[elagost]

This is really well written and researched but confuses me. Do most people not do this - make choices based on values (and constantly re-evaluate those choices in the face of new information)?

When I decide to use software, move to a new location, purchase cereal at the grocery store, buy music, and a variety of other daily activities, these are choices I make based on my values. Many times I end up picking something that I find slightly less convenient or usable because it aligns with my values better, and I'm unwilling to compromise my ethical stance for a little bit of convenience.

It seems unrealistic to me that people would choose otherwise, given enough information.

[oblio]

No, they don't. You're an exception. Most people choose based on practicality or price. Free = even better.

I find that one of the few places where people act based on their values is raising children. And even there, a lot of people skip raising their children completely.

For everything else: convenience, price, maybe risk.

[erostrate]

And tech people tend to be much more willing to spend time&effort "optimizing" their choices to fit their values than the average population. At least for "small to medium" choices - not sure about raising children.

[simias]

Are we? I'm severely skeptical of this. Tech people tend to be financially secure so we can afford to pay more for stuff we care about, but I doubt we're significantly more opinionated and value-driven that the average population on average.

[yen223]

https://xkcd.com/610/

[erostrate]

I don't follow? I wasn't implying that this is a good thing, or that it makes tech people special, and certainly not that it makes them superior.

Edit: here's an xkcd more relevant to what I meant: https://xkcd.com/309/

[tpush]

Most people's moral values don't concern text editors, or software in general.

[brutal_chaos_]

True. Though a lot of tech people value libre software to some extent, so morals can often come into play. Even for something as simple as a text editor.

[rusk]

Software developers aren’t most people

[bhaak]

Contrary to the other replies to you I think that most people do "make choices based on values" but the crucial problem is "given enough information".

Remember that everyone of us is in an information bubble. We constantly filter out unimportant information based on our experiences.

If you are using Emacs and encounter a new problem you will first try to solve it with the tools you are used to (if you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail).

Finding new sources of information to change our filters is hard. Think back to the last time you came to a completely new technology and how lost you feel until you get a good grasp about it and how much of an uphill battle this can be.

The sunk cost fallacy runs deep there as well. Going back to something you know already well enough is often a tempting option.

[Ozzie_osman]

So I view a difference here between choosing a tool and designing a tool.

As a user/consumer, sure, you mostly decide pragmatically. Though values do come into play. For instance, if you value extensibility over approachability, you might be ok choosing a more complex tool even if it is more difficult to use at first.

But if you're building or designing a tool and you're making trade-offs, your values end up defining what you design and build.

[irrational]

I don’t have any values that would affect the cereal I buy. I’m not even sure what values would come into play. I don’t buy cereal that isn’t magically delicious? I just buy whatever is cheapest. Is not having much money a value?

Other than Richard Stallman, I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone talk about how their personal values determine what software they will use. If I can afford it (free is better!) and it does the job, I use it.

[oblio]

I can't say I choose based on values, but I can give you an example of what people may mean by choosing based on values.

Apparently a Nestlé representative recently declared that if a law that requires large corporations to disclose and to stop getting raw materials from suppliers which use forced labor (i.e. slavery) passes, coffee customers might be impacted, probably by higher coffee prices. It's at best a clumsy statement and at worst an endorsement of slavery (!), all for reducing coffee costs by probably a few percent.

A moral choice, based on values, would be to never buy coffee from Nestlé brands and instead buy from companies that guarantee that their suppliers don't use forced labor.

[ohthehugemanate]

Yes, lowest cost is a value. But there are probably 5 or 6 cereals at the lowest price point at your local grocery store. Which one do you pick, and why? Whatever the answer is, reveals your values. (Even "the one at eye level" reveals the value of minimum energy expenditure)

> If I can afford it (free is better!) and it does the job, I use it.

OK so one value is clear. But there are literally tens of software options that fit into those requirements. So why do you pick gdocs over libreoffice, or your workplace MS365 subscription?

Every choice you make is determined by your values, whether you're conscious of it or not. Very often, people think they hold one set of values (eg "i'm a vegetarian because I value animal life") but that is belied by their actions (eg wearing leather soled shoes). You can guess which one is a better indicator of their real values.

[irrational]

>Which one do you pick, and why?

Easy. Whichever one has the most chocolate. All the cheap ones have a lot of chocolate? Buy them all! You can never have enough chocolate flavored cereal.

[eigenket]

Personally I do buy cereal partially based on values. I absolutely refuse to buy stuff from nestle.

[einpoklum]

> I don’t have any values that would affect the cereal I buy.

* Would you buy cereal made by slaves?

* Would you not prefer cereal made by a small cooperative of people you know, over something made by BigCorp inc. ?

etc.

[irrational]

> Would you buy cereal made by slaves?

No, but I don't know which cereal is made by slaves and which isn't. Maybe none of them are.

> Would you not prefer cereal made by a small cooperative of people you know, over something made by BigCorp inc. ?

No. I have nothing against BigCorp.

[indy]

Most people are creatures of habit. Once they make a decision ("this is my brand of toothpaste") they tend to stick to that in spite of any new information.

[tjalfi]

This reminds me of a quote from Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynmann!.

"When you're young, you have all these things to worry about - should you go there, what about your mother. And you worry, and try to decide, but then something else comes up. It's much easier to just plain decide. Never mind - nothing is going to change your mind. I did that once when I was a student at MIT. I got sick and tired of having to decide what kind of dessert I was going to have at the restaurant, so I decided it would always be chocolate ice cream, and never worried about it again - I had the solution to that problem."

[uncledave]

There's one exception to that which is that it's sometime more fortuitous to throw energy into developing something you already know further rather than throwing all existing knowledge away and starting again on a whim.

[jrochkind1]

I'm not sure and I see your point, but also, you are maybe saying that, effectively, "convenience" or "usability" are values you (and most people) prioritize.

Which is not so different from when the OP article talks about emacs prioritizing "stability" really. "stability" isn't, like an ethical value or something really, it's a practical one, as are many of the others listed in OP.

[tome]

I don't think "convenience" is a value for the buyer of a consumer good any more than "going downhill" is a value for the designer of a roller coaster. It's just easier.

[jrochkind1]

Sometimes people choose a path that is less convenient, they don't always choose the most convenient, right?

You may go to an ice-cream shop further away, because you like their ice cream better. You may choose to buy from an independent bookseller instead of amazon because you want to support them to stay in business. Or you might have to choose between a cheaper but less convenient option (say with two week delivery time), or a more convenient but more expensive option -- some people at some times will choose cheap, others at other times convenience.

Convenience/being "easier" doesn't always win against other values.

This shows that convenience or "easiness" is in fact just one of several values, weighted differently in different contexts.

Or are you talking about the fact that it might not be totally conscious and explicit? True, I think the way the OP is thinking about values, they are not always totally conscious and explicit.

Compare to other values in OP's list -- they aren't all "ethical" at all. Values in this context aren't about morality or ethics, just about what factors are valued. Say, "stability" or "velocity". A software development process doesn't necessarily consciously and explicitly acknowledge that they have chosen "velocity" over "approachability".

[yrimaxi]

Yes. For example I don’t buy cereal because of my ethical stance of not wanting to feel bloated from a bowl of milk-and-starch.

[eeZah7Ux]

Amazing how ethics (especially around software freedom) are shunned on "hacker" news.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_ethic

[edit: let's the downvote fest begin...]