Not very bad. In fact, it is most unlikely that you might get a virus on your mobile phone. Still, there is a chance, and as chances go, things might easily get worst. So far, though, no real risks.
They say that to call someone pedantic is an insult. I'm not so sure. True, someone pedantic is obsessed with minor details, small errors, or tiny imperfections. And a pedantic is also someone who cares too much about all such things not to let you know about them, advising or correcting, disagreeing or disapproving. And yes, if you are a pedant, you are more than just occasionally pedantic. This can happen to anybody, the excessive emphasis on some narrow or boring detail being a tendency we all share when it comes to matters about which we care very much. But if you are a pedant, being pedantic is your daily stance, your intrinsic nature, your way of living. You are always, consistently, reliably, systematically pedantic, from the moment you wake up, about the exact place where the slippers should be next to your bed, all the way to the moment you go to sleep, and the exact place where the phone should be placed to recharge. If you are a true pedant, no detail is too trivial, no
[22 April update: at the Digital Ethics Lab (OII, University of Oxford) we have elaborated a list of 16 questions to check whether an app is ethically justifiable, the full article, open access, is available here ] There is a lot of talk about apps to deal with the pandemic . Some of the best solutions use the Bluetooth connection of mobile phones to determine the contact between people and therefore the probability of contagion. In theory, it may seem simple. In practice, there are several ethical problems, not only legal and technical ones . To understand them, it is useful to distinguish between the validation and the verification of a system. The validation of a system answers the question: "are we building the right system?". The answer is no if the app is illegal, for example, the use of an app in the EU must comply with the GDPR; mind that this is necessary but not sufficient to make the app also ethically acceptable, see below; is unnecessary, f
I wanted to make a brief point. I thought it was original. But I was too late, it had already been made: mansplaining is gender-neutral . I know because I have had people explaining to me – your average Caucasian, male, middle-aged, European bourgeoisie, in other words, the stereotype of the mansplainer – how to spell my name. But let me hasten to say that, no, my dear, this is not literally, thank you for explaining to me that it cannot be the case. I meant it metaphorically. What puzzles me is how can you be so sure that you are not the one who is not getting it? Please pause for a moment and ask yourself whether "o buraco é mais embaixo", as they say in Brazil, which roughly means that "the hole is further down". And if it looks obvious to you, if you thought about it, why do you assume I did not? In short, next time, if you see me behind you, please do wonder whether I might be almost a whole lap ahead, before explaining to me how to run.
The art of biting one's own tongue consists in the ability not to engage when someone says something unpleasant, untrue, malicious, or abusive about you. Instead of answering a biased question, arguing against a ludicrous opinion, complaining about an abusive message, correcting a meaningless error, countering a fallacy, explaining a patent mistake, objecting to a groundless criticism, rectifying a willful misrepresentation, rejecting an insinuation, responding to a provocation, retorting to a nasty remark, replying to an offensive allegation, … in short, instead of engaging with your mindless interlocutors you simply ignore them and do absolutely nothing, not even acknowledging that you might have received their communication, not even sharing a “no comment”, just silence. As far as they know, you might have never got the email, read the tweet or the Facebook comment, seen the Instagram picture. If you bite your own tongue appropriately, for them their communication might have nev
The Wikileaks phenomenon is intricate, but suppose we reduce its ethical evaluation to two questions: is whistleblowing ethical, even when motivated by resentment and the desire to harm its target? And is Wikileaks’ facilitation of whistleblowing ethical, even if it might put at risk innocent people? A deontologist, convinced that telling the truth and never lying is an absolute must, is likely to appreciate whistleblowing as the right thing to do, independently of the reasons behind it. And a consequentialist may support Wikileaks as a means to maximise the welfare of the largest number of people, especially if risks are minimized by censuring sensitive information. So current answers in the mass media seem to converge: Wikileaks is a good thing. I am not entirely convinced. Confidential communication is a three-player game – sender, receiver and referent – in which sender and receiver trust each other. The receiver, not the referent, trusts and holds responsible the sender f
Call for Papers for American Philosophical Quarterly ’s special issue on The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence Editor in chief: Patrick Grim Guest editor: Luciano Floridi Artificial Intelligence (AI), from machine learning to robotics, generates enormous opportunities and significant challenges. In the past few years, many of them have led to a flourishing of international initiatives and growing research concerning the ethics and governance of AI. This special issue solicits the submission of original articles that investigate how AI is transforming classic questions or leading to new ones in moral thinking, and how such questions may be addressed successfully. Topics of special interest include but are not limited to AI and: authenticity, creativity, and intellectual property rights; bias, discrimination and fairness; the digital divide; digital sovereignty; capabilities and empowerment; cyberconflicts and cybersecurity; fake news and deep fakes; ethical frameworks and principles; et
Why does one publish anything at all? In a world that is always distracted. That already has millions of books. That has more classics than anyone will ever be able to read. In a world that does not read, does not care, does not mind. Why, really? If writing were just a dialogue with oneself, there would be no need to make it public. Why involve others in a private struggle? What is this need to share one's own thoughts? Something is wrong. Let me exclude some obvious answers. Of course, there are professional requirements: an academic, for example, will struggle to get a job without publications. There may be commercial needs: hoping to make some money, or just being able to support oneself. Commitments and promises can also play a role. Ambitions of fame and hopes for glory should never be underestimated, no matter how groundless. And with them, the glimpse, or just the illusion of a slice of immortality, or at least of a less short legacy. Someone may read you, one day, in a dis
To be exposed. To perceive something in such a way as to be affected, painfully, by what is imposing itself on one’s own perception, because of its barely bearable presence or absence. The boundless blue of space and time, beyond the dark trees, in a lately lightful evening. The unlimited blackness of nothingness, harmless, beyond your exiled existence. The endless green intricacies of malleable meanings, latching onto each other, beyond themselves. The bottomless whiteness of hollow horrors we inflict upon ourselves, beyond understanding. Being exposed to all this and more precedes wonder ( thaumazein ). And protecting oneself from this exposure prevents wonder. The mind does not bear too much exposure. There is a reason why we prefer to linger in the darkness. The cave is refreshing . We do not wish to be blinded by the light outside, skin burning under the sun. Still, a life unexposed cannot be a life lived philosophically. So, philosophy begins in maieutic pain . It all
Cataloguing and ranking seems rather popular in this age of cheap computational power, pseudo-scientific projects and top-down control policies. If you have no ideas, make a list. Better still if you can self-appoint yourself as the judge of what makes it into the list and according to which ranking. Now, it might be interesting to know what the very best, the good and the, well, not-so good (read: junky) journals in philosophy are, but the European Reference Index for the Humanities (ERIH) Journals Project is not, so far, reliable in any reasonable sense. Actually, it would be rather laughable, if it weren't a worrying waste of money and a dangerous step in the wrong direction (read: renewing or withdrawing subscriptions on the basis of such misconceived list, or using it as a yardstick to evaluate applicants and faculty members). The attempt to rank all European and the best of non-European Philosophy journals by means of 4 categories (A, B, C and unclassified), may be worth
Comments
Post a Comment