One heuristic for spotting when you might be wrong is that you hold a very uncommon belief.
It COULD be that you are correct and the world is crazy, but its far more likely that you are the one who is missing something. It's always worth stopping to double check when this happens.
Perhaps more importantly, if you do happen to be right when everyone else is wrong its important to determine your goals.
Is it more important to be right, or to be happy? If the answer is the latter then its sometimes best to just let people continue being wrong for the sake of being social. Nobody likes to be told they're wrong, so is "correctness" worth more than that person's feelings? Very oten it is not.
Ever heard of tribalism and echo chambers? Wrongness being a function of number of dissidents is a terrible heuristic, in contrast to determining the lies and falsehood based on the soundness of the argument or logic.
Also, when a population group is large enough (e.g. entire world), it's quite likely a crazily-held belief is shared by other people, or people who would at least nod in agreement.
I believe you, but in my own experience I've met more people who say this than who mean this.
Usually it's situational. People might genuinely like to be wrong when the novelty is fun or useful, for example in lab work or in low stakes classwork. However, they despise it with politics, their job, or anything else that might have actual consequences in their lives.
> sometimes best to just let people continue being wrong for the sake of being social
There's almost no time when it's better to try to convince somebody they're wrong. It won't help you, and it won't work anyway, so it won't help them either.
Sure if you're somebody's doctor, and even then you have to pick your battles.
the thing with uncommon beliefs is not that they are likely wrong. but that digging in your heels is surely going to fail, regardless of who is actually right.
so your suggested response is the right approach, but it doesn't end there. you can try find a common belief and build up your argument from there. peoples opinions can be changed if you take the time to learn how their opinions are formed and present them with the opportunity to consider alternative ideas. ideally in such a way that they discover the truth on their own.
a key component is that unity enables change. it is better to be wrong but united, than right and divided. if we are united (and thus stay friends) then we can learn from being wrong and change direction. if we are divided then changing direction is difficult.
I think there are also different definitions of "digging in your heels".
What most people do is just whine and repeat themselves because they don't understand all the ways they're being misunderstood. They lack self-awareness because they lack sufficient experience hearing and digesting the arguments from the other sides. This is a missed opportunity.
What people should do instead is leverage their self-awareness once they have the spotlight and "magically know" which concerns to address when they are given that brief window of rebuttal. It's hard to get attention, so they must strike when the iron is hot. It takes a lot of experience, and most never get to that level. Repetition signals to everyone else they don't really know what they're talking about.
The majority of the audience may actually be on your side agreeing with you, but they won't stick their neck out for the truth if they know they're less informed and less experienced than you, yet even you still failed. They have no chance to do any better, so they just shut the fuck up. Everyone languishes. Your point is noted, but not winning. All you did was paint a target on your back for the next time you say anything. People would rather be winning than right. Agreeing with you once doesn't mean they side with you.
> Is it more important to be right, or to be happy?
Im going out on a limb here, but I'd say intelligent people will tell you - without a doubt - being right. Because being happy is a perception and always a transitive state. There's nothing holding you from being both right and happy.
> Nobody likes to be told they're wrong
Thats actually a southern european way of looking at things; Its a cultural trace that varies a lot by region. Pointing flaws in plans is actually something I saw as worthy of an appraisal in Germany.
Also, I always tell people when I think they are wrong. I no longer insist or argue, just point out what lead me to the conclusion; you don't want to be in the blast radius of a deaf manager, an incompetent colleague or a delusional partner. Win-win.
I’m going to ignore the whole socially-agreeable aspect.
Take a thousand subjects. I’m going to be wrong about 990 of them. Because I know just enough about it to think I might have a clue.
You could probably read up on something for five hours and have a better opinion on it than most people that you meet.
How many things are just passively received opinion? And what kind of signal is that? Oh no, all the Jacks and Jones disagree with me.
On the other hand there are some cases where you can go down some dark rabbit hole and gain false knowledge and education. Maybe studying political science or something.
>One heuristic for spotting when you might be wrong is that you hold a very uncommon belief.
this is only the case in a 'wisdom of the crowd' world where people hold uncorrelated, authentic, self-formed opinions. If you're in a world of mass opinion and mania where ideas spread virally it ceases to be an indicator. In that environment its not truth that determined popularity of a belief, but how transmittable they are. In a world where gigantic companies produce sociality being anti-social in the most literal sense is a very real survival and truth-finding strategy.
And of course it's more important to be right than happy. Happiness decoupled from truth is nihilism. If that's the goal start doing heroin at ten in the morning and retreat into the VR world of your choice.
As Cormac McCarthy said in his last book: “You would give up your dreams in order to escape your nightmares and I would not. I think it's a bad bargain.”
> If you're in a world of mass opinion and mania where ideas spread virally it ceases to be an indicator.
Not really. It continues to be an indicator, just a less reliable one. As I said, it's one heuristic. It increases your probability of being right more than it decreases it, but it isn't an absolute rule.
Fundamentally, science itself relies on this heuristic to some extent. The idea that an experiment be reproducible is essentially the idea that the majority of testers should agree on observed reality. You just have to be careful not to conflate opinion with observed fact, or to treat it as more than a heuristic evaluator.
> Happiness decoupled from truth is nihilism.
Not at all.
You do not need to be correct to be happy, and there is no correlation at all between your ability to correctly understand the world and your capacity (or worthiness) to experience joy or to help others experience it. You are allowed to be wrong and happy, or apathetic and happy, or ignorant and happy, or even nihilistic and happy.
> If that's the goal start doing heroin at ten in the morning and retreat into the VR world of your choice.
There's more than one type of happiness. The kind you describe is hedonic. The other type is referred to as Eudamonic, and it comes from connection, service, and a sense of purpose.
You'll never get to experience the second type if other people don't want to be around you because you've decided that your own narrow perspective is the One True Perspective (TM).
Don't get me wrong, I reject post-modernity and the horrifying idea that there is no objective truth. I just also reject the idea that any of us are valid arbiters of that truth, or that we must know the truth before being allowed to experience happiness.
Nobody said you can't. They said the happiness is "decoupled from truth", which isn't ideal if we care about objective health of a society.
Your position seems to imply support for society-level submission to religious dogma. There's no point ignoring actual examples of all these ideas.
Hold an "uncommon belief"? According to you, it's a sign you're wrong. "the world isn't crazy, it's you who's missing something"... and you even say "let people continue being wrong for the sake of being social."
I don't think you meant to express support for strict religious rule and population submission, but that's how I'm reading it.
Your argument supports those who seek submission from the population. You don't require objective truth to play a role in happiness. You have found value in submission that serves to neutralise dissent. Dissent when coming from the few, isn't worth your time. Peg those few dissenters as "probably wrong" and call it a day.
I think I can speak for most people with niche subjects of interest when I say that the commonly held beliefs on said niche subject tend to be pretty bad.
I very much agree with this author, and the sort of open source ethos it embodies.
However, as a corporate stooge I have a hard time balancing my natural desire to work with the garage door up and my "neighbors" (legitimate) need for me to turn my terrible garage band music down and only show up after practice is over (when I have a nice deliverable).
Does anyone have any tips for finding the right balance? What is the professional development teams version of working with the garage door open?
I was also a corporate stooge (at both Apple and Microsoft). One of the biggest differences in culture was exactly this point. At Apple, it was encouraged to share your successes and failures in real time across teams. At Microsoft, there was so much infighting and competition that you tended to share nothing until you were ready to release. For example, someone on the Windows team wouldn't want to give away a cool solution that could be "stolen" by the dev tools team. This resulted in walled gardens that were protected at all costs.
So long as this is about sharing on the Internet, the fun part is that no one is forced to be your neighbour. The question becomes whether you want to create the opportunity for kindred spirits to find you or not.
In a corporate setting it's a bit different, since you need to create non-critical sharing spaces where it's okay to share that sort of progress.
Seems related to the explore/exploit problem, where the standard answer is related to the answer to the Secretary Problem[0], with the important caveat that it depends on whether "passing" on an opportunity legitimately makes it unavailable in future.
But another good answer is to open the door and trust the audience. The people who show up to the garage practice are perhaps not people who show up to buy tickets.
Adopting a scarcity mindset, generally, is a bad idea.
I'm in favor of using all the tools available to better yourself, including LLM's. However, for things like this the I would argue that one should first try to understand it on their own.
Sometimes the work is the POINT. We read things like this not just to learn about the past, but for novelty and to exercise our critical thinking powers. To outsource that labor before even trying is like going to the gym and having your butler lift the weights. The weights got lifted, but what was really accomplished?
Historically, these texts were often consumed (especially in formal or semi-formal settings) by either having them read aloud for you or reading them aloud yourself. They were more like a written-down formal speech to be slowly pondered upon than something to be read smoothly and silently on one's own, which is how we now regard almost all texts. There was "labor" involved but that labor was not really about being more literate or exercising more critical thinking: it was simply about slowly recreating in one's mind the kind of broad structural scaffold we now expect to see in a text as a matter of course. It's in fact easier to think critically about a text when its sections and structure are clearly laid out, and having a LLM do this for you is a nice way of avoiding personal tendencies and biases that might lead one to misinterpret what the text is really about.
>Historically, these texts were often consumed (especially in formal or semi-formal settings) by either having them read aloud for you or reading them aloud yourself.
In the middle ages this was true, mostly because few people were literate at all and the words didnt have spaces between them. The ability to read silently was regarded as impressive.
By 1911 reading silently to yourself was the expectation of a normal literate adult. Only hillbillies and their ilk could not.
This is a simple text, intended to be legible even to school children of the era. It's also very structured already.
Their contemporary English was a bit different, but not so far removed that you should need assistance.
It was very much the norm in formal and semi-formal gatherings. They didn't have conference talks with PowerPoint slide decks, their own equivalent was to read out articles or papers. This often extended to university-level lectures, in a practice that was arguably carried over from the middle ages as you mention, but was very much still in use.
> It's also very structured already.
It's definitely not very structured by modern standards. The length of paragraphs alone would be described as "wall of text". Again, this was an ordinary practice back in the day, aimed at saving costly paper and reducing the manual effort involved in physically laying out the work on the page. It was far from exceptional: to a first approximation, most texts from the early 20th c. or before will look like that.
I work with fortune 500 clients, and all of them use Windows server for something. Usually a lot of somethings. For example: Active Directory.
If we look at Microsoft's revenue I think it's pretty clear that they do in fact care an awful lot about Windows Server - or at least should.
In fiscal year 2025, Microsoft Corporation's revenue by segment:
Devices: $17.31 B
Dynamics Products And Cloud Services: $7.83 B
Enterprise Services: $7.76 B
Gaming: $23.46 B
Linked In Corporation: $17.81 B
Microsoft Three Six Five Commercial Products And Cloud Services: $87.77 B
Microsoft Three Six Five Consumer Products and Cloud Services: $7.40 B
Other Products And Services: $72.00 M
Search Advertising: $13.88 B
Search And News Advertising: $13.88 B
Server Products And Cloud Services: $98.44 B
Server Products And Tools: $98.44 B
Windows: $17.31 B
I don’t think this is clear at all because the segments are lumped together and highly unclear.
What’s the difference between “server products and cloud services” and “server products and tools?”
I assume the former is Azure and the latter is on-premise.
In that case if we lump 365 in with server products and cloud tools then it shows that 2/3 of the enterprise revenue is going to cloud and 1/3 is on-premise (and I assume that 1/3 is declining over time)
You only need a couple of Active Directory and Exchange servers here and there. But who's using IIS or SQL Server these days? Sharepoint also seems to be on a downturn.
I may be guilty of the same thing you're mentioning (I'm in the USA), but my Nokia 6210 came with a carrier lock and I wasn't even able to visit websites via the WAP browser unless my carrier approved of them because WAP acted like a sort of mandatory vendor operated proxy that allowed them to see and filter everything the phone did. They would, for example, filter out websites about ringtones to try and force you to buy theirs for $0.99/piece.
My experience with a Nokia 6210 was very much the opposite of what you describe.
It was exactly like the GP described in the UK too. All-powerful carriers at a time when Apple was almost bankrupt, before Google was a verb and before Microsoft made phones that would crash just sitting waiting for a call.
Gemini cli is literally the worse agentic cli tool that I've tried and Google won't let you use your credentials with any other.
It lacks obvious features that all the others have, crashes constantly, breaks so badly you lose work at least once a week, is seldom updated, and worse was recently crippled even further intentionally.
Google has had load issues forever. Their most recent solution has been to throttle CLI users to the point that it's almost useless. The only way to get decent service is to pay per query with the API now.
I cancelled my Ultra plan and went to ChatGPT. They still let you chose your preferred tool. Meanwhile, Googles forums and github are filled with wailing and gnashing of teeth, but Google customer service policy is the same as it was when they just did search: reproachful silence.
>in principle, cybersecurity is advantage defender
I disagree.
The defender must be right every single time. The attacker only has to get lucky and thanks to scale they can do that every day all day in most large organizations.
My understanding of defense in depth is that it is a hedge against this. By using multiple uncorrelated layers (e.g. the security guard shouldn’t get sleepier when the bank vault is unlocked) you are transforming a problem of “the defender has to get it right every time” into “the attacker has to get through each of the layers at the same time”.
It is a hedge, that said it only reduces the probability of an event and does not eliminate it.
To use your example, if the odds of the guard being asleep and the vault being unlocked are both 1% we have a 0.0001 chance on any given day. Phew, we're safe...
Except that Google says there are 68,632 bank branch locations in the US alone. That means it will happen roughly 7 times on any given day someplace in America!
Now apply that to the scale of the internet. The attackers can rattle the locks in every single bank in an afternoon for almost zero cost.
The poorly defended ones have something close to 100% odds of being breached, and the well defended ones how low odds on any given day, but over a long enough timeline it becomes inevitable.
To again use your bank example. if we only have one bank, but keep those odds it means that over about 191 years the event will happen 7 times. Or to restate that number, it is like to happen at least once every 27 years. You'll have about 25% odds of it happening in any 7 year span.
For any individual target, it becomes unlikely, but also still inevitable.
From an attackers perspective this means the game is rigged in their favor. They have many billions of potential targets, and the cost of an attack is close to zero.
From a defenders perspective it means realizing that even with defense in depth the breach is still going to happen eventually and that the bigger the company is the more likely it is.
Cyber is about mitigating risk, not eliminating it.
Well, the attacker has something to lose too. It's not like the defender has to be perfect or else attacks will just happen, it takes time/money to invest in attacking.
The cost to your average ransomware crew can be rounded down to zero, because it's pretty darn close. They use automated tools running on other peoples computers and utilizing other peoples connectivity. The tools themselves for most RaaS (ransomware as a service) affiliates are also close to zero cost, as they pay the operator a percentage of profits.
The time is a cost, but at scale any individual target is a pretty minor investment since it's 90%+ automated. Also, these aren't folks that are otherwise highly employable. The opportunity cost to them is also usually very low.
The last attacker I got into a conversation with was interesting. Turns out, he was a 16 year old from Atlanta GA using a toolkit as an affiliate. He claimed he made ~100k/year and used the money on cars and girls. I felt like he was inflating that number to brag. His alternative probably would have been McDonalds, and as a minor if he got caught it would've been probation most likely. I told him to come to the blue team, we pay better.
At the end of the day, that guy is spending all of his finite hacking time setting up and maintaining these exploits and stolen infra. His marginal cost of breaching you is 0 if you're already vulnerable to the exact same exploit he already set up, but that's a big if, and someone else spent their finite time making toolkits. Otherwise you'd expect everything on the Internet that has any kind of vuln to be breached already.
Anyway I'm curious about the 16yo. Is it that he has special skills, or is it just that minors will do that dirty work for cheaper, given lower consequences and fewer other opportunities?
> m curious about the 16yo. Is it that he has special skills, or is it just that minors will do that dirty work for cheaper, given lower consequences and fewer other opportunities?
I was only able to keep him talking for about 20 minutes, so I can only speculate, but he was using off the shelf RaaS tools that he had modified to make more convincing. I actually got him talking by pointing out that a trick he'd done with the spoofed email headers from "coinbase" was clever, so he was definitely skilled for someone so young. He also had done his homework and knew a bit about me.
It's likely he was recruited just because he was too young for prison, but that he was relatively successful because he was clever.
It COULD be that you are correct and the world is crazy, but its far more likely that you are the one who is missing something. It's always worth stopping to double check when this happens.
Perhaps more importantly, if you do happen to be right when everyone else is wrong its important to determine your goals.
Is it more important to be right, or to be happy? If the answer is the latter then its sometimes best to just let people continue being wrong for the sake of being social. Nobody likes to be told they're wrong, so is "correctness" worth more than that person's feelings? Very oten it is not.
reply