questions from ommkarja

[cellio]

1. If you were running for president, what would the major points of your platform be?

The general theme is: less government and more personal autonomy (and responsibility). You are the best-qualified and most-motivated person to manage your life, your finances, your future, and your risky behavior, and you should reap the consequences.

It's none of the government's business whom you sleep with, how you spend your money, what you ingest, etc, so long as you do no harm to others. If you abuse the courts in an effort to evade personal responsibility (e.g. "McDonald's made me fat"), you deserve a judgement against you, not just to have your case thrown out.

The government shouldn't be taking your money and spending it inefficiently on services; it should let you keep your money so you can buy the services you want/need. The prospect of saving for retirement or buying health insurance isn't so bad if the government takes <5% of your paycheck instead of 40% of it.

2. What is the best job you've ever had? What did you like about it?

That's a tough call. Overall I have to say it's my current job, but the first two-thirds or so of my previous job had some stellar moments.

Current job: great company that cares about its people; interesting work; good co-workers; I'm basically in charge of all doc issues; I get to interact with the other engineers as an engineer and have their respect; my manager trusts me and recognizes my areas of expertise. I have made real contributions that make our software better.

Previous job: fantastic manager, good peers, several stand-out engineers who, again, treated me like an equal and listened to my ideas about the product. The company was kind of screwed up, particularly in its last year of life; there were leadership opportunities there and I think I grew during that year and impressed some people, but it was also really frustrating, particularly when I knew that the work I was doing probably didn't really matter.

3. Aside from religion, what is one aspect of your philosophy, beliefs, or lifestyle that has changed significantly in your life? What motivated the change, and how did you go about it?

Aside from religion, I don't think there have been any sharp changes. There have been some gradual transitions over a period of decades.

I like to think that I've become less self-centered and more compassionate and empathic. Religion was a strong motivator, along with a sense of enlightened self-interest. I try to actively think about how the other person might perceive a situation and then figure out what I can do differently to reduce misimpressions. (This is a learned skill. I'm not always there yet.) I periodically remind myself that "it's not about me", and try to reach out to other people before a problem strikes. I'm being vague because I don't really know how to be specific. I haven't applied a particular methodology or followed the instructions in some guidebook; I'm kind of bumbling along.

There has been a gradual shift in my politics from the liberalism of youth to libertarianism. The main factor there is that I'd never heard of libertarianism until sometime in college, when some geek friends started talking about it. It was just an intellectual curiosity until I met someone in the SCA who really acts in accordance with that philosophy but who never used that word in my hearing; eventually I realized that I had seen this philosophy at work and it wasn't just intellectualism. (For those who are wondering, that person was Cariadoc, aka David Director Friedman. Later I read some of his father Milton's writings.)

4. When you were growing up, who in your family did you feel closest to? What was the best thing about that relationship? Are you still as close to them now?

I think I was closest to my maternal grandmother (of blessed memory), Helen Manos. (Maiden name Keller. Not that one. :-) ) She was one of the kindest, gentlest people I've ever known. I do not recall ever hearing her raise her voice, even when I spent a week or two with her in the summer and was young enough to deserve to be yelled at. She made time for me and really tried to understand the things that were important to me. It's got to be a challenge for a grandparent to show genuine interest in the cartoon or book or game de jeur, but she always did. She had some physical limitations that I was not aware of until much later; she was not the sort of person who groused about her health. She died of a stroke at far too young an age, when I was a sophomore in college.

Of those relatives still living, I was closest to my father, another geek. He helped me with my homework, taught me cool math and science stuff, taught me analytical skills, and didn't dumb things down. (I see him doing the same thing with his grandkids to the extent they'll let him.) I'm still pretty close to him. He's the only other member of my family who's net-connected (until the niece goes to college in September, anyway); as far as I know he doesn't know about this journal.

5. Consider the following scenario: You have made a brilliant and profound scientific discovery, one that will fundamentally change our understanding of the universe. However, this puts you at odds with The Authorities, who demand that you publicly recant your discovery and destroy the evidence of your experiments, else you face the death penalty. Do you recant or not, and why? Do you make any attempt to save the evidence? Does your answer change if the penalty is somewhat less severe, say life imprisonment?

I told you you ask cool questions. :-)

Ok, much as I am an idealist and a sharer of ideas, I'm not willing to die for most ideas. (There are a very few exceptions; this isn't one of them.) I would do my best to squirrel away the evidence, my notes, my proofs, the data, whatever. How I do that depends on several things: the skill of The Authorities, the time available, network and encryption technologies, available recipients, etc. I'd probably try to distribute the data etc so that no one person has the whole picture initially, as a way of protecting them from The Authorities. (This might be as simple as depositing the evidence somewhere and separately, sneakily, distributing the encryption key. Dunno.) Unless The Authorities have worldwide control, I'd be doing my best to get the essentials to people who live outside the country. I'm assuming that The Authorities are going to watch me like a hawk for the rest of my life, so I'll never be able to personally resume the work.

Lying pains me, and deliberately making myself look stupid pains me, but if forced to recant I would. Because science isn't worth dying for; even if I've, say, discovered the cure for AIDS that The Authorities don't want getting out (because it'll encourage "that" lifestyle, don't'cha know), unless I can actually implement that cure then my dying to spread the knowledge doesn't help the patients and just leads to the other researchers who run with my work also getting into fatal trouble. (Now if I could implement that cure -- drop something into the hypothetical national water supply to effect a cure at the price of my own life -- that's a different question, one you didn't ask. I don't know if I'd be strong enough to behave the way the idealist in me says I should. I hope never to have to find out.)

I'm not sure there's really a difference between a death sentence and life in prison, unless there's real reason to believe in future regime change. Being locked up and separated from everyone and everything I know isn't really a life.

Comments

[rectangularcat]

I have a semantic question. I think the engineering profession in the States has different or wider meaning than here in Canada. I guess it's also because the term "engineer" here is protected - i.e. you need to be a registered professional to use it (or an EIT - engineer in training).

I am not begrudging you - I don't know you that well and for all I know you studied/practiced engineering.

Or maybe it's the software engineering terminology that has caught on while still befuddling a chemical engineer like me.

Any insights?