Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

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?

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

Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

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.​

Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

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

Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

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

Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

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

Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

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

Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

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

Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

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

Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

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

Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

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

Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

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 > >

Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

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

Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

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

Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

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

Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

> > > > 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

Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

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

Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

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?

"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

Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

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/.

Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

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

Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

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

Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

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

Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

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

Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

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

Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

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