Yes, psychology, specifically cluster b personality disorders - although it's much more nuanced and complicated than what I've described, especially as conditions often transform and metastasize over time. For example, the borderline can take on a narcissistic persona when challenged and would be diagnosed as such in that self-state.
It's quite difficult to find reliable sources of information online, as narcissism and psychopathy are popular subjects these days - ironically attracting narcissists and psychopaths to the production of content relating to it (for views or money).
This sounds like psychopathy (also a trait of borderline and narcissism, although there's an argument to be made that psychopaths are distinct from those).
I wouldn't expect a logic based rebuttal to work - all of these conditions are essentially emotional in nature, compensating for a negative past (shame) or compensating for a negative future (generalised anxiety).
This compensation is specifically grandiosity - a cognitive distortion to set themselves up as superior in their own minds, such that they no longer need to be ashamed or anxious.
Contempt is a manifestation of grandiosity, or more precisely a reaction to shame, transforming the realisation of their perceived inferiority in the past or future into the delusion of superiority.
A fall-back to the current way of unlocking the volume would probably be a good idea. It wouldn't be fun to lose access to something because a cloud service went down or access to it was lost etc.
Ironically, the passphrase for the encryption wouldn't be encrypted in this scenario as claims can be decoded from the token payload if intercepted. It would also probably be stored as-is server side as well. Claims aren't designed as secrets.
Perhaps you could authorise a request to an actual secrets manager via oidc though, allowing the volume to be unlocked.
Are you sure there's a significant difference between RISC and CISC after instructions are decoded?
The assembly in RISC is just an abstraction of the machine code, as it also is in CISC. If the underlying CPU has the same capabilities then it doesn't really matter what the assembly looks like?
Of course, the underlying CPUs aren't the same and that's the real point of differentiation.
This isn't completely true. Even a basic instruction like ADD has multiple implementations depending on the memory sources.
For example, if the memory operand is in RAM, then the ADD needs to be decoded to include a fetch before the actual addition. RISC doesn't change that fact.
It doesn't really make much of a difference on modern CPUs as instructions are broken down into RISC-like instructions even on CISC CPUs before being processed to make pipelining more effective.
Is there any reason why you downvoted my other comments?
You can learn a lot of valuable skills by being a caregiver to someone like this, although they will try to pull you into their cynical worldview. This is a simplistic, and distorted view of the world that aligns with how psychopaths and narcissists experience the world, however, isn't useful nor realistic.
They both have a splitting mechanism where people are split into an all good and an all bad object, and struggle to integrate these two objects into an integrated object that accurately represents people. The psychopath can't create complete objects, and so splits people into good in the form of utility, and bad in the form of impediment to their goals.
Cynicism is assuming the true object is the bad object because they feel it's safer to assume the worst in someone than assume the best. Game theory suggests this makes sense in extremely hostile environments, however, is detrimental in most other situations. It has a tendency to create the hostile environments it's supposedly adapted to cope with.
I'm dealing with a situation at the moment where an individual was a caregiver for decades, only for the cared person to turn around and leave the caregiver to die when the caregiver became too old to provide the care the cared person felt entitled to have.
They will never show you any gratitude, and it will be genuinely dangerous when you decide to stop or simply can no longer continue providing care.
Once you exist in the psychopath's world, you only have one of two choices: be useful or be destroyed. People without any utility to them don't exist to them, however, once you exist, you can't go back to not existing.
Take care, and acknowledge the opportunity cost of your time and energy is being deprived from other people who genuinely need and can appreciate it.
In my experience, you try to have as little to do with them as possible. Do you have some legal obligation to be their caregiver?
I think most people will recommend setting boundaries and sticking to them, however, they are compelled to cross any lines you set.
You kind of end up setting sacrificial boundaries that they can cross, or boundaries with a buffer zone so they can cross it a little bit without going too far.
Like, if the speed limit is 50 km/h, they're going to go 55 km/h, and that's still a safe speed so you're happy and they're happy. If they go 100 km/h, well, that's genuinely unsafe and you're forced to intervene.
There is no such thing as a sociopath clinically speaking. There are primary and secondary psychopaths though, the former lacking empathy entirely and the latter having access to some empathy. They are both alloplastic (irresponsible for their actions and their consequences) and thus neither can feel guilt as guilt is associated with having responsibility. Psychopaths tend to have a generalised anxiety at their core, which they compensate for with defiance (to convince themselves and others of their power as a means to deal with the anxiety). This creates a backlash against them, which because they're irresponsible, creates frustration, something they can't manage well, and so direct the frustration outwards in the form of aggression.
Anxiety and shame are the emotions associated with negative (or potential) consequences while being powerless. Psychopaths are more anxious because they have an internal locus of control, whereas narcissists are more shameful because they don't. In both cases, they seek control, albeit for different reasons.
EDIT: Psychopaths see other people as pets at best, and tools at worst. As you say, they do not perceive you as equals.
Reducing other people to mere tools is a symptom of psychopathy rather than simply low empathy. Yes, psychopaths are within the set of people with low empathy, however, shouldn't be confused with the set itself. It's also specifically a lack of affective (warm) empathy that's more of the problem than a lack of empathy in general, as some psychopaths do have cognitive (cold) empathy, and so do understand others (albeit to a limited extent), however, just use it to be more exploitive rather than less. This is by contrast with autistic people who often struggle with cognitive (cold) empathy, however, not with affective (warm) empathy, i.e. they don't know how they've hurt people but they know they've hurt people and try to avoid doing so.
Yes, psychology, specifically cluster b personality disorders - although it's much more nuanced and complicated than what I've described, especially as conditions often transform and metastasize over time. For example, the borderline can take on a narcissistic persona when challenged and would be diagnosed as such in that self-state.
It's quite difficult to find reliable sources of information online, as narcissism and psychopathy are popular subjects these days - ironically attracting narcissists and psychopaths to the production of content relating to it (for views or money).
This sounds like psychopathy (also a trait of borderline and narcissism, although there's an argument to be made that psychopaths are distinct from those).
I wouldn't expect a logic based rebuttal to work - all of these conditions are essentially emotional in nature, compensating for a negative past (shame) or compensating for a negative future (generalised anxiety).
This compensation is specifically grandiosity - a cognitive distortion to set themselves up as superior in their own minds, such that they no longer need to be ashamed or anxious.
Contempt is a manifestation of grandiosity, or more precisely a reaction to shame, transforming the realisation of their perceived inferiority in the past or future into the delusion of superiority.
A fall-back to the current way of unlocking the volume would probably be a good idea. It wouldn't be fun to lose access to something because a cloud service went down or access to it was lost etc.
Ironically, the passphrase for the encryption wouldn't be encrypted in this scenario as claims can be decoded from the token payload if intercepted. It would also probably be stored as-is server side as well. Claims aren't designed as secrets.
Perhaps you could authorise a request to an actual secrets manager via oidc though, allowing the volume to be unlocked.
Did you see the external libraries options?
"Global" services like CloudFront and Route53 are really us-east-1 under the hood with replication to other regions.
The current government hasn't been normal by New Zealand standards. It's risking being a one term government.
Are you sure there's a significant difference between RISC and CISC after instructions are decoded?
The assembly in RISC is just an abstraction of the machine code, as it also is in CISC. If the underlying CPU has the same capabilities then it doesn't really matter what the assembly looks like?
Of course, the underlying CPUs aren't the same and that's the real point of differentiation.
This isn't completely true. Even a basic instruction like ADD has multiple implementations depending on the memory sources.
For example, if the memory operand is in RAM, then the ADD needs to be decoded to include a fetch before the actual addition. RISC doesn't change that fact.
It doesn't really make much of a difference on modern CPUs as instructions are broken down into RISC-like instructions even on CISC CPUs before being processed to make pipelining more effective.
As an administrator, I can see who voted on posts and comments and how they voted.
Is there any reason why you downvoted my other comments?
You can learn a lot of valuable skills by being a caregiver to someone like this, although they will try to pull you into their cynical worldview. This is a simplistic, and distorted view of the world that aligns with how psychopaths and narcissists experience the world, however, isn't useful nor realistic.
They both have a splitting mechanism where people are split into an all good and an all bad object, and struggle to integrate these two objects into an integrated object that accurately represents people. The psychopath can't create complete objects, and so splits people into good in the form of utility, and bad in the form of impediment to their goals.
Cynicism is assuming the true object is the bad object because they feel it's safer to assume the worst in someone than assume the best. Game theory suggests this makes sense in extremely hostile environments, however, is detrimental in most other situations. It has a tendency to create the hostile environments it's supposedly adapted to cope with.
I'm dealing with a situation at the moment where an individual was a caregiver for decades, only for the cared person to turn around and leave the caregiver to die when the caregiver became too old to provide the care the cared person felt entitled to have.
They will never show you any gratitude, and it will be genuinely dangerous when you decide to stop or simply can no longer continue providing care.
Once you exist in the psychopath's world, you only have one of two choices: be useful or be destroyed. People without any utility to them don't exist to them, however, once you exist, you can't go back to not existing.
Take care, and acknowledge the opportunity cost of your time and energy is being deprived from other people who genuinely need and can appreciate it.
In my experience, you try to have as little to do with them as possible. Do you have some legal obligation to be their caregiver?
I think most people will recommend setting boundaries and sticking to them, however, they are compelled to cross any lines you set.
You kind of end up setting sacrificial boundaries that they can cross, or boundaries with a buffer zone so they can cross it a little bit without going too far.
Like, if the speed limit is 50 km/h, they're going to go 55 km/h, and that's still a safe speed so you're happy and they're happy. If they go 100 km/h, well, that's genuinely unsafe and you're forced to intervene.
There is no such thing as a sociopath clinically speaking. There are primary and secondary psychopaths though, the former lacking empathy entirely and the latter having access to some empathy. They are both alloplastic (irresponsible for their actions and their consequences) and thus neither can feel guilt as guilt is associated with having responsibility. Psychopaths tend to have a generalised anxiety at their core, which they compensate for with defiance (to convince themselves and others of their power as a means to deal with the anxiety). This creates a backlash against them, which because they're irresponsible, creates frustration, something they can't manage well, and so direct the frustration outwards in the form of aggression.
Anxiety and shame are the emotions associated with negative (or potential) consequences while being powerless. Psychopaths are more anxious because they have an internal locus of control, whereas narcissists are more shameful because they don't. In both cases, they seek control, albeit for different reasons.
EDIT: Psychopaths see other people as pets at best, and tools at worst. As you say, they do not perceive you as equals.
Reducing other people to mere tools is a symptom of psychopathy rather than simply low empathy. Yes, psychopaths are within the set of people with low empathy, however, shouldn't be confused with the set itself. It's also specifically a lack of affective (warm) empathy that's more of the problem than a lack of empathy in general, as some psychopaths do have cognitive (cold) empathy, and so do understand others (albeit to a limited extent), however, just use it to be more exploitive rather than less. This is by contrast with autistic people who often struggle with cognitive (cold) empathy, however, not with affective (warm) empathy, i.e. they don't know how they've hurt people but they know they've hurt people and try to avoid doing so.
It may seem this way at times, however, it really depends on the system you're participating in.
Have a play around with: The evolution of trust - https://ncase.me/trust/
You're not arguing against anything I've said given I said blame, as in, scapegoating AI for mismanagement and fundamental changes.
I remember talking about this at the time. It did get some attention, although the industry was quick to blame other things instead, like AI.
That's why it's called anti-social personality disorder.