To be clear, this doesn't seem like it invalidates anything in the original experiment.
The "rule-breaking" isn't referring to anything the researchers were doing.
It's referring to what the participants were doing. It points out that the compliant subjects who delivered the shocks weren't always following the procedure they were given perfectly. Which is, of course, expected, since people in general don't follow instructions 100% perfectly all the time, and especially not the first time they do something.
> Kaposi and Sumeghy interpret these patterns as a complete breakdown of the supposedly legitimate scientific environment. The subjects were not committing violence for the sake of an orderly memory study. With the scientific elements either forgotten or rushed, the laboratory changed into a setting for unauthorized and senseless violence.
This feels like a huge stretch. Forgetting a step at one point or reading something out loud too early isn't a "complete breakdown of the supposedly legitimate scientific environment" -- a "scientific environment" that is completely fictional to begin with.
> It points out that the compliant subjects who delivered the shocks weren't always following the procedure they were given perfectly. Which is, of course, expected, since people in general don't follow instructions 100% perfectly all the time
The article quantifies the amount of rulebreaking. The article actually compares rule breaking across participants and notes that those who were better at obeying the instructions of the experiment are the ones who refused to continue till the end.
The article doesn't invalidate the milgrim experiments. It claims that the interpretation from traditional literature is possibly wrong.
Well, if you're supposed to administrate shocks to teach or test someone's memory, asking the question while they're screaming isn't just about protocol, it does break down the purpose of these shocks. Saying that participants did administrate shocks because they trusted the legitimacy of what they thought they were doing doesn't hold up under these circumstances.
No, because you'd have to show that the participants thought there was a breakdown of the procedure and purpose, and that they continued despite that.
If they think the procedure is to read the next question when the previous one has been completed, and they do, even if the other person is screaming, they think they're "following rules". They're not the ones who came up with the procedure.
Which is the whole point: the participants were trying to follow rules, even if they made mistakes in following those rules. The idea that there was a total "breakdown" of the rules doesn't seem supported at all.
If I'm not mistaken, they were told the point of the experiment was supposed to be about "memory and learning". If a teacher was doing a "commission" as they put it, they aren't really following the purpose of the experiment any longer.
The interesting bit is that the group the quit the experiment part way through (presumably over ethical objections) were consistently better at following the rules, which indicates that the rules may have actually been designed to prevent some of the problems that the obedient group experienced, which might prevent them from seeing the ethical or moral issues involved in the experiment.
Now the interesting question is _why_ did those people who followed the rules quit at a greater rate? _Why_ did those people follow the rules more closely in the first place? Was there any variation in how the rules were presented? What is the difference in between folks who follow the rules more closely and folks who don't? What can we learn about the human condition from this?
I do feel like the conclusion is a bit of a stretch, but there is a slight discrepancy where disobedient participants followed the rules more than the obedient ones, which is an interesting observation. It just feels a bit weak.
It wasn't a properly controlled experiment to begin with, nor was it repeated. General conclusions should not be drawn from a single, flawed study. But it makes for good headlines and talking points.
And some people really WANT to believe it's true. They've built their entire worldview around it and the idea they've been duped would cause a massive narcissistic injury.
Totally agreed -- there are so many different factors involved in each comparison, and I feel like I'm easily paying attention to different things on each comparison.
Unfortunately, I don't believe there's any established algorithm for how to repeatedly sample pairwise preferences to convert them into a strict ranking, which would ideally be with an active learning component to really drill down into the comparisons that are the closest. Would be a fascinating thing to try to develop, though.
Heck, once I cycled for half an hour with my iPhone in my pocket, and somehow the phone against my leg was in just the right position that it kept interpreting my leg movements as trying to enter a passcode.
Got home, pulled out my phone, and it had a message that it was locked for several hours due to so many failed passcode attempts. Incredibly annoying.
Still, only happened once in well over a decade of owning an iPhone.
I was mostly frustrated that there wasn't some alternate way of regaining access, like via my Mac or iPad logged in with the same Apple ID. Or that the failed passcode attempts didn't start eventually playing a loud alert sound or something on each failure.
Yeah I used to get this a lot because I have my phone in my pocket when I'm doing land maintenance around the place here. It's massively annoying. That and watch gestures firing off and interrupting the music I'm listening to while I'm using powertools.
I've had to turn off a lot of features. All of the "raise to wake", always-on screens, gesture controls, movement controls on the watch, live activities on the watch, all sorts of stuff, anything related to movement or waking up the phone other than by a button press. Also had to turn the watch so the buttons are on the left to stop my gloves pressing them constantly.
It's a bit sad really, I think I've missed out on some decent features there. But compared to being locked out and/or having random actions trigger, it's an improvement.
On my pixel 4a, I had to turn off a "call 911" feature that I think was initiated by shaking the phone. I took a couple of walks with the phone in my front pocket, and the movement from my leg called 911 (which I would only find out when the police would call me back to ask if everything is OK).
Yeah that is unfortunate and embarassing. I think I nearly called them a couple of times before I flipped my watch around.
Current gripe is that every so often, usually when my hands are busy, Siri interprets my "Hey Siri fast forward" to skip an ad on the podcast I'm listening to as an instruction to call Troy. Troy is a roofer I got to quote some work last year! He has picked up twice to me going "Sorry, really sorry, my robot called you ..."
IAC owned both Match and HatchLabs (which developed Tinder in 2012). They were later merged into one entity, and even later spun off from IAC altogether. They were "part of the same company" in that giant mega-corp super conglomerate owned both, but practically they were fully separate entities when Tinder was created. Match didn't buy Tinder, but it was merged with Tinder by parent company, just like OkCupid was acquired by IAC and merged with Match.
I mean, I was trying to keep it simple. :) I suppose it all comes down to what you mean by "fully separate entities"... but at the end of the day it was all under IAC. The corporate control and reporting structure went up to the CEO and board of IAC. Hatch Labs was an incubator IAC created specifically for developing things like Tinder. Yes Tinder got reshuffled and eventually it was all spun off but Tinder started under the same roof as Match. It wasn't bought.
They did tons of data analysis across all aspects of profiles, and had a popular blog where they published the results.
They were heavily involved in researching what factors more reliably led to not just better matches, but better relationships -- when you disabled your account, they'd ask if it was because you'd met someone through OkC and ask you to pick who, if you were willing to share.
I don't think there was anything fucked up about it, as long as it was all anonymized and at scale. Trying to understand what messaging strategies worked better or worse could be a major part of figuring out how to improve matches.
Like, one obvious factor could be to match people who send lots of long messages with lots of questions with each other, while a separate set matches people who's messaging style is one sentence at a time. I'm not saying that would necessarily work well, but it's not crazy to research if NLP analysis of messages can produce additional potential compatibility signals.
The whole point of OkC back then was to try to develop as many data-based signals as possible to improve matches.
You realize that you're responding in a thread about OkCupid deceiving users and sharing data with 3rd parties right?
34. In response to this request, Humor Rainbow gave the Data Recipient access to nearly three million OkCupid user photos. Humor Rainbow’s President and Chief Technology Officer were directly involved in facilitating the data transfer.
35. In addition to user photos, Humor Rainbow shared other personal data with the Data Recipient, including each user’s demographic and location information.
> I don't think there was anything fucked up about it, as long as it was all anonymized and at scale
I'm confused why "as long as" carries so much weight here considering the article that started this discussion. You seem to trust that they stopped their privacy fuckups with third parties. I don't know where your trust comes from.
What was the problem? If the local repair center couldn't reproduce it, what was going on?
And what do you mean they lost your return? Like it got delivered and then it was lost? Surely they gave you a working unit at that point?
I've had a bunch of experiences with Apple repair and always always been fast and great. I mean, they're definitely the best service of literally any corporation I've dealt with, by far. Sometimes you get unlucky I guess with a particular rep or something hard to reproduce, but it sounds like you got extremely unlucky? It definitely isn't representative in my experience, not even close.
How often does software fail in production with human-written code? How many times has a production failure been avoided because an LLM didn't make a typo or mistake that a human would have?
This is pushing an agenda. It's not measuring anything meaningful.
Half this list is bad attribution. LiteLLM was a supply chain attack — stolen PyPI credentials, nothing to do with vibe coding. The Amazon outage number comes from a vendor blog pushing their own product. Nobody else reported it.
But the "where's your control group" take bugs me too. It's not that AI writes buggier code line for line. The gaps are just in different places. Devs who've shipped real apps add rate limiting, auth middleware, proper CORS — because they got burned before. AI skips all of it because nobody prompted for it.
I read through about 80 AI-generated repos a few weeks ago. Code looked decent. The missing stuff was always the same list — no auth on admin routes, API keys hardcoded in client JS, CORS wide open, debug endpoints still live in prod. Over and over.
Nothing there makes a wall of shame. Nothing's exploded yet. But it's the kind of stuff that does.
This is definitely the right question. A list of failures without any baseline won't tell you anything. You would need the same exercise for human-written code at a comparable scale before drawing any conclusions at all. Without it, it's just confirmation bias.
> So you are less likely to replace gloves when you should.
To the contrary. You take off and throw out your gloves every time you finish doing something with raw meat. It's procedure. It's habit.
You're never relying on "feel" to determine whether there are "raw chicken juices on you". Using "feel" is not reliable.
I don't know why you think food service workers aren't constantly putting on new gloves, but doctors and nurses are. Like, if you're cutting up chicken for an hour you're not, but if you're moving from chicken to veggies you absolutely are.
> I don't know why you think food service workers aren't constantly putting on new gloves, but doctors and nurses are. Like, if you're cutting up chicken for an hour you're not, but if you're moving from chicken to veggies you absolutely are.
I think that because I was a food service worker and it's impossible to change gloves during a rush. Nitrile gloves and sweaty hands simply do not mix. There are also many more forms of cross contamination than just raw meat to cooked food.
I don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.
You can dry your hands on a towel in seconds. I don't know what you mean by "perfectly dry"...? Like, nobody needs to blow-dry their hands before putting gloves on or anything.
I do a medical procedure several times a week that requires gloves.
If you don't flap your hands around for 30+ seconds, any remaining moisture from handwashing (or sweat) makes them stick to your skin and you wind up fighting them (and about half the time, ripping a hole). A towel is not enough.
I variously use nitrile, vinyl, and poly gloves when cooking messy things at home in bulk, like chicken, bacon, etc. I regularly pull them off to do something and then throw a new pair back on. They can be kinda sweaty and it's... fine. Zero problem whatsoever sliding on a new pair.
I'm not doubting your personal experience. I'm just saying it's in no way a universal rule. I'm sure experiences will be different depending on glove material, glove size, and just the different shapes of different people's hands.
But for me and for plenty of people I've worked with earlier in my life, swapping gloves was way faster and easier than washing hands again. Plus, washing your hands like 40 times in a shift is going to dry them out. It's not great.
> But for me and for plenty of people I've worked with earlier in my life, swapping gloves was way faster and easier than washing hands again. Plus, washing your hands like 40 times in a shift is going to dry them out. It's not great.
You and your former coworkers must have magic lubricating sweat or something. I have literally never encountered someone with this opinion before in my life. And I was a combat medic before I was a line cook, so I think I know a thing or two about gloves. Even in the medical field, there were times when medics skipped the gloves because they were treating their buddies under fire and the time to get gloves on wasn't worth it to them (for anyone unfamiliar, gloves in field medicine are mostly about protecting the provider, not the patient).
I think this might come down to sizing. Larger glove for hand size makes them easy to put on but hard to use for fine motor actions, whereas a well fitting glove makes any wetness on the hand a time sink. The stretchiness is the mechanism by which they both fit well and are hard to put on, but if you are willing to give up fit they don't need to stretch and you can just throw them on.
> To the contrary. You take off and throw out your gloves every time you finish doing something with raw meat. It's procedure. It's habit.
You are supposed to. I've seen plenty of fast food places where the gloves stay on between jobs.
I'm sure there are upscale places that are better on this point.
> You're never relying on "feel" to determine whether there are "raw chicken juices on you". Using "feel" is not reliable.
If you were just working with raw chicken, that slimy feeling on your skin is a pretty good motivator for most people to immediately wash their hands. It's more than just procedure or habit, your hands feel dirty and you want to wash that off.
> I don't know why you think food service workers aren't constantly putting on new gloves, but doctors and nurses are. Like, if you're cutting up chicken for an hour you're not, but if you're moving from chicken to veggies you absolutely are.
You absolutely are supposed to. But there's a gap in what you are supposed to do vs what actually happens in practice. Especially if you get a penny pinching boss that doesn't like wasting money on gloves.
That doesn't happen so much in medicine because the consequences are much higher. But for food? Not uncommon. There are more than a few restaurants with open kitchens that I've had to stop eating at because employees could be seen handling a bunch of things with the same set of gloves on.
It also does not help that food is often a mad rush.
> It's more than just procedure or habit, your hands feel dirty and you want to wash that off.
I'm not sure that's reliable across people. I'm definitely like that; whenever my hands feel the least bit dirty or oily or anything, I really want to wash them. But I've run into people who have commented on the fact that I do that, and I've learned that there are lots of people who just don't have that compulsion at all.
My point is that changing gloves is something that is even less reliable and needs to be drilled in through procedure and habit. Handwashing also needs the procedure and habit, but it has the added benefit that for a good number of people there's also a physical compulsion that goes along with that procedure and habit.
Food safety regulations in most states require that food workers replace gloves if they handle raw meat and switch to other foodstuffs.
But they don't generally require them to replace gloves between batches of (the same kind of) meat, or between different kinds of vegetables, or when switching from vegetables to meat, or between customers if they're on a service line. While it's recommended in those situations, I'm not sure any state mandates it.
I mean, they don't require gloves to be replaced in those situations because there isn't a good safety reason to. There's zero reason to replace your gloves when switching from dicing green peppers for a salad to picking up raw chicken. Or similarly between customers if you're just handling food, and not a cash register or anything. It's not like you're touching the customers...
"Karen" is following procedure. She didn't create it. She's not choosing to harm anyone. The "no email" policy is not hers personally. She's entirely innocent here.
The tone is so "I'm smarter than everyone else and I'm dealing with idiots", and it's just incredibly immature.
> to prove that I—a man who has been blind since birth—am, in fact, still blind
Plenty of disabilities can be temporary. And rather than argue about which are permanent and which are temporary and where to draw the line, it's entirely reasonable to ask everyone to just resubmit documentation every 5-7 years.
The author is writing as if "Karen" was coming up with these policies herself, and is choosing to spite her personally. It's incredibly sad. Karen is presumably just a poor woman doing her best to do her job within a system she can't change either. She can't personally make an exception to allow documentation by e-mail. So why on earth would you take all of this out on her?
It's just really sad that this person thinks they're somehow "winning" or "getting back" at the system. They're not helping anything, just spreading misery. Maybe some people read this and think it's a great revenge story or something -- I read it and I just feel pity for the author that they think there's anything good about the way they acted.
I mean, why not take a minute to think about the 30 other people who needed to fax in documentation that day and couldn't, because this one person wanted to jam the machine and use up all its toner. What if the author's sabotage was responsible for other people missing their benefits?
The "rule-breaking" isn't referring to anything the researchers were doing.
It's referring to what the participants were doing. It points out that the compliant subjects who delivered the shocks weren't always following the procedure they were given perfectly. Which is, of course, expected, since people in general don't follow instructions 100% perfectly all the time, and especially not the first time they do something.
> Kaposi and Sumeghy interpret these patterns as a complete breakdown of the supposedly legitimate scientific environment. The subjects were not committing violence for the sake of an orderly memory study. With the scientific elements either forgotten or rushed, the laboratory changed into a setting for unauthorized and senseless violence.
This feels like a huge stretch. Forgetting a step at one point or reading something out loud too early isn't a "complete breakdown of the supposedly legitimate scientific environment" -- a "scientific environment" that is completely fictional to begin with.
reply