Now you will find a lot well paid experts that tell you the opposite of what I am to argue here as they will always point out that a computer cannot make an ethical judgement. As such the support all the traditional product that need selling, however they often forget that humans also cannot make ethical judgements as virtually all areas of life are regulated today and we are often left deciding actually near to nil in terms of ethics.
Computers will always know laws better and the exact cases adaptable to each situation. However the same experts will argue that you will end up in impossible solutions where you have to decided on one wrong against theÂ other wrong, such as the prisoners dilemma. However they again ignore two crucial facts. The first is that most of the situations first occur because as humans we have overstepped certain regulations, such as driving 5 miles per hour too fast and being unable to stop in our area of sight, while a computer can adopt mathematically. The other one is that a computer is not a human and as such is not driven by a psychological pressure that first creates a dilemma, but instead can act in a way that will avoid the dilemmas that are all build on the human behavioural concept. So aÂ computer can make much cleaner ethical decisions, but they will not be political correct.
With collective wrongdoing such as the car emission fraud, we are seeing the same old picture where a lot of people are participating in it or have seen something suspicious and no-one is reporting anything. This kind of collective wrongdoing works as the last 100 years have shown that no-one will be prosecuted for this. And as such it works pretty well even if most people ignore it. I will even go as far as to say we all participate in some wrong doing, often not fraud , but moral border cases such as not allowing refugees in the neighbourhood we need to follow some guide lines in our collective interaction.
The first is you need to draw up your own morals and at least be able to describe to yourself the red lines you will not cross. You might revise those lines, but you need to open with yourself unless you are keen to get physical and mental problems. Areas that you need to think about are those of Family where you need a joint moral base. Those of professional integrity, your personal moral red lines and finally those of legacy as we all want to be remembered for something.
Also on the legal side be sure that you cannot be used as a scape goat, as it is very seldom the initiator that is later blamed and sent to prison. So collect email by printing them out especially when printing out is discouraged and also get rid of the notion that agreement on wrongdoings will help your career as it usually does the opposite.
Yes I am talking about a cloth made out of flax here to show my own stupidity and naivetÃ©, but I will come to that later.
Linen as such absorbs and releases moisture better than any other natural or artificial cloth. It is also completely anti static and as such it rejects most dirt. It is also the only textile that is bactericidal by nature and eliminates as such not a lot of bacteria, but also the smell they usually create. Linen cloth also lasts longer than any other natural textile (with some linen survived 2000 years in tombs). However up to 10 years it was very hard to dye and more important it is non elastic,Â so you cannot iron it well as well not spin it to pre dry it. Up to 300 years ago linen was the the the de facto cloth for the masses and then it was pushed away by cotton due to a lot of factors. Most linen that you can buy to is no linen, but cotton or a cotton mix. Actually just last week I have bought a 100 % linen shirt, just to find out on a very small label that it is 90% cotton and 8% elastic and 2% linen.
Now I am 50 year+ old sweating male and I have always battled with this. I have told everyone that usually there is no help and as such have offended a lot of noses around me. I have told people that nothing really helps, not even the fancy anti sweat expensive artificial textiles. The problem was that I was more opinionated than actually open to experiment on my own. This has shown me that despite me claiming to be a critical thinker I am often just the opposite.
I have another past time being interested in day to day live of people 500 years + in history and I have written a lot on their bad hygiene and often told people that the people described in Johnsonâs London were backward as they were not using antiperspirants that were known about for 2000 years. In the same way I also jugged people in the middle ages to be dirty all the time. Here again I have just not investigated properly as with linen a lot of this would not have been required, nor people would have been dirty, apart from the obvious missing sanitation in none Roman time.
So now I hope that I will have learnt my lesson.
We all try to avoid certain stress such as spending a lot of time in shopping and even if you are an shopaholic you are still caught in the commitment of choosing the right item. If you only shop for yourself without being criticised on the items it tends to be easy, but then it is rare for you today to life in total isolation. The easiest thing therefore is to either return and buy the same thing again and again or mail-order items that you can show for inspection and as such limit the stress. Actually the stress in chasing wrong outfits can lead to severe mental illness, where the subject is often very different. You can experience this quite easy by asking any male why he chose to wear his present shoes. While woman will not react too sensible on shoes, men usually do. With women it is the clothing, the hairstyle and many other areas.
Once you understand the kind of stress you can get into please also be aware of the crippling effects of evaluating your last purchases as it usually only takes one close person with an opposing idea to destroy a lot of mental stability. So please delete all these evaluation especially since if you write a negative the vendor will often flood you with unpleasant mail, while if you endorse a bad product, friends will raise your integrity as they spent money on a a bad product you have endorsed. So only evaluate a product if you are willing and strong enough to life with all the potential consequences.
When I talk about benevolence I am talking of the disposition to be good. The disposition I define as the tendency to act in certain way. I am not taking about Omnibenevolence, as to be good or ultimate in many belief system in being God.
Benevolence is a tendency that was cut down as evil 200 years ago as we should be accountable in being good and any wriggle room in ethical decisions should be eliminated. The problem with being good however is that it is seldom all black or white and additionally we as human work better with a tendency than with an absolute as an absolute will often make us passive, which then again may turn out to be evil in our belief system. Additionally we have also developed a strong moral attributes that dictate that any person who is not good in all dealing is a hypocrite.
However everyone who wants to stay sane and free of stress will experience that absolutes are quite nice at formulation, but usually never work, so instead we are often writing meaningless values to make sure that we are not committing to anything. However all this leaves a bad taste. So I am arguing to actually return to benevolence as the tendency of doing good and to give up on all the absolutes as the only way to both be ethical and stay sane.
Technology is a tool and while with all tools it only facilitates benefits or other causes (may they be seen ethical or not). Economic bubbles are usually created by an overestimation of a need over a pseudo need. As such you will often find them with real estate as the need is usually hard to measure. Other pseudo needs have been manifested in the first economic bubble some hundreds of years ago such as the tulip bubble in 1637.
Pseudo needs create the most interesting bubbles as most kids can unmask them quite easily, many adults on the other hand are blinded by greed. As such it is important not to be blinded by greed that often searches for areas applicable for a technology instead of searching for answers on problems that have no solutions so far. It is also important to understand that new technology may not be used. Despite of that we still need to research and sponsor technology while all profitable technology was based on serendipity not investing in technology never created new technology.
â Attention to health is lifeâs greatest hinderance. â Â Â PLATO
We all somehow expect to be helped with being hindered, but it reality any help is a hinderance for someone else. So when you use a suggestion based SMS the same will drive me nuts and hinder me in my day to day communication. Help in general always limits our expression and creativity and that is also the reason for many endless arguments in relationships, as help is both required and help in the form of hinderance is also rejected as a direct violation to one owns expression.
The same usually happens with a lot of mentoring, helping in business and honest advice, where you may be rejected even if you act from the purest of motives. The important point is to only help people long assignments who are aware that help may turn in hinderance. The same also applies when using many tools in the net.
When talking about acceptance it is important to point out that we are really talking about 4 very different areas:
- Self Acceptance
- Social Acceptance ((both in family and society)
- Conditional Acceptance
- Implied Acceptance (e.g. done by accepting some terms and conditions)
The important condition of acceptance is that acceptance is always build on rules or if you like it more philosophical on the categorial imperative. At the same time as humans we all strive for acceptance.
Now there those that preach us that the acceptance of rules is evil and many libertarians will often describe those rules as evil, but they are often just creating new rules in social acceptance with people of the same mindset and as such negating their critic. So acceptance is absolute, whereas the rules of that acceptance are not not.
So if you want to changeÂ never try to change the patterns of acceptance but just the rules associated with them.
This phrase does mean nothing as it contains the word ânewâ. Marketing usually launches lots of positive wordings and package it as news, as that way they can avoid details (news contains no details nor references) and still make it exciting and let you feel bad if you are negative on something positive.
The good thing if you are not too much concerned with manipulating is that you can use it yourself. However if you need to react to it in an ethical way opposing is something really bad as your opposition will make yourself feel less worthy and left behind. So when you want to stay ethical do not use this on others and if it is used on you react positive and ask for details on a very specific aspect. This eagerness on a specific detail will usually move the snake sellers off as they only interested in selling something general on top of the study or converting people to their belief system. Asking for details is something that acts like a cold shower for them. If you have people around you that use this many time be persistent in asking on a historic news study on a specific detail, as your persistence will ensure that the group is moving away from this type of manipulation.
Always be smart, ethical and positive.
No, I am not talking relationships here, neither am I talking about source code commits where you commit often, but I am talking about committing to a a full product that answers a need.
Instead of committing to a product we commit to a beta, to iterations, a minimal viable product or many other half baked ideas that you can get away with to avoid committing to solving a problem and be useful. This fear of finding mistakes and wanting perfection in an imperfect world usually leads to cheating as the people that have to market the products will then insists on fakes such as what happened with the diesel cars, but what is happening everywhere around.
So instead of half, minimal products and services where some key aspects are missing we should really return to quality or just slapdash. Slapdash can be released every year, whereas quality can happen in a few month on in some years as it dependent on creativity and serendipity that cannot be controlled.
So the fear of commitment is a good thing and we should have more of it as it guarantees true workmanship.