Ok so this "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" argument is so recurrent I once went looking where it came from.
The oldest account I found is in a religious book from 1832 [1]: "We must have nothing to hide, nothing to fear", but, and this is the important bit, this is in the context of your relationship with Christ.
Later accounts are mostly from judicial documents like "well tell us what happened, if you have nothing to hide, you'll have nothing to fear".
And later on we start to see the current form of the argument related to privacy, except now this argument is never directly used to erode it. It will always be in some form of "ok now we have to do this collective thing because of criminals, because of terrorism, because of protect the children, etc.".
If you search "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" 100% of the results are about how it is a logical fallacy, nobody at all seems to defend the argument and yet, here we are!
Food for thought:
- this argument may well be stuck in the collective unconscious of lots of people (albeit in the religious context)
- many governments, organizations and in any case the people in position of power and authority can develop a god complex (power corrupts etc.)
So unless I end up dealing with an all-loving and all-forgiving entity I could fully trust, I'd like to keep my right to privacy, thank you very much!
It's older than 1832; for example: "He who trembles at this moment is guilty. For innocence never trembles before public vigilance." Maximilien Robespierre, July 26 (8 Thermidor), 1794 (translated - the original would be in French). When it is used by surveillance advocates, they don't use the exact words.
Ah nice to know! In my defense I only searched for the English version.
That being said, Robespierre was a key participant of 'La Terreur' where tens of thousands of people where hastily judged and executed and he himself ended up executed 4 months after that speech. [1]
Just because you don't see it written verbatim "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" doesn't mean it's not the argument being made.
Right now you have half the country downright giddy about federal agents terrorizing broad swaths of Americans, driving recklessly down their freeways, waving guns around their neighborhoods, bodyslamming random passersby, all fundamentally because half the country believes the only reason someone could not be giddy about this is because they "have something to hide."
I saw that comment before it was flagged and thanks to that I now have this argument that you supplied. if I arrived a couple minutes later I wouldn't know it. (I browsed logged out)
I disagree with that guy but I don't know it should be flagged
The HN dead dynamic has been increasingly throwing babies out with the bathwater, and logging in (even to a throwaway account) with showdead=yes is the right call these days.
But for this particular comment, I assume it was flagged because at this point continuing to cheerlead for the fascists/destructionists with nonsense talking points is just basic flamebait. As GP said, the assertion that only illegal immigrants are being harassed/abducted/disappeared is completely unfounded - the government is not operating with transparency to demonstrate this, nor accountability for the collateral harm that we do know they have caused.
This is not basic flamebait. if you have any serious conversation outside of your political bubble this is THE argument that people who get deported are never US citizens. and it is a valid argument unless you can find examples of citizens deported. I can't
there are so many shorts of right wing "influencers" cornering liberals who can't give a suitable reply to this question.
so the argument about hearings is important. and killing this discussion took it away from public. this of course is very useful to the maga machine which is so friendly to big tech so I'm not surprised.
> THE argument that people who get deported are never US citizens. and it is a valid argument unless you can find examples of citizens deported (I can't).
It might be a valid argument in a dictatorship, but not in the US - rather it's hopeium that completely relies on preconceived assumptions. An assertion that everyone deported/disappeared must be a non-citizen (... because otherwise why would they have been deported?) is bog standard fallacy that the government/computer/bureaucracy] is always correct.
The entire foundation of Constitutionally limited government responsible to the People is that it is the government's job to justify its actions. That's the goal of open legal process, professional representation, the incarcerated's communication with the outside world, etc. A strongman wannabe-dictator asserting "trust me" but hiding all of the details, and for what we do know about engaging in wanton criminality, is nowhere near any level of good-faith executing the laws of a Constitutionally-limited government.
Personally I'd say people still thinking any of this is about "immigration reform" are being taken for a ride, just as they have been for the past thirty years.
Nope. It is a valid argument in US in the eyes of US citizens who make it. You don't get to just say "it's not a valid argument" and think that will convince people
and actually you know it too. That's why you give the rest of the explanation. which will not be seen because the conversation was killed.
What I mean is that it's not a legitimate argument in the context of good-faith discussion getting to the truths of matters, which is the ethos of this site.
I didn't address the social aspects you brought up, and I really should have. Yes, there are many people repeating these arguments, despite them being trivially debunked. That is a big part of The Problem, right? "Flood the zone with shit" to overwhelm people's attention and get them to succumb to repeated feel-good talking points that confirm their biases. But if people were more generally intellectually honest, then we wouldn't be staring down fascism to begin with.
There are also many people arguing against this tripe, but using the lamest arguments themselves, because once again confirming their preconceived biases feels good. When I go to protests, the sheer number of signs preaching to the choir saddens me - propagating the fascists' paradigm wherein the main issue here is illegal immigration is not going to win anyone over! The way I see it, we should be able to disagree on policy and solutions, but yet still reject the fascism together.
But back to the comment flagging - when the bulk of political discourse revolves around flamebait, then it's not terribly surprising the popular arguments get flagged on forums that are looking for something more than flame war. FWIW the whole conversation wasn't outright killed, rather it's hidden in a tree you can click to expand (it says [10 more] meaning 10 comments below it to expand). Personally, I usually click those, but I understand having to do so detracts from engagement.
> What I mean is that it's not a legitimate argument in the context of good-faith discussion getting to the truths of matters, which is the ethos of this site.
it's only not a legitimate argument if you are in a specific bubble. How do I know? Because I talk to people outside of it. Talk to some right-wing conservatives and you'll find out I promise you.
> Yes, there are many people repeating these arguments, despite them being trivially debunked.
No, they are not trivially debunked. Actually "no hearings" argumetn is trivially debunked by right wingers: "hearings take too long and we have too many immigrants committing crimes". However it's still a good argument to know. And killing this conversation makes sure people don't know it.
> confirming their preconceived biases feels good
Do you have enough introspection power to ask if you are doing that yourself right here?
> when the bulk of political discourse revolves around flamebait
Just because people don't understand how the legal system works, even though it has been explained to them, doesn't mean we should listen to their intentionally ignorant arguments.
They won't understand until somebody they know falls to the machine, then they'll say "oh I thought it would only happen to people I don't like."
So out there in social media some americans who don't understand how legal system works defeat in arguments other americans who don't understand how legal system works.
Do you think all americans on HN are definitely smart and understand now legal system works and if they are on the fence then they are malicious fascists? If yes then sure that post deserved to be flagged.
You need to stop sitting on the fence and thinking that the fascists' arguments are being made in good faith.
I'd say what's driving the grassroots is closer to pure anger, demanding solutions of "someone do something" for how they've been disenfranchised, for which this specter of "illegal immigrants" are being used as a scapegoat. You're not going to convince them of anything by pointing out that this strawman they just want to beat is entitled to Constitutional rights and due process. It's simply hindbrain tribal crap being stirred up by con man Trump and the fascist media bubble.
> Do you have enough introspection power to ask if you are doing that yourself right here?
I'm a libertarian who was both-sidesing up through Covid even. I had still thought there was a good chance Trump would come around to actually leading through June of 2020. Nope!
I still do occasionally ponder thoughts like - lets say I forget about the great amount of human suffering currently being created, and try on going with the flow and loving big brother - do I see any good economic outcomes from these policies here? And my answer still comes around to settling on no - they are continuing to destroy the core fabric of our country based around individual liberty and self determination, in favor of a strong man dictatorship. Trumpism is sold as some radical reset required to restore freedom, but it's merely the continued destruction of it.
>> when the bulk of political discourse revolves around flamebait
>This is not flamebait for the reasons I explained
You have not explained how it is not flamebait. Being popular does not mean something is not flamebait. If you respond to these right-wing "conservative" (aka fascist, actual conservatives were called RINOs and kicked out of the Party), you get back a flood of more half-baked arguments and you're off to the races, right? That's a flamewar, even if you keep your tempers. The only ways that conversation is going to end is to agree to disagree, the topic gets changed, or in anger and frustration.
(fwiw I'd say this dynamic of radical flamebait as common discourse applies to parts of the Democratic party as well)
> thinking that the fascists' arguments are being made in good faith.
> If you respond to these right-wing "conservative" (aka fascist, actual conservatives were called RINOs and kicked out of the Party), you get back a flood of more half-baked arguments and you're off to the races, right?
I argue about it with people I know who are center right. they sometimes make some good points and as non american it's hard to defeat them. maybe their arguments are stupid to you but not so stupid to me.
So this is informative to me to know the counter arguments.
also, it seems that there is a majority of people who voted right in US, if you believe the last election. just calling then fascists doesn't help convince them. but facts can
Their argument is that only non citizens who committed some crime get deported. Which is basically normal in many countries except maybe EU. I for sure know of people who got deported after committing crimes or even just administrative wrongdoings while being on legal visas
What you can say US should hold itself to higher standard and how trump does it is absolutely wrong... Then I agree
Yoo can also say that right wingers move goalposts by first saying "only illegal migrants get deported" then saying "even legal migrants pending citizenship can get deported if they commit a crime" then "any non citizen can get deported because nothing in constitution prevents it" which happens but it's usually hard to get somebody for moving goalposts in a real life argument.
But saying "whether someone is a citizen or not" is irrelevant is wrong because for US citizens is very relevant
> Their argument is that only non citizens who committed some crime get deported
This has always been true in the US, and is increasingly not true now. The data is extremely clear on this.
> any non citizen can get deported because nothing in constitution prevents it
This is only true with an asterisk which makes it not applicable to the current situation. In the US, even non-citizens (even the subset of illegal non-citizens) have due process rights, which the Trump admin is systematically violating.
"Whether someone is a citizen or not" is actually completely irrelevant for the question of whether they have due process rights under our Constitution.
Show the data then. Seriously. I couldn't find examples of deports of US citizens OR non citizens who did not commit crime or administrative wrongdoing.
> non-citizens have due process rights
Yes, so now you said US should hold itself to higher standard. And I already said I agree with it.
> "Whether someone is a citizen or not" is actually completely irrelevant for the question of whether they have due process rights under our Constitution.
If true then this looks like another great point that is lost into the abyss because the whole thread was killed. which part of constitution?
Almost none of the recent detainees have serious criminal convictions.
The vast majority of detainees have no criminal conviction at all (spoiler alert: because you already get fucking deported when you commit a crime in the US if you're here illegally... OBVIOUSLY.)
Nearly half don't even have pending criminal charges.
It's hard to know how many don't have administrative violations, but we do know they're routinely arresting people who are literally at the administrative proceedings to manage their immigration status. Such people are almost by definition following the law. We also know the Trump administration has cancelled hundreds of thousands (millions now?) of legal immigration statuses and declared previously legal people to be illegal overnight.
Every set of handcuffs and every seat on a plane for a non-criminal is one removed from the alleged hordes of violent illegal criminals who are overrunning our cities. We already saw during the first Trump administration that his "aggressive" immigration posture actually increased the processing time for actually dangerous/violent people because it stuffed the processing queues with all sorts of people who were causing no trouble to begin with.
> which part of constitution [gives due process rights to non-citizens]
The same part that gives it to citizens: The 5th Amendment.
> No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
The writers knew that "no person" was a different scope than "no citizen," because in other parts of the document they identify citizens and non-citizens, where appropriate.
In fact it obviously functionally makes no sense to limit due process to citizens, because otherwise an autocrat could eliminate a citizen's due process rights (and all other Constitutional rights) simply be declaring them to be illegal and precluding them from a hearing to determine otherwise.
I'm sorry to be pedantic but your article points out that x% have convictions, xx% have no convictions, and does not take into account who of them are illegal (undocumented).
I don't ask for much, is there a specific story of ONE case where somebody was deported (not detained) who is
- US citizen or
- legal document immigrant with no crimes and violations?
if you give me that then I will use this next time when arguing with right wing ppl I know. thanks
Sure: Andy Hernandez Romero, who is among hundreds and perhaps thousands of completely rule-following asylum seekers who have been deported without due process in violation of our own Constitution and asylum laws.
it's obviously stupid. even if they say "only criminals are deported", when legal system classifies a guy for tattoos and being non white as criminal, it's a useless justification https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cr4z640dlz3o.amp
but right wingers will still say, the guy was not a legal resident yet and literally just arrived via the border without any visa etc.
Regardless of the legality (which I can’t comment on being on the other side of the pond) - masked anonymous people snatching people from the street and disappearing them in unmarked vehicles sounds A LOT like what the nazi party did in my country. I know it’s a tired trope by this point but the parallels are definitely there.
And you know how the saying goes: first they came for xyz, by the time they came for me nobody was left to speak out for me.
US America was always a place for me to look up to, for free speech and a humane society that welcomes everyone — even if that was always an unreal ideal but at least it was something most US citizens took seriously; really sad to see it being dismantled so quickly in the years after 9/11 leading up to the situation now
Can you state specifically what you think "isn't happening" so I can respond to it?
> Ice agents are [only] deporting people in the US that are here illegally.
Not only is this not true, but it's irrelevant to my point. I'm not talking about deportation. I'm talking about ICE's actions here in the streets of American cities.
The hardcore supporters of the current U.S. administration (e.g. those that go to the rallies, give to the NRA, participate in some militant group), had been very distrustful of government in-general, and I suspect they still are.
You may feel that you’re supporting some radical left-wing group you think is cool that just wants people to let everyone be free to think and act how they want, but privacy / hiding communication goes both ways.
You may also be supporting terrorists that would rather be spitting on you and bombing your family and friends than reading your manifesto on the right to watch freaky crap.
> had been very distrustful of government in-general, and I suspect they still are.
They were never really distrustful of the government. People who really don't trust the government want to downsize the parts that can kick down your door and point a gun at you. These people have demonstrated time and again that they want more of that, because they actually trust that institutions of state violence will be on their side and uphold their interests.
Instead what they oppose are parts of the government they suspect are helping people and groups they dislike. This is what the American right reliably can't stand, for all the flavor of the month posturing they might engage in to keep things from getting stale.
It comes out in some pretty glaring self-contradictory ways, too. Big talk about the second amendment - personal freedom, from my cold dead hands, etc. Then Kenneth Walker straightforwardly exercises his second amendment right to lawful night time home defense, the government jackboot assailants murder Breonna Taylor in retaliation, and the supposed "freedom lovers" then chime in with support for the jackboots while twisting themselves in knots to justify how the victims of state violence deserved it.
As long as I can remember, the Republican party has been full of hypocrisy and ignorant denial. But this sheer ability of Dear Leader's to make people dance to his tune of outright harming themselves has taken it to another level (I guess there is a reason why he was (is) a really successful con artist). At this point anybody earnestly caring about personal liberty should consider the whole Republican party a sick joke. We need some real opposition ("Libertarian" party isn't well poised for that either), and some real voting systems that break a duopoly (eg Ranked Pairs). But first we really just need to take our country back from these fascists who have completely lost the plot of American ideals.
Are you saying that anonymity is bad because there are trump supporters that like anonymity?
Or are you saying that anonymity is not "cool" because radical left-wingers like it and that lets rightwingers do it as well?
Are you saying that advocating for anonymity is not nice because terrorists (who? I dont know many of them) will spit on you (do terrorists do that? does that make someone a terrorist?) and bomb not only you but you family and friends and not read my manifesto on anonymity, while insinuating that the only reason anybody wants anonymity is because they want to watch freaky "crap"?
Pardon, my french, but you sound like a troll from some intelligence agency. It just doesnt make a lot of sense.
> "We must have nothing to hide, nothing to fear", but, and this is the important bit, this is in the context of your relationship with Christ.
Also note how it is some sort of goal not a statement on not having something to hide. I guess in line with "may the one without sin throw the first stone".
> - this argument may well be stuck in the collective unconscious of lots of people (albeit in the religious context)
Another example of such a belief is that "humans are inherently evil" which seems to have been planted in Western society by the concept of original sin. Interestingly the idea that sin was about our inherent badness didn't really arise until the struggle against Gnosticism [1] hundreds of years after Jesus died.
Now the belief is pervasive in secular society thanks to stories like "Lord of the Flies".
It's fascinating how even though we can call ourselves non religious we can still carry these beliefs around.
If you're still in Sydney I'd argue that large numbers of people paddled out off of Bondi Beach because of a pervasive Australian belief that there's always a few arseholes but most people are fundamentally good and community support is better than nothing.
You likely saw a couple of extremists repeatedly tackled and then dropped by the public and police, and near real time running in to help victims.
That's somewhat contra to the bleak of "humans are inherently evil".
Maybe the message of Lord of the Flies was that nuclear weapons and the Cold War depressed at least one author and that boys need mentors.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think humans are inherently evil. In fact in times of crisis (like the one you mention) we do tend to come together and I think that's evidence that the belief is incorrect.
I just had a discussion the other day with somebody who outright told me that they think humans are inherently evil and must be managed under a system to keep in order. I don't think it's an uncommon belief and nor do I think it's a bleak world because that belief exists, it's just a mistaken belief.
I would argue that you see the belief raise its head far more when people are interacting with others who they don't consider in their "in-group".
Right, I don't think I've ever actually seen anybody make the "nothing to hide" argument. Maybe it was used more commonly in the past, but I only ever see people pre-emptively attack it without prompting. It seems to be a special case of a straw-man argument: a no-man argument. It's not the only such example, but it seems to appear without fail in the top comments in any discussion of privacy issues.
> In practice I'm not even getting "tracked". No one is likely to be looking up my license plate and looking at my movements, because I don't do anything that would warrant that kind of attention
Pretty sure virus creators could just pick a real ID leaked by the "adult only logins" shenanigans, whereas legit app developers probably wouldn't want to commit identity fraud.
If it gets that bad; Google can do what they already do with business listings - send a letter to the physical address matching the ID, containing a code, which then must be entered into the online portal.
Do that + identity check = bans for virus makers are not easily evaded, regardless of where they live.
That physical address will be useless, and probably easily worked around, in many if not most countries. Expecting Google to be able to use that address together with the law is a pretty US-centric expectation. I don't think most virus creators would be impacted, especially not the ones that are part of professional (criminal or government) organizations.
Nice project! Reminds me of a startup whom I met the founders several years ago: they had a system of hexagonal wooden tiles you could put on a device to play a specific songs (also maybe videos). I'm not sure the project is still alive but I found an article with pictures of what I saw: https://competition.adesignaward.com/ada-winner-design.php?I...
While digital files are obviously very practical and efficient for our pictures/audio/video I can't help but see how different our relationship to them is when a physical object embodies the data.
I regularly see similar articles with similar comments here, but there's one thing I still don't understand:
From the European Convention on Human Rights[1]:
ARTICLE 8
Right to respect for private and family life
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family
life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the
exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the
law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of
national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the
country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection
of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms
of others.
So I wonder, what is the legal argument solid enough to justify interfering with everybody's right to privacy?
My layman understanding of the usual process is like, we want surveillance over those people and if it seems reasonable a judge might say ok but for a limited time. Watching everyone's communications also seems at odds with the principle of proportionality[2].
> what is the legal argument solid enough to justify interfering with everybody's right to privacy?
"... except such as is in accordance with the law"
And the "interfering" coming from ChatControl is that "some algorithm" locally scans and detects illegal material, and doesn't do anything if there is no illegal material.
> Watching everyone's communications also seems at odds with the principle of proportionality
It's a bit delicate here because one can argue it's not "watching everyone's communications". The scanning is done locally. Nobody would say that your OS is "watching your communications", right? Even though the OS has to "read" your messages in order to print them on your screen.
Note that I am against ChatControl. My problem with it is that the list of illegal material (or the "weights" of the model deciding what is illegal) cannot be audited easily (it won't be published as it is illegal material) and can be abused by whoever has control over it.
Would you say that a minimal install of Linux or *BSD is "watching your communications"? It has to "read" your data in order to show them to you, but you wouldn't count this as "watching communications" or "surveillance". Siri running locally is not considered "surveillance".
The problem is when your data is exfiltrated, which is what you complain about with your Microsoft example. But again that's not what I meant.
It’s not what you meant but it’s what you said. I understand what you meant, but others might not. Many people think their phones/computers are watching their communications. This was in response to your ‘Nobody would say that your OS is "watching your communications", right?’, which I cannot agree with as everybody I know says those exact words about android/windows/etc.
Technically, I did not say it, I wrote it. Normally, the way it works is that you don't take a single sentence out of its context and then say it's wrong. You take the context.
I specified my thought in the next sentence:
> Even though the OS has to "read" your messages in order to print them on your screen.
Nobody would say that the OS is watching your communications, even though the OS has to "read" your messages to print them on your screen.
I understand but frankly "doesn't do anything if there is no illegal material" reminds me too much of the old anti-privacy argument "nothing to hide, nothing to fear".
It is about control and purpose, "my OS watches my communications" is true but weird to say because there's an expectation, unless compromised, that the OS is under my control so no problem. A third-party controlling the local scan of all my data specifically to report whatever it wants is a huge problem.
Too often are some specific issues left insufficiently addressed for too long and it seems like the answer ends up like, ok we give up, here's some collective punishment, that should do the trick.
> A third-party controlling the local scan of all my data specifically to report whatever it wants is a huge problem.
And that is exactly my point: you fundamentally can't audit what ChatControl is doing, because you don't have access to the "list of illegal material" (precisely because it is illegal). So whoever controls that list could abuse it.
I see lot of weird arguments like "it's breaking encryption" and "it's destroying democracies". It's wrong. The problem is that it may be abused if your democracy doesn't work as well as it should. And it's good enough an argument to be against ChatControl.
My whole point is that it's not constructive to throw baseless complaints at ChatControl: there is a valid argument against it (still looking for more), and we need to use it.
> It is the most technological color, and I’m willing to claim that this is why it is usually, in science fiction and elsewhere, used to represent the future.
For me it is because of red- and blueshifting[1]. Far away galaxies appear both older and redder the further away they are, so red is the past. And if you go really fast, the forward view will be bluer, so in the sense that it is where you go, blue is the future.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift#Blueshift
That’s exactly backwards. If the galaxies are turning red, you are in the future. If you they are turning blue, you are going into the past.
An analogy is that if everyone around you is getting older, similar to red shifted galaxies, it means time is advancing forward. If everyone was getting younger, then you’re going backward in time to the past.
> it becomes impossible to look at the crescent moon at night and not immediately triangulate the position of the sun
I do that too, like the moon is lit from the right, slightly from above so yes obviously the sun is over there, up, aaaand... nope, it's sunset. Something's not right, is the light curved?
Anyway, that's the day I learned about the lunar terminator illusion[1]. Honestly, even knowing about the phenomenon, it still feels quite mind-bending to think about it.
That whole article seems odd to me. I don't think I've ever felt this illusion, at least not when old enough to even think about the geometry of it.
I don't intuit the cylindrical projection mentioned in that article. I "feel" an arc over the hemispherical sky. I know the terminator is perpendicular to that arc and the moon chases the sun towards the horizon.
I wonder if latitude or other local terrain and climate features influence what sort of mental model one develops about this...
> Scientists in Japan have been discussing the possibility of using a material called perovskite for solar panels
> The perovskite tandem cell has a theoretical efficiency limit of 43 per cent, while the silicon-based cell has a theoretical efficiency limit of 29 percent. It is speculated that these solar panels will be able to produce 20 gigawatts of electricity by 2040
> Under Section 0 of Japan’s revised energy plan, the Ministry of Industry prioritises the use of perovskite solar cells over the less efficient silicon-based solar cells of yore.
> Japanese company, Sekisui Chemical Co., with the help of the Japanese government, is now working towards developing advanced perovskite solar cells for circulation in the global market in the 2030s.
The oldest account I found is in a religious book from 1832 [1]: "We must have nothing to hide, nothing to fear", but, and this is the important bit, this is in the context of your relationship with Christ.
Later accounts are mostly from judicial documents like "well tell us what happened, if you have nothing to hide, you'll have nothing to fear".
And later on we start to see the current form of the argument related to privacy, except now this argument is never directly used to erode it. It will always be in some form of "ok now we have to do this collective thing because of criminals, because of terrorism, because of protect the children, etc.". If you search "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" 100% of the results are about how it is a logical fallacy, nobody at all seems to defend the argument and yet, here we are!
Food for thought:
- this argument may well be stuck in the collective unconscious of lots of people (albeit in the religious context)
- many governments, organizations and in any case the people in position of power and authority can develop a god complex (power corrupts etc.)
So unless I end up dealing with an all-loving and all-forgiving entity I could fully trust, I'd like to keep my right to privacy, thank you very much!
[1] https://www.google.fr/books/edition/Sermons_on_the_Spiritual...