A side effect of reading the mailing list in bulk is that a set of common "stereotypes" of failure (for lack of a better word) start to emerge clearly from the stream of anecdotes. These really influenced my mental model of technology risks. I would still recommend the exercise for anyone interested in the subject.
As one example, I bumped into Risks in my teens (I think through Usenet comp.risks), at the internship start of my software engineering career. I now think back to things I said and did back then, and the formative influence of Risks is unmistakable.
Correctness? Safety? Security? Privacy? Societal implications? Responsibility?
The MBA-ification of the Internet came later, but before that, PGN helped educate and guide a generation of Internet-savvy people in the best direction.
What's weird was, back then, I thought about geography on the internet even LESS than I do now. It's strange now to realize PGN worked at SRI, just a few blocks from where I'm typing this. And he may have passed away at the hospital my wife's working at right now.
Peter's letter to readers about the creation of RISKS in Issue #1.01 [3] mentions SDI and CPSR (it's long, scroll down)
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative
2.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Professionals_for_Soc...
^ 1985, 2 years before i was born, on-line still had a dash. Man, what a time that must've been.
It wasn't unforeseeable, however, and it pains me to see on the Catless RISKS archive this note: "I'm sad to have to tell you that Peter Neumann died on the 17th May. This website will be here as long as I am able to maintain it, but whether or not there is any future RISKS content anywhere, I cannot say."
<https://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/>
Death is a risk, but not an inconceivable one, and it's a reminder that whilst a single individual can often drive with singular vision and surprising efficacy a project, that if they fail to establish some broader foundation, that project dies with them.
I'd noted this myself, in this context, several years ago: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37582242>.
I continue to hope that RISKS may survive Peter.
I will think “Agentic Engineering” is the “time-sharing” of our time. Embrace it.
RIP
(And if you don't get it, you wouldn't get it)
There's a Peter-shaped-hole in Sili Valley tech culture.
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
> There is an old adage (e.g., Zen) to the effect that we become what we perceive. In computer terms, our (human) outputs become identified with our inputs. Computer technology is exceedingly habit forming, and our civilization seems to be becoming more computer-like, in the name of "progress". Many people tend to identify with their computers, while others become more computer-dependent, willingly or unwillingly. In addition, the so-called "factory experience" has an antihuman element to it. Although it could indeed help to reduce repetitiveness, it must also allow a suitable role for creativity. (In the spirit of this paper we note that unbridled attempts at creativity can often be detrimental, resulting in obfuscational terminology that masks an absence of novelty, or the reinvention of suboptimal or intermediate steps that have previously been discarded by others for subtle reasons not perceived by the "reinventor".) Thus, it is incumbent on system designers and system development managers to understand the negative effects of the use of computers, and to attempt to minimize those negative effects. In this way, it should be possible to increase incentives, challenges, and satisfaction, to reduce boredom, burnout, and laziness, and generally to increase the effectiveness of computer developers and users.