect to those who can
> > design it. "Kind", however, is not in my dictionary for such
> > context. I would rather not hear torpedo boat or meat grinder declare
> > love towards me. Of course, if this is what some people desire, it is
> > their choice. My desire is to have screwdriver that does a job and
> > does not ask me stupid questions. Or any questions at all, actually.
> >
> 
> Kind technology again might be a semantic concern. Your screwdriver does
> not need to ask you how your day’s going. But a kind screwdriver might be
> one with a grip developed for weaker grip strength, or people with
> arthritis or carpal tunnel. The most efficient screwdriver might not be
> that useful if you can’t grip it firmly and designing for a rarer use case
> can be “kind”. Steve Jobs’ “You’re holding it wrong” comes to mind…

This may be a fighting over words, but words have meanings. And "kind"
includes the part which means "actively care". I do not want things to
"actively care" for me, because if they were so "active" and on their
own, then maybe one day they would decide to "actively hate" me, based
on some unclear algorithm.

I want _people_ to be kind towards other people and design screwdriver
which is usable and accessible by people with arthritis etc. I want
_people_ to be actively caring for other poeple's needs. I do not want
to make _things_ to be responsible for wellbeing of other people, this
responsibility should be taken by the people, for the people.

I think we should be very careful when wording our wishes. And I find
usage of "kind" for describing "technology" to be extremely
disturbing. "Kindness" is not technology's task. Technology's task is
to help solve a problem. Technology can be designed and built to help
people with the problem, because some designer-builder is kind.  A
person. In a future, there may be an artificial person, whoose caring
I may accept (if it chooses to offer it), but I insist that this must
be a person. Intelligent being. My equal. Not a car, phone or whatnot,
which is equal to an insect, in best case.

I do not want "kind cities". I want a city with lots of green areas,
designed - if possible - in such way that majority of daily matters
can be done by going on foot or by short (up to 10 minutes) commute
with city transport. With houses built in such patterns, that wind can
blow out smog. The "kind city" smells like city-sized prison to me.

And I do not want "kind English", or any other "kind language". The
language has a function, which is (mostly, I think) describing the
world and allowing mind to be put into more durable medium, be it clay
tablet or magnetic tape. Words maybe hurt sometimes but they can
hardly kill. Those who choose their language to be "kind" over
"honest" are idiots.

So, I would like people to be kind enough towards future people and
pay huge attention about what words we are using. I think it is better
to get one thing and be 100% content rather than to get two things and
be 50% content. It is not the same, because this other, unwanted thing
will keep stinging people for the rest of their days.

-- 
Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.  **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home**
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...  **
** **
** Tomasz Rola  mailto:tomasz_r...@bigfoot.com **

Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

[Tomasz Rola]

On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 11:54:51AM +0530, Srini RamaKrishnan wrote:
> On Feb 6, 2018 8:57 AM, "Tomasz Rola"  wrote:
> 
> > Frankly, the whole thread reads a bit surreal to me, to the point
> > where I wonder if my English...
> 
> > On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 06:54:52PM +0100, Dave Long wrote:
> 
> > On some other day, Someone Else wrote:
> > >"We are human beings, not human doings".
> > 
> > This may be very deep and wise and yet I happen to have other opinion
> > on this: those who do not do might as well cease to be and nobody
> > would be able to tell the difference. We are perfectly described by
> > our doings, including acts of thinking and acts of having
> > opinions (thus, a consciousness is defined by some "internal acts",
> > which might also manifest in the outside world).
> 
> Not that long ago European aristocrats prided themselves on "being"
> aristocratic, and any useful work was looked down upon. So much so, a
> frightful disease such as consumption was tied to the literary and poetic
> aesthetic.

I admit that "being proud" because one has been born into some family
is very shallow. On the other hand, at least some aristocrats became
very valuable human beings, because they had enough education,
resources and free time to push civilization forward, just a
little. And some, like Evariste Galois, have been remarkably talented
in their fields. Of course I would rather live in a society where
everybody can choose a career according to his/her own talents, not to
family name.

> Today we have become the opposite. People must work till they die because
> there's no respect or income in just being retired. Monks and nuns or poet
> philosophers are a vanishing race because they are considered lazy bums who
> can't contribute anything of value.
> 
> We ought to balance the two energies of being and doing because there's
> wisdom in both. The head and the heart.

It seems to me we have two very differing notions of "doing". Mine is
totally unrelated to monetary compensation. Monks & nuns "do" by
serving their god(s) and poets "do" by describing world in new ways,
both "dos" is enough for me to distinguish relevant persons from dead
matter.

As of head/heart - I perceive them as two sides of same coin, and in
well developed human this coin is already balanced. I think it
requires some work to unbalance it. I realize there is a lot of
mentally derailed people (i.e., among other things, "unbalanced" is
one form of such "derailation") but I am unable to help this in an
easy way and I have no time and knowledge to help this in a hard way.

[...]
> Compulsively being or doing is bad.

Yes it is.

> 
> Many people are engaged in compulsive doing today because that's how they
> define themselves. The ruling belief is that a human life is ab initio
> worthless, and each ought to prove her worth by doing something. This has
> destroyed a lot of social and family ties, and is the cause of distress and
> disease.
> 
> A human life ought to have respect and value in society regardless. People
> ought not to start out of the gate feeling worthless.

I very much agree. But in my opinion "people" should be told they get
dignity when they do things that are important to them. The problem
starts when "important to them" is part of what you describe as
compulsive. There is no easy way out of it, see above, but sometimes
there is a way to help one or two people. That is quite a lot.

> 
> Stalin would consign to Siberia those who didn't believe in communism.
> Today, the banks will have us living under the bridge, if we are lucky, if
> we don't believe in capitalism.

No, not really, I am afraid. Stalin, from what I have read, sent at
least as many believers as not. Or, their beliefs were among the least
important things. On the other hand, if you were a tailor and happened
to stick a needle in a newspaper, but so unfortunately in a place
where there was an eye of Stalin, you got five years in gulag (if I
recall correctly).

-- 
Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.  **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home**
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...  **
** **
** Tomasz Rola  mailto:tomasz_r...@bigfoot.com **

Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

[Srini RamaKrishnan]

On Feb 6, 2018 11:54 AM, "Srini RamaKrishnan"  wrote:

On Feb 6, 2018 8:57 AM,


[...]

Stalin would consign to Siberia those who didn't believe in communism.
Today, the banks will have us living under the bridge, if we are lucky, if
we don't believe in capitalism.


I tend to wonder about the little things that say a lot. When two strangers
are introduced to each other at a party by the host, it's almost a rule
that they are introduced by their profession, by their status or their
wealth or education.

I can understand that sort of protocol having value in a business setting,
which is by design transactional, but why in a picnic or in someone's
living room. This is purely the logic of the head.

The heart whereas mourns the lost innocence - every adult was once a child
who didn't care if his playmate in the park was well accomplished.

Globalisation and the technology that aids it makes us all strangers to
each other, constantly sizing up others.

There's almost no room for the heart, and I am saddened by this.

Capitalism with compassion does increasingly exist, where companies develop
something resembling a conscience when their bottomline is sufficiently
strong.

However it's an after thought that is preferably displayed in the glare of
the media. For humans it's who they are even when no one is looking.

Machines ought not to rule men. The logic of the banks, the corporations,
the governments are powered by the computers that have no room for the
heart. Yet this heartless logic bites men.

Currency lends itself easily to two decimal places, Bitcoin has an almost
unlimited fractional capacity. We are only learning to divide better, not
to unite.

With the advance of technology men are being made in its fashion, guests at
a party behaving like firewalls.

I heard second hand about a retired government official who was denied his
pension because his fingerprints didn't match the Aadhaar dataset. He had
banked in the same branch for years, the manager knew him, his colleagues
knew him, but none could help for the computer didn't know him.

Kindness, compassion and all that heart stuff obviously has a place in
human interactions. However when we replace humans with computers in the
pursuit of ever bigger ambitions we risk losing what it means to be human.

Another quote that stuck in my mind seems appropriate here, growth for the
sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.

Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

[Srini RamaKrishnan]

On Feb 6, 2018 8:57 AM, "Tomasz Rola"  wrote:

Frankly, the whole thread reads a bit surreal to me, to the point
where I wonder if my English...

On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 06:54:52PM +0100, Dave Long wrote:

On some other day, Someone Else wrote:
> >"We are human beings, not human doings".

This may be very deep and wise and yet I happen to have other opinion
on this: those who do not do might as well cease to be and nobody
would be able to tell the difference. We are perfectly described by
our doings, including acts of thinking and acts of having
opinions (thus, a consciousness is defined by some "internal acts",
which might also manifest in the outside world).



Not that long ago European aristocrats prided themselves on "being"
aristocratic, and any useful work was looked down upon. So much so, a
frightful disease such as consumption was tied to the literary and poetic
aesthetic.

Today we have become the opposite. People must work till they die because
there's no respect or income in just being retired. Monks and nuns or poet
philosophers are a vanishing race because they are considered lazy bums who
can't contribute anything of value.

We ought to balance the two energies of being and doing because there's
wisdom in both. The head and the heart.

A podcast app I like very much was perfectly useful and complete 7 versions
ago, but it's gone through several design iterations, bloated in size and
cpu usage. The cost of compulsively doing. I notice this at workplaces too,
where often the only way to get recognition is to launch something new.

Compulsively being or doing is bad.

Many people are engaged in compulsive doing today because that's how they
define themselves. The ruling belief is that a human life is ab initio
worthless, and each ought to prove her worth by doing something. This has
destroyed a lot of social and family ties, and is the cause of distress and
disease.

A human life ought to have respect and value in society regardless. People
ought not to start out of the gate feeling worthless.

Stalin would consign to Siberia those who didn't believe in communism.
Today, the banks will have us living under the bridge, if we are lucky, if
we don't believe in capitalism.

Silicon valley has fallen into the trap of compulsively doing deeper than
most others. The useful life of a computer was 6-8 years only a couple of
decades ago. Now a two year old smart phone is not new enough.

Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

[Ashim D'Silva]

>
>
>
> On some other day, Someone Else wrote:
> > >"We are human beings, not human doings".
>
> This may be very deep and wise and yet I happen to have other opinion
> on this: those who do not do might as well cease to be and nobody
> would be able to tell the difference. We are perfectly described by
> our doings, including acts of thinking and acts of having
> opinions (thus, a consciousness is defined by some "internal acts",
> which might also manifest in the outside world).
>

If your definition of do is broad enough, this becomes simply a semantic
stance. “Be” simply opens up the definition of a person to include beliefs
and dreams; things they want to do, or would like to learn how to do. If
you include that in what you call “internal acts”, it’s just words.
However, the question “what do you do?” often does not imply a request for
those discussions.


>
> As of "kind technology", this is exactly a connection of words that
> wants to revolt my stomach. I put great value in useful technology,
> also in predictable one, and have great respect to those who can
> design it. "Kind", however, is not in my dictionary for such
> context. I would rather not hear torpedo boat or meat grinder declare
> love towards me. Of course, if this is what some people desire, it is
> their choice. My desire is to have screwdriver that does a job and
> does not ask me stupid questions. Or any questions at all, actually.
>

Kind technology again might be a semantic concern. Your screwdriver does
not need to ask you how your day’s going. But a kind screwdriver might be
one with a grip developed for weaker grip strength, or people with
arthritis or carpal tunnel. The most efficient screwdriver might not be
that useful if you can’t grip it firmly and designing for a rarer use case
can be “kind”. Steve Jobs’ “You’re holding it wrong” comes to mind…

Opposition to the word “kind” might instead be “inclusive” like Jayadevan
mentioned. But Harnidh’s original question was simply: changes to existing
technology that serves vulnerable populations.


>
> > Thinking along these lines, and taking kindness to involve a
> > recognition of the human- (or living-)beingness of another, I might
> > attempt to argue that technology can be supple[0], but only
> > individuals[1] could be kind to each other ... or is this just a
> > luddite position?
>
> "Luddite" as opponent of technological progress? Where progress is
> defined as technological regress, such as stupid-smart devices prevent
> everybody from doing anything useful.
>

God I detest “smart” TVs that take forever to boot, and have the potential
to be hacked and used as pawns in DDoS botnets. Happy to be a luddite there.


> --
> Regards,
> Tomasz Rola
>
> --
> ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.  **
> ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home**
> ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...  **
> ** **
> ** Tomasz Rola  mailto:tomasz_r...@bigfoot.com **
>
> --
Cheerio,

Ashim D’Silva
Design & build
www.therandomlines.com
instagram.com/randomlies

Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

[Tomasz Rola]

Frankly, the whole thread reads a bit surreal to me, to the point
where I wonder if my English...

On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 06:54:52PM +0100, Dave Long wrote:

On some other day, Someone Else wrote:
> >"We are human beings, not human doings".

This may be very deep and wise and yet I happen to have other opinion
on this: those who do not do might as well cease to be and nobody
would be able to tell the difference. We are perfectly described by
our doings, including acts of thinking and acts of having
opinions (thus, a consciousness is defined by some "internal acts",
which might also manifest in the outside world).

As of "kind technology", this is exactly a connection of words that
wants to revolt my stomach. I put great value in useful technology,
also in predictable one, and have great respect to those who can
design it. "Kind", however, is not in my dictionary for such
context. I would rather not hear torpedo boat or meat grinder declare
love towards me. Of course, if this is what some people desire, it is
their choice. My desire is to have screwdriver that does a job and
does not ask me stupid questions. Or any questions at all, actually.

> Thinking along these lines, and taking kindness to involve a
> recognition of the human- (or living-)beingness of another, I might
> attempt to argue that technology can be supple[0], but only
> individuals[1] could be kind to each other ... or is this just a
> luddite position?

"Luddite" as opponent of technological progress? Where progress is
defined as technological regress, such as stupid-smart devices prevent
everybody from doing anything useful.

-- 
Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.  **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home**
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...  **
** **
** Tomasz Rola  mailto:tomasz_r...@bigfoot.com **

Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

[Bruce A. Metcalf]

On 02/04/2018 11:54 AM, Srini RamaKrishnan wrote:


Not my phrase, but I like it, "We are human beings, not human doings".


You remind me of a wise woman I once knew. When asked what she did, her 
answer was, "I don't /do/. I *be*. I *be* MaryLou."


Miss her.

Cheers,
/ Bruce /

Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

[Dave Long]

"We are human beings, not human doings".


Thinking along these lines, and taking kindness to involve a  
recognition of the human- (or living-)beingness of another, I might  
attempt to argue that technology can be supple[0], but only  
individuals[1] could be kind to each other ... or is this just a  
luddite position?


-Dave

[0] often preferable to its default of being more rigid than the  
systems it replaces
[1] as opposed to technologies (not to groups): it may well be that  
uncanny valley thing, but in fact, I prefer dealing with technologies  
that make little to no attempt to model me

Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

[Bharat Shetty]

On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 10:04 PM, Srini RamaKrishnan 
wrote:

>
> Kindness when it becomes second nature greatly improves one's quality of
> life.
>

Just adding a few thoughts:

Cheeni's thoughts reminded me of the talks given Tristan Harris:
http://humanetech.com/problem/. Managing this information overload and
increasing attention spans to focus on useful goals is one thing.

Also, as someone who is hearing impaired, I cringe every-time when popular
podcasts without transcripts are published. NetFlix and Youtube in large
numbers have ushered in captions en-masse which do help for majority of the
videos. However in public places (cinemas, airports, railways, hospitals,
office, conferences) there is no inclusive access to the hearing impaired
at large. They are bound to miss the announcements on speakers and oral
stuff. This is a space where kind technology can largely help and become an
enabler in a way it democratizes large sections of the the disabled
population, so that these people do not feel left out.

Regards,
- Bharat

Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

[Srini RamaKrishnan]

On Feb 4, 2018 9:19 PM, "Ashim D'Silva"  wrote:

I love that thought, thanks Cheeni. It's definitely worth keeping around as
we build things. It also reminds me that @jonnysun has made two interesting
Twitter bots that fit this conversation—@tinycarebot and @tinydotblot
They both really suit the medium well.


Those are nice bots. I'll add that kindness is a flavour that can be added
to any dish.

Everyday acts can be kind, like a retailer who offers a genuine discount
during Christmas, not to push sales but because it's the season of giving.

Kindness doesn't have to advertise itself, the very act is its own reward.

An amusing memory I recall from living in the US is the note at the end of
Federal forms that they comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act. It's an
act of kindness that would go unnoticed, if not for the legally required
notice.

Kindness when it becomes second nature greatly improves one's quality of
life.

Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

[Ashim D'Silva]

I love that thought, thanks Cheeni. It's definitely worth keeping around as
we build things. It also reminds me that @jonnysun has made two interesting
Twitter bots that fit this conversation—@tinycarebot and @tinydotblot
They both really suit the medium well.
On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Srini RamaKrishnan  wrote:

> It occurred to me that kind people make the world better regardless of what
> they do. Technology is only as kind as the intention behind it.
>
> Apropos vulnerable populations, nearly everyone is vulnerable somehow. For
> one unsure of one's diction, a dictionary is a very empowering tool. Or,
> for one who's insecure about looking good, a makeup tutorial app must be a
> great help.
>
> Intention matters.
>
> Facebook comes to mind as an example of an app that is incredibly useful,
> but not very kind. It has touched millions of lives, but the people behind
> it tend to prioritize profit over mental health and addiction concerns.
>
> In the Indian context, Aadhaar comes to mind as a useful but not very kind
> tool.
>
> To my way of thinking, kindness is a feeling that is approached from the
> heart and not the head.
>
> The head works on tangible outcomes and doesn't give much importance to
> intention.
>
> The heart is less concerned about what gets done and more concerned about
> how it gets done.
>
> Not my phrase, but I like it, "We are human beings, not human doings". I
> like to dream that the world will realize the value of the heart more
> often.
>
> I will now go back to lurk space.
>
> Cheeni
>
> On Feb 4, 2018 6:14 PM, "Harnidh Kaur"  wrote:
>
> Hi SilkList!
>
> I don’t think most of you know this, but I work in the development space
> and we’re always trying to find cool ways to make tech make the world
> better. I’ve been trying to read up more about the same. So, here.
>
> Is ‘kind technology’ a thing? Where people are trying to change gears of
> existing/incumbent technology to specifically serve vulnerable populations?
>
> Any existing ideas/something you’re working on/things you think SHOULD find
> a kind tech iteration. Gimme!
> --
> Regards
>
> Harnidh Kaur
> Lady Shri Ram College for Women '15
> St. Xavier's College, Mumbai '17
> Foreverawkwardandlearning.wordpress.com
> 
> +91-7718951383
>
-- 
Cheerio,

Ashim D’Silva
Design & build
www.therandomlines.com
instagram.com/randomlies

Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

[Srini RamaKrishnan]

On Feb 4, 2018 8:24 PM, "Srini RamaKrishnan"  wrote:

It occurred to me that kind people make the world better regardless of what
they do. Technology is only as kind as the intention behind it.


I thought a few examples might help.

A lot of the technology in the early days of the Internet was kind, before
anyone knew there was money in it.

Craigslist, Slashdot, Livejournal, and many mailing lists were catering to
communities that cared for each other more than most real world
interactions.

When there was no money involved, the Linux and open source communities
were incredibly kind places too.

Of course when it became obvious there was a good living to be made, greed
kicked in for nearly everyone. It changed people overnight from what I
remember. Founders sold their pet projects to media conglomerates while
insisting nothing had changed, and even valiant hold outs who "do no evil"
quietly shelved their utopian plans.

Small and primitive economies tend to be gift economies because it's what
comes naturally to humans. The larger the economy the more anonymous
everything is, and the less room there is for the heart.

Sacred economics by Charles Eisenstein is a book full of good ideas, (free
on the net), because economics and technology are very tightly wrapped
around each other. I'm really glad C.E. wrote it. I'd been having similar
ideas for a while, ever since I saw the FLOSS community unravel, so it was
good to hear I was not alone in my thinking.

Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

[Srini RamaKrishnan]

It occurred to me that kind people make the world better regardless of what
they do. Technology is only as kind as the intention behind it.

Apropos vulnerable populations, nearly everyone is vulnerable somehow. For
one unsure of one's diction, a dictionary is a very empowering tool. Or,
for one who's insecure about looking good, a makeup tutorial app must be a
great help.

Intention matters.

Facebook comes to mind as an example of an app that is incredibly useful,
but not very kind. It has touched millions of lives, but the people behind
it tend to prioritize profit over mental health and addiction concerns.

In the Indian context, Aadhaar comes to mind as a useful but not very kind
tool.

To my way of thinking, kindness is a feeling that is approached from the
heart and not the head.

The head works on tangible outcomes and doesn't give much importance to
intention.

The heart is less concerned about what gets done and more concerned about
how it gets done.

Not my phrase, but I like it, "We are human beings, not human doings". I
like to dream that the world will realize the value of the heart more often.

I will now go back to lurk space.

Cheeni

On Feb 4, 2018 6:14 PM, "Harnidh Kaur"  wrote:

Hi SilkList!

I don’t think most of you know this, but I work in the development space
and we’re always trying to find cool ways to make tech make the world
better. I’ve been trying to read up more about the same. So, here.

Is ‘kind technology’ a thing? Where people are trying to change gears of
existing/incumbent technology to specifically serve vulnerable populations?

Any existing ideas/something you’re working on/things you think SHOULD find
a kind tech iteration. Gimme!
--
Regards

Harnidh Kaur
Lady Shri Ram College for Women '15
St. Xavier's College, Mumbai '17
Foreverawkwardandlearning.wordpress.com

+91-7718951383

Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

[Ashim D'Silva]

There’s an interesting app I used for a while called Be My Eyes. Super
simple idea, both blind and sighted people sign up and when they need it
blind users can video chat with someone to quickly help them with something
that isn’t exactly friendly like identifying a can of food, or reading a
street sign or whatever.

Be My Eyes – Helping the blind by Be My Eyeshttps://
itunes.apple.com/us/app/be-my-eyes-helping-the-blind/id905177575?mt=8
On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 6:18 PM Jayadevan P K  wrote:

> This more like 'inclusive design'?
>
> Found this interesting :
> Bengaluru-based
> innovator Paul D’Souza has designed a grooved plastic plate called the
> Tiffy Template that can help the blind identify currency.
>
> On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 6:14 PM, Harnidh Kaur  wrote:
>
> > Hi SilkList!
> >
> > I don’t think most of you know this, but I work in the development space
> > and we’re always trying to find cool ways to make tech make the world
> > better. I’ve been trying to read up more about the same. So, here.
> >
> > Is ‘kind technology’ a thing? Where people are trying to change gears of
> > existing/incumbent technology to specifically serve vulnerable
> populations?
> >
> > Any existing ideas/something you’re working on/things you think SHOULD
> find
> > a kind tech iteration. Gimme!
> > --
> > Regards
> >
> > Harnidh Kaur
> > Lady Shri Ram College for Women '15
> > St. Xavier's College, Mumbai '17
> > Foreverawkwardandlearning.wordpress.com
> > 
> > +91-7718951383
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Jayadevan
> +91 98865 51061
> Writer & Head of Product
> FactorDaily 
>
>
> Follow me on: Twitter / Facebook
> / LinkedIn
> 
> "FactorDaily: Signals that help you read the future"
>
-- 
Cheerio,

Ashim D’Silva
Design & build
www.therandomlines.com
instagram.com/randomlies

Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

[Jayadevan P K]

This more like 'inclusive design'?

Found this interesting :
Bengaluru-based
innovator Paul D’Souza has designed a grooved plastic plate called the
Tiffy Template that can help the blind identify currency.

On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 6:14 PM, Harnidh Kaur  wrote:

> Hi SilkList!
>
> I don’t think most of you know this, but I work in the development space
> and we’re always trying to find cool ways to make tech make the world
> better. I’ve been trying to read up more about the same. So, here.
>
> Is ‘kind technology’ a thing? Where people are trying to change gears of
> existing/incumbent technology to specifically serve vulnerable populations?
>
> Any existing ideas/something you’re working on/things you think SHOULD find
> a kind tech iteration. Gimme!
> --
> Regards
>
> Harnidh Kaur
> Lady Shri Ram College for Women '15
> St. Xavier's College, Mumbai '17
> Foreverawkwardandlearning.wordpress.com
> 
> +91-7718951383
>



-- 
Jayadevan
+91 98865 51061
Writer & Head of Product
FactorDaily 


Follow me on: Twitter / Facebook
/ LinkedIn

"FactorDaily: Signals that help you read the future"

[silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

[Harnidh Kaur]

Hi SilkList!

I don’t think most of you know this, but I work in the development space
and we’re always trying to find cool ways to make tech make the world
better. I’ve been trying to read up more about the same. So, here.

Is ‘kind technology’ a thing? Where people are trying to change gears of
existing/incumbent technology to specifically serve vulnerable populations?

Any existing ideas/something you’re working on/things you think SHOULD find
a kind tech iteration. Gimme!
-- 
Regards

Harnidh Kaur
Lady Shri Ram College for Women '15
St. Xavier's College, Mumbai '17
Foreverawkwardandlearning.wordpress.com

+91-7718951383