It would indeed be surprising to hear people say this if you completely ignore the words and actions of the Epstein class and the overwhelming amount of pain and suffering they afflict on everyone else.
> There is a pretty clear and important difference between a program that does something wrong, and a program that just doesn't do something somebody wants.
Your argument hinges on all parties agreeing on what "wrong" means. Take a step back and consider that parties do not agree on a common definition of "wrong." Does "wrong" mean a gap between the spec and the implementation or a gap between a reasonable user's expectation and the implementation? If one party assert that it is clearly the former and the other party asserts it is clearly the latter, does that make the situation more clear or less clear?
There are some really obvious things that are definitely bugs. If login doesn’t work if your email address contains the letter “e” when the expectation is all valid email addresses should work, then that is a bug. It isn’t “indistinguishable from a feature”. If clicking a button in your accounting software consumes all the RAM on your computer and causes it to crash, then there is no universe or agreed upon definition that would consider that a feature instead of a bug.
Just because you can't get everyone to agree does not mean that the concept is not well-defined or clear. People can and do disagree over almost anything. That could just mean that one side is wrong and the other side is right, even if it is difficult to determine which is which... or simply difficult to navigate the underlying politics regardless.
Besides, in your example, either kind of gap could be a bug or a missing feature. It's a totally orthogonal question.
>Your argument hinges on all parties agreeing on what "wrong" means
No, it just hinges on common sense. "All parties" are never gonna agree on everything.
There will always be customers that demand whatever and treats its lack as a bug. Doesn't make it a bug anymore than me asking for a free glass of wine with my meal and not being given any is "injustice" - when the restaurant never promised any.
> But as a lifelong American, I've never heard anyone make a negative comment about Mexicans.
What an absurd statement on its face that comes from a place of extreme privilege. I am a brown-skinned man in America and I lost count of all of the times people that look like me have been denigrated and lambasted in this country.
>What an absurd statement on its face that comes from a place of extreme privilege.
Oh boy, here we go again. I even said "I don't mean to minimize any negative experiences you've had" and I'm still getting the privilege discourse. You are really determined to prevent the Democrats from winning elections, aren't you?
Even assuming I am privileged, then what I'm telling you is that privileged white people like myself aren't shit-talking Mexicans behind their back. Wouldn't that be relevant information? Why would it be an absurd statement?
>brown-skinned
That's not the same as Mexican.
When was the most recent time this happened to you in person? A recent, representative concrete example would be a lot more compelling that performative outrage.
"Life is political, not because the world cares about how you feel, but because the world reacts to what you do. The minor choices we make are themselves a kind of vote, making it more or less likely that free and fair elections will be held in the future. In the politics of the everyday, our words and gestures, or their absence, count very much."
- On Tyranny by Timothy D. Snyder
Keeping your head down and just dealing with it as a choice that you can make and it is the choice that they count on you making. But it's not the only choice.
> Can you “anonymously” report this without too much backlash? (I assume the answer is no: you clearly know it's wrong, and haven't done anything about it yet.)
This is so extremely common that I don't believe that there is anything to report. I reviewed dozens of papers under my PI's name throughout my entire PhD. Now that I have completed my degree, I never want to review another paper again.
Consider another unethical practice: sexual harassment, in many industries, was once so extremely common that there was nothing to report. Everyone in a position to do something about it knew it happened, yet it continued. People reported it anyway. Tanked some of the reporters' careers, but the practice is way less accepted now.
You've completed your PhD, so you're at less risk of backlash. Are you yet in a position where you can blow the whistle on what happened to you?
i had a kid (~last week) ask me to edit his PhD proposal (I guess in the EU you have to already have a project in mind?) and I said I would happily edit it for him if he first let me try to convince him not to do a PhD.
my hypothesis on the value of a PhD: if you are the kind of person that can finish an honest PhD i.e., real work that's not necesssarily novel (I don't give a flying fuck about "novelty") but actually requires you to stretch hard to achieve, then you don't need one and it will cost you years of productive/rewarding/lucrative work in industry (and 100% academia is not for you).
i don't know what the "on the otherhand" is though - I really have no idea how anyone comes away from this process thinking "hmm yes I want more of this pile of bs" so I have no idea what kind of psychopaths go into academia (for which the PhD is indeed a prerequisite).
Long ago, I used to think that in a world where I had more money than I could possibly need, getting a PhD and becoming something like a history professor wouldn't be a bad life. Let's just say that I no longer believe that would have been the case.
reply