September 10, 2016

Apolitical Technology

Filed under: WoT, bitcoin, kindergarten — thimbronion @ 11:36 p.m.

The Impossibility of Apolitcal Technology

A friend (with whom I’ve had some great email threads and IRC chats) is woke to the corruption of social media and discusses it here. While I agree with his accusations of politics, I disagree that any of the services can ever exist apolitically. I assert that any technology that assumes a value judgement is political. Steming from this definition is that any technology which either algorithmically or through operator intervention judges the rightness or wrongness of its product is political. Twitter clearly falls into this category, as well as the small printing presses of colonial America, or the large presses of 200 years later.

Some would say that it is possible to create apolitical software. How can, for example a compiler be in any way even remotely political? How can the considerations around its construction be anything but technical? Here is an example. Gcc is the compiler used to build most linux binaries. Years ago, a “technical” decision was made by a core gcc developer named Drepper to break static linking. This means that no useful binaries can ever execute on Linux without dynamically linking to certain libraries making the proposition of distributing signed binaries futile, making the proposition of secure software futile, making the proposition of Bitcoin futile, making the proposition of sound money futile, making the proposition of free trade futile. Whether or not Drepper is aware of the political implications of the of his technical decision is irrelevant to the fact of their existance. Nevertheless, there is a belief by technologists “educated” at ITT and the public equivilants that software can exist outside of politics. As a result the US has a legal system that runs on Word, a financial system that runs on Excel, and a voting system that runs on Windows.

And so I argue not for companies like Twitter and Facespace to renounce politics (that would be impossible) but for their opponents on the right stop using collectivist, totalitarian technology and start making moral decisions about the software they make and use.

September 9, 2016


Filed under: Uncategorized — thimbronion @ 11:34 p.m.


Inductive Reasoning in Logic

From Encyclopedia Britannica 1955 ed.:

Reasoning in support of a general proposition by consideration of particular cases which fall under it. Aristotle calls induction “a passage from individuals to universals.”


Deductive Reasoning in Logic

deduct - To lead out from

A rigorous proof or derivation, of one statement (the conclusion) from one or more statements (the premisses); i.e, a chain of statements, each of which is either a premiss or follows from a statement occurring earlier in the proof. If "A "follows from " B in the sense intended, the conjunction of B and the negation of A (in sumbols, B.~A) must be self-contradictory-a condition that does not apply to induction. (Buan adequate analysis of what is meant by “following from” or “being rigorously implied by” is a difficult technical problem.) This modern use of “deduction” is a generalization of Aristotle’s syllogismos (in Prior Analytics). But a syllogism (q.v.) is now recognized to be merely a special case of a decuction. Also the traditional view that decduction proceeds “from the general to the specific” or “from the universal to the particular” has been abandoned as incorrect by most logicians. Some experts regard all valid inference as deductive in form, and for this and other reasons reject the supposed contrast between deduction and induction.

From the logs:


Reductive Reasoning

Powered by WordPress