Barlow's Principles of Adult Behaviour

I'm sure he was charismatic. So reputedly is Scott Siskind. Both have authored a lot of entertaining predictions. Each is or was so far as I know many things himself, but neither has ever even remotely approached the knowledge to practice even as a novice technologist. Windbags the both of them, in other words.

I respect some of his work, but none that lay in the vein you describe. To speak of a nonexistent territory's sovereignty, when it is solely "inhabited" by machines and people with physical names and addresses, is absurd and risible. Indeed Barlow's entire ignorant, ideologically propagandistic identitarian grift - an early precursor and lineal ancestor of Cliven Bundy and "sovereign citizens"/"freemen on the land"/"Qanon" alike - is in my view directly culpable for much of same and much else destructive about the accidents of the technology's development to date.

And what he produced that does have merit, so far as I can tell, as here lacks all originality.

Isn’t that pursuing happiness? Your saying if you’re not happy than change your goals to something with happiness as a by product. Or, pursue happiness.

I wouldn't worry about taking every single one of these literally. A rule like this is meant as a compass bearing, not a precise set of directions to a perfect life.

Besides, it's totally possible to negotiate in good faith without lying. Professional negotiators actively advise against lying because A) you might get caught B) it's harder to remember a lie than the truth later on. (This is how a lot of criminals get caught.) If someone wants to know something you don't want them to know, you don't have to answer. Tell them it's not relevant or change the topic.

> Any kind of negotiation comes to mind, where it might be best to not show your hand completely.

There’s a big difference between lying and not revealing information that works against you.

In (American) courtroom terms it’s the difference between perjury or invoking the 5th amendment.

Some people feel obligated to provide an answer when asked a question, rather than tactfully declining to answer or changing the subject. It stems from a desire to be polite or please the other party. Ironically this desire to please or be polite leads those people to tell lies because they feel like they won’t get caught.

Skilled negotiators can be very good at identifying when someone is lying. Far more than the average person would guess. I did hundreds or thousands of interviews and after a while many lies stuck out like a sore thumb. I have no doubt that some people slipped lies past me, but most often when I had an inkling someone was lying I could confirm they were lying with some further questions or basic research online.

Once that trust is lost, everything is in question.

My personal mantra for these things is that life is simple [1] when you have only one principle. It gets much harder when you have to balance two or more principles.

It’s still better to have the principles than not have them, just keep balance in mind.

[1] for you, that is. People who don’t share your principles might not like your choices and you might be making their life difficult with your lack of balance. See religion, politics, etc.

Given the context of the list I suspect they don’t mean any of them quite as strictly as you’re taking it. Of course there are situations where lying is actually is morally correct. However I do think that many situations where one is tempted to lie simply omitting information is equally effective, or even more so as you don’t have to worry about being caught in the lie.

I've seen a version that adds "lies of omission are sometimes exempt":

https://tirania.org/blog/archive/2011/Jan-21.html

One is always selecting from a subset of the available information is any conversation.

Maybe the point could be elaborated "never mislead".

As a parent, while I don't want my children to grow up in a shoebox, I also don't want them awash in the hedonistic filth of our day, either.

So I tell them "form follows function" and express the importance of actual marriage, not the modern variations.

Negotiations are made because each party is trying to gain as much as possible while losing as little as possible. In order for that to happen each side lies about their standing, their offer, their range, and uses a bunch of dishonest and manipulative tactics to reach an agreement.

If all parties were honest then a negotiation wouldn’t need to take place.

That's not true about age of consent nor is it universally true in Canada for legal drinking or smoking age or being tried as an adult. You can vote, marry and join the military at 18 however.

I don't think this is meant as a test to determine whether someone is an adult. I think this is meant as a guide to how to conduct yourself once you realize that you are an adult.

People were up in arms about it because it's unworkable as a code of conduct for an open-source project.

Codes of conduct are specific, enforceable standards of professional conduct that apply to all contributors to a project that cover things like appropriate language and behavior in project spaces, equity and respect towards other community members, and especially, protecting members of marginalized communities from further marginalization or discrimination. They contain specific procedures for raising complaints (as well as protecting the complainants from retaliation), determining responsibility, and meting out disciplinary action.

The SQLite Code of Ethics is vague, can't be reasonably enforced, and its authors declared no intention to enforce it. No means of raising a complaint of a Code of Ethics violation is provided, nor is there an establishment of a committee or process to adjudicate complaints and administer disciplinary action. It is, per its authors again, merely a symbolic gesture. Furthermore, being a Christian seems to be a requirement to be in compliance.

So you can understand why people might be "up in arms" about it.

Assuming you're not being disingenuous, and that's a big if given your word choice ("a certain code of Ethics") and ellipsis, why do you think people were up in arms? What do you think is the core difference between Barlow's list and the one from sqlite?

Taken literally - any sport where the goal is to injure the other. I believe the context here is mostly metaphorical - ie: don't engage in activities whose goal is to injure (physically or otherwise) another.

It's from 1977, so probably dinosaur hunting

Historically that would have been animal fighting or hunting. It’s a euphemism for death rather than injury. Today some people interpret it more literally and include any sport where injury is expected. Which is to say, pugilism.

Boxing in all its forms. Hunting animals. Rollerball. Fight soccer. Naked fencing.

That sort of thing.

The only thing here I would take issue with is neglecting outcomes. The outcomes of our behaviors are what define them as good or bad, not the intent. Many atrocities have been committed by people who believed they had "good intentions." This wisdom is found elsewhere in phrases such as "the outcome is the intent," "the road to hell is paved with good intentions," and "you shall know a tree by its fruits."