This makes the second or third piece I've read this week to suggest that the populism we're seeing behind Brexit and the Trump phenomenon is at some level motivated by a desire to actually cause the harm seems so obvious to experts and the chattering classes. Mind you this guy added a new twist that this destructive intent might not have been a conscious.
Just to spell it out, this articles answer to the question posited in it's title is that maybe Brexit was an unconscious act of economic sabotage.
Seriously? Is that where we're at?
If people want to make sense of the populism surrounding Brexit or Trump, the first step is to stop making up bullshit and accept these many voters and activists are sincere, genuine and motivated by the hope of something better.
I think the reason that people don't get this, is because they inhabit an intellectual and an informational world where all those harms mentioned in the article are just freaking obvious.
So, in the UK, the US, and even in Australia we're witnessing these populisms that invite the connections everyone is making, they express the same fears, the same distrust of institutions and expertise, they share the same race-inflected dimension, and belief that Islam is a threat. They even share the same climate denialism, which is curious.
Now, while it may not sound as creative or cool as the masses unconsciously taking down the system. But it's worth mentioning that in Australia, the UK and in the US, our news media is characterised by the dominating reach and profound influence of News Limited / Fox News. Being the news outlet who's reputation is synonymous with its message on those same very fears and issues.
But that's just a coincidence right? No, we don't talk about that. It's not like a divorce between democracy and science, expertise and truth is something we should be worried about.
Yeah, my bad. Brexit was totally an act of unconsciously self-destructive class warfare, that makes much more sense for us to be talking about. That's some next level jungian collective unconscious shit right there.
So, has it completely escaped the attention of the makers of mobile games that almost 60% of gamers on mobile platforms are women? Seriously - It's kinda odd that one of the defining characteristics of the mobile gaming market doesn't actually seem to be reflected in what the industry is releasing.
It's one hell of an omission, and actually, there's got to have been a lot of opportunity missed.
And the icing on that cake? On mobile, female gamers are actually way more loyal players (42% higher 7-day retention on average versus males), they also spend about 35% more time in gaming appss, oh and they're also spending around 31% more on In-App-Purchases than their male counterparts too.
For all the hyperbolae of the headline, this article reeks of sour grapes and conjecture, if not outright paranoia.
In complete ignorance of exactly what qualities the company was selecting for in finding the best fit, he simply assumes that his claim to superior qualifications means some manner of reverse sexism was at play. He can claim all the liberal credentials he wants, but it's difficult not to read this as a minor tantrum... Even assuming his claim to superior qualifications (and that's quite the claim to make without access to another individuals resume and academic results, etc) this whole article reads like the misdirected frustrations of a wounded ego.
For one thing it's a dumbass approach to human resources to favour only those candidates who possess superior qualifications, and its one that I'm pretty sure has generally lost its currency. Any enterprise with a vacancy is not only looking for a puzzle piece who's competent to perform the designated tasks of a role, but someone who fits in the culture of the company, and there are always candidates who's work history and experience shines for reasons besides formal qualifications.
I just find this whole article objectionable. That a company has made a public commitment to diversity doesn't mean that the author and his friend failed to be interviewed because of their penises. Clearly they both have high opinions of themselves, but claiming discrimination just because a woman got the job and some vague notion that the hiring company "endorsed" a youtube video (really what?), well it smacks of pettiness and a complete ignorance of the thinking that goes into hiring decisions.
No matter the heights of the authors disbelief or his wounded pride in not even being interviewed, hiring the right person can be a dark art and just because it escapes this writers comprehension that a particular woman was favoured over him, is no kind of argument that discrimination was at play.
Why does this have any votes? The talk clearly isn't banned or unavailable - that's a ridiculous and hyperbolic claim. It's a TEDx talk, which are independent events where speakers are not in fact vetted by TED. Meanwhile TED can and does have a say on the content hosted under its own banner.
They made the decision not to do so with this talk because the Sheldrake's talk is premised on a number of false assumptions about the way science operates, and for the factual errors relied upon in the talk.
By their very nature blog articles like this are reaching an audience of non-coders, to show them that a basic understanding of programming is within their grasp, that it's a worthwhile intellectual exercise, and yes, that there IS fun to he had in the endeavour.
Blog articles like these are not prospectuses for Computer Science courses, they are not meant to be a sombre accounts of the travails to be had in professional programming life. And your profession is no more devalued by their existence than Electrical Engineering is somehow devalued by those kits for children to make their own rudimentary electrical circuits.
And just the same, these kinds of articles have an educational function, especially when it comes lowering the perceived barrier for entry for lay people to understand some of the fundaments of how software works - and this includes young minds who may well choose it for a career.
I'm one of those ordinary people who read these kinds of articles and was motivated into action. And I was profoundly embarrassed at how long it took me to make my first to-do app. It didn't come natural to me, and I cracked the shits and banged the table at how I overlooked the one character typo that was screwing it up. But you know what? Finishing it was actually "fun" and it was "rewarding".
I'll leave it to you to guess whether my stumbled first steps into n00b level code have meant that your craft and your profession is now diminished in my mind, or elevated.
In a world where software is all pervasive, there's nothing to be served in encouraging popular ignorance. And I'm sure there's more to be gained for your profession as a whole if the wider world was just a little more literate about what you do.
Sorry, I have to ask why it is you're disinclined to pay the subscription fee for content libraries like spotify, or an audiobook collection of some sort?
It's just that for me, Spotify has actually changed how I consume music, displacing the piratic tendencies of my past. And now, having ready access to this monumental archive of human musical output, wherever I go... that's something I've really come to value. And seriously, in the scale of what things cost in the world, the fee's peanuts! I'd be perfectly happy with forking over double the current charge.
So, we've both obviously take different mental turns along the road - that's why I'm curious to hear your take.
Agreed. My point was simply that I don't believe it's prefabrication itself that folks are taking issue with. It's the fact that we're talking about a sterile, impractical and dehumanising box.
I don't believe that the objections come down to the principle of prefabrication itself, but the execution. In Europe and the Anglo-sphere, we've learned the hard way that when we try to regiment human lives to rigid efficient clean modernist boxes... it doesn't work and there are social consequences. Our buildings, our homes and our workspaces must conform to us, and not the other way around.
It's a pity his ambitions don't embrace even a hint of design thinking or aesthetic virtue. Seriously, they're butt ugly. Just phallic boxes that describe an obsession with size and haste that seems to have trumped even the most basic functional considerations for a building.
I can't help but think his promotional material might read suspiciously like the spam in my inbox: 'Big erections, FAST!'
In my own experience, casual or minimal exercise has done little to affect my mood and since my early twenties depressive periods have been a very real problem, even effecting my employment at one point.
But going hard, and really pushing my body and pushing myself beyond my preconceived limits has done wonders. There have been times when getting that "runner's high" feeling has completely sidelined the depressive state I've been in. When it happens, I'm still astonished at how much that endorphin release can really make a difference to my mental well being. I realise this is all only anecdotal, with a sample size of one! But I believe runner's high is a recognised phenomenon:
There is one technological invention, completely 'unnatural' and born of human artifice, which each and everybody on Hacker News has internalised so deeply that we take it for granted almost as natural thing.
It extends our capacity for information gathering and exchange, and has extended human memory monumentally. I'm talking about writing.
Yeah, I admit it - I've drunk the Marshall McLuhan Kool-Aid. But think about it. You have ancestors for whom writing was an alien and unfamiliar information technology. And yet you can look at a page and suddenly be drawn into the sensations, ideas and experiences of men and women who died generations and continents away. All thanks to a technology that we have so thoroughly integrated with our experience of being alive and human that it's become second nature.
You're a cyborg already.
EDIT: Wow, I'm a little surprised I'm the first person to mention McLuhan? For those that don't know, he's the bloke that coined the term 'cybernetics'.
But does that really equate to different "qualia" or is it more like the cognitive "shorthand" involved in the experience of driving a vehicle? Is there a difference?
Just to spell it out, this articles answer to the question posited in it's title is that maybe Brexit was an unconscious act of economic sabotage.
Seriously? Is that where we're at?
If people want to make sense of the populism surrounding Brexit or Trump, the first step is to stop making up bullshit and accept these many voters and activists are sincere, genuine and motivated by the hope of something better.
I think the reason that people don't get this, is because they inhabit an intellectual and an informational world where all those harms mentioned in the article are just freaking obvious.
So, in the UK, the US, and even in Australia we're witnessing these populisms that invite the connections everyone is making, they express the same fears, the same distrust of institutions and expertise, they share the same race-inflected dimension, and belief that Islam is a threat. They even share the same climate denialism, which is curious.
Now, while it may not sound as creative or cool as the masses unconsciously taking down the system. But it's worth mentioning that in Australia, the UK and in the US, our news media is characterised by the dominating reach and profound influence of News Limited / Fox News. Being the news outlet who's reputation is synonymous with its message on those same very fears and issues.
But that's just a coincidence right? No, we don't talk about that. It's not like a divorce between democracy and science, expertise and truth is something we should be worried about.
Yeah, my bad. Brexit was totally an act of unconsciously self-destructive class warfare, that makes much more sense for us to be talking about. That's some next level jungian collective unconscious shit right there.