What I struggle to reconcile in my own life is the difference between this logic, and the logic of a businessman who believes he cannot compete without polluting.
Do we accept "well, my business is unlikely to success, and so my family will starve" as a reason for shitting in the world the rest of us live in?
Or do we say, "there are alternatives, and yes, while your business may fail, we'll all be better off"?
It's not the number of casualties that scares people, but rather the nature of the threat.
Fires have existed for several millennia. Our ancestors who built and lived in the very first settlements suffered from their homes/stores occasionally burning down. We know what types of conditions increase risk of fires and we know how to minimize those risks and put the fires out when they occur.
Bombs on the other hand are unpredictable. They also cause their damage instantly and there is no way to minimize or prevent it. You can escape from a burning building, or if stuck, wrap a piece of wet cloth around your mouth to minimize the amount of smoke you breathe while you wait for rescue. You can't outrun an explosion.
That's why people are a lot more scared of bombs than they are of fires (or car accidents, for that matter, which kill many more people than both fires and bombs combined).
Availability bias is definitely one aspect, but I think a big part of it is also how easy it is to tell a story that separates oneself from the victims (this often takes the form of victim blaming, but not necessarily). It's easy to tell yourself the story of how heart attacks happen to people with different lifestyles or genetics, or how car crashes happen to drivers who are less attentive, or how violent crime happens to people who live in other neighborhoods. It's a lot harder to tell yourself the story of how you'll avoid the plane with the latent mechanical fault or how you'll never be at a gathering place that would make an attractive terrorist target.
You are speaking of basically an IP-based version of the spamhaus blacklist. For general http or TCP protocol.
I, for one, would be fine with a general internet citizen losing access if they have a compromised device. I suspect this is how we will go -- your home security cam was used in an attack, now every single website you visit for XXXXXXXX days gives you a CAPTCHA.
I maintain the crucial element is informing people why they have that hassle. Add extra friction, but not inhibit what they can do, because they are unable and unwilling to secure their devices.
Yes, this affects the internet-uneducated disproportionately. Yes, I think it is the responsibility of anyone with a broadband connection to understand the responsibilities that come with it.
No, I do not expect grandma to learn this. I expect her to deal with a crippled internet because they are not able to fix their pollution.
Do you perceive that your sarcasm was effective? Did it convey your point clearly and concisely, so that you can share your perspective and point of view?
Or did it do more harm to what is otherwise a legitimate viewpoint and possibly deserving of discussion?
I'm btw sure that many Socialists would actually agree that the statement undoubtably displayed hatred and xenophobia. He did argue against allowing people from the outside to come and live in his community because he by default perceives foreigners as not giving "two shits" about the community. This is obviously not true, you can't just declare that all foreigners want to harm your community.
OK, I would encourage you to reread the conversation. The HN consensus is clearly different than how you perceive it.
You may be absolutely correct. The HN Hivemind is frequently wrong.
But please use this as an opportunity for introspection, wherein you centralize the idea that the community of peers with whom you choose to associate, think you are an ass.
i suspect the employer / (healthcareinsurer if in US) imbalance is really the core issue.
In medical research ethics, informed consent acknowledges the imbalance. I think e.g. CA unenforcement of non-compete does a similar job.
(I am also a worker bee and benefit from non-enforcement, so take my input for the electrons they're based on.)