Your statement about "detailed firsthand knowledge" hit home and reminded me of a topic related to job/task automation--single points of knowledge.
There is a big push at my employer to eliminate single points of knowledge and this push typically takes the form of voluminous amounts of documentation that is 1) never proofed, validated, maintained, or updated, and which 2) no one ever reads. Makes more sense to have a solid continuity plan and create a work environment that doesn't cause employees to pull a Jerry McGuire. Probably also worth recognizing the value of observing the practice in action vs reading someone's opinions on it.
I come away from from this article with two thoughts.
1) Regarding the example of qualitative data via drunk students attending eye-licking parties. The author doesn't explain how this is qualitative. To my mind it's a gap in the model. The modelers could have included parameters to account for students behaving impulsively or irrationally, but they didn't.
2) Considering the nebulous nature of terms like consciousness and comprehension and the ensuing challenges of measurement, can it be proven that the structures that can potentially underpin behavior, etc., that would generally be recognized as conscious or comprehending do not exist as an emergent but undetected property of the Internet? Is it reasonable to suppose that if such a structure existed and if it possessed or embodied consciousness or comprehension that it might work toward remaining unknown?
In my experience, reasons like "spontaneity" and "dynamism" are used to cast lack of vision, poor planning and management, and amateurish execution in a positive light. YMMV.
> Nothing else allows the non-tech user to feel empowered like spreadsheets do.
I'd say it allows the same for technical users as well since it helps bridge communication/knowledge gaps and move things along. It's typically not the solution but often plays a critical supporting role.
I'm not familiar enough with the technology to understand the privacy implications--are operators able to identify/snoop on specific users? I'm wondering how easily a building owner or landlord could collect and leverage their residents' data for any number of nefarious reasons.
I often wonder whether the solution is setting the expectation with companies that if they act in bad faith, their leadership will be om nom nommed? Apologies for the metaphor, it's the best I could come up with on short notice.
There is a big push at my employer to eliminate single points of knowledge and this push typically takes the form of voluminous amounts of documentation that is 1) never proofed, validated, maintained, or updated, and which 2) no one ever reads. Makes more sense to have a solid continuity plan and create a work environment that doesn't cause employees to pull a Jerry McGuire. Probably also worth recognizing the value of observing the practice in action vs reading someone's opinions on it.
Humans aren't fungible.