Hey, David! I'm surprised by how many people seem to be confused or irritated by you sharing this. I'm imagining that some people are hearing a demand that they have to read it, and then they're obliged to do as you prefer. And I also see you replying with a cheerful "Thanks!" to comments which I find myself judging as discompassionate. That inspires me. So I just wanted to say that it seems to me like you really value clear communication, collaboration, and trust, and that this document is your attempt at meeting those needs.
Would you say this is an accurate reflection of what you wanted to express sharing it here? Would love to hear it.
Well, there is nothing to believe or not believe in this study; it simply points out that most of the books disagree with what's widely accepted in the field[0]. Which do you believe, the widely accepted theory or 29 books?
I guess that's a fair question. Two reasons come to mind:
1. If the by-passers where to discover what you've done they might feel violated. This is why there are laws against stalking. Thus in this example it would be all about intent.
2. What if your database leaks? Have you considered that event, the probability of it happening, and the impact? How can you minimize the risk? Is it encrypted? How long do you need to store it for? Can it be anonymized? Do you even need to look up name? Is the potential privacy intrusion proportional to the purpose of collecting the data?
To be GDPR-compliant you must have answered all those questions and documented it.
Holy shit can't you read up before complaining without knowing the details? There is the exception that you may use and store data that is necessary for providing the service. Thus, since ip is necessary for talking to a server, you don't need to explicitly ask for consent. However you MUST NOT do anything else with that IP, like logging it for longer than necessary or tracking users across sites (without consent).
Why do you need to log ip? To prevent abuse? That's ok. For how long? That's up do you to decide, but it must be motivated and documented.
What's so hard to understand? How is this not perfectly reasonable already? Why are you entitled to not respect other's personal data?
> But I am also laying the groundwork to help others further down the road.
> I command a high wage
> [I] accumulate capital faster than most people
> A factory worker makes less than a third of what I do
> I can make a larger impact than them
> Most people do not earn enough to accumulate any meaningful capital in their lifetime
You are presenting pretty much every argument i can think of for why it's a problem that wealth generates wealth. That the very fact that you earn more than others is what prevents them from accumulating meaningful capital. Yet i don't see you fighting for wealth redistribution, which is a proven way of making an impact.
If you had said: "i believe i earn more than i deserve", "i have mostly been lucky", "hard working factory workers should earn more", or "free healthcare and education!", i might have believed that you planned to fight for making people who are rich like you at 60 slightly less rich (relatively). But you didn't. So i maintain my position that you should at least be honest.
Are you saying that you think you will be able to climb faster than everyone else and when finished (when are you rich enough btw?) be better at making an impact than all the other efforts trying to change the world?
At least be honest. It's not that it's the most efficient way to spend your money; you simply want to be the hero. While letting your spare coins trickle down to those below. And it's ok cause you'll pay back later. Maybe through the next generation even.
But it can easily be argued that it's been a zero-sum game, where one actor has been forced to use more targeted ads because others have been more efficient (cheaper) by doing so. It's not like ads spending has increased; unless you're arguing that consumption has increased due to targeted/invasive ads?
But a main lesson you could be taking is that you shouldn't trust your own self assessment. If you think you're good at something, don't take your own word for it.
Now i'm looking at ableton live wondering: where's an instrument/vst as simple as that thing? There are endless "instruments" with weird knobs and then there's effects and whatever. Is Live the wrong tool if i just want to create a nice sound and then record something and then put some tracks together?
Omni (Schibsted) | Senior Full Stack Engineer | Stockholm, Sweden | Onsite | Full-Time
Omni is an award winning news app (and website) with the focus on personalization and quick and complete news coverage (aggregating all other news sources).
You will be part of a small and efficient team (4 full stack devs, 1 UX, and 1 designer in Stockholm; 4 Android and iOS devs in Gdansk) who have just begun expanding the app into new markets. We're small enough that you will have a big impact, but there's still plenty of career opportunities within the rest of Schibsted.
We're looking for a senior engineer that is very experienced with javascript and node.js (or so good at other stuff and willing to learn that it doesn't matter). The rest of our stack consists of Postgresql and Elastic Search, virtual-dom, Heroku, Varnish, and AWS (RDS, S3, SNS, SQS).
However, we're constantly experimenting and innovating and no strangers to trying new technology when we get a good opportunity (personally I can't wait to use Elm in production; we just need more devs who knows it!).
We write plenty of tests, do code reviews always, and have the ambition to do pair/mob programming more regularly.
Email me at [email protected] if you're interested.
PS. For The Right Candidate we are willing to help with relocation to one of Schibsted's hubs (Stockholm, Gdansk, or Oslo).
Omni (Schibsted) | Senior Full Stack Engineer | Stockholm, Sweden | Onsite | Full-Time
Omni is an award-winning news app (and website) with the focus on personalization, and quick and complete news coverage (aggregating all other news sources).
You will be part of a small and efficient team (4 full stack devs, 1 UX, and 1 designer in Stockholm; 4 Android and iOS devs in Gdansk) who have just begun expanding the app into new markets. We're small enough that you will have a big impact, but there's still plenty of career opportunities within the rest of Schibsted.
We're looking for a senior engineer that is very experienced with javascript and node.js (or so good at other stuff and willing to learn that it doesn't matter). The rest of our stack consists of Postgresql and Elastic Search, virtual-dom for the web, and Heroku and Kubernetes/AWS for hosting.
However, we're constantly experimenting and innovating and no strangers to trying new technology when we get a good opportunity (personally I can't wait to use Elm in production; we just need more devs who knows it!).
Email me at [email protected] if you're interested.
Omni (Schibsted) | Senior Full Stack Engineer | Stockholm, Sweden | Onsite | Full-Time
Omni is an award winning news app (and website) with the focus on personalization and quick and complete news coverage (aggregating all other news sources).
You will be part of a small and efficient team (4 full stack devs, 1 UX, and 1 designer in Stockholm; 4 Android and iOS devs in Gdansk) who have just begun expanding the app into new markets. We're small enough that you will have a big impact, but there's still plenty of career opportunities within the rest of Schibsted.
We're looking for a senior engineer that is very experienced with javascript and node.js (or so good at other stuff and willing to learn that it doesn't matter). The rest of our stack consists of Postgresql and Elastic Search, virtual-dom for the web, and Heroku and Kubernetes/AWS for hosting.
However, we're constantly experimenting and innovating and no strangers to trying new technology when we get a good opportunity (personally I can't wait to use Elm in production; we just need more devs who knows it!).
A big advantage of taking the time to read a book, even if the book has just one central idea, is that it forces you to spend 5+ hours thinking on that idea. No summary can do that for you. I'd even go so far as to say that it's not even important which book or idea you spend that time on; just spending time with your own thoughts and imagination will teach you things no non-fiction or summary can.
I do agree that summaries and comments are useful, but they serve the same purpose as non-fiction rather than fiction.
"This app is in region eu, firesize is only available in region us." Thats a shame. But is guess getting manually hooked up would work for this case too?
While mechanical switches are everywere, it's simply impossible to find decent and decently priced scissor-switches. Does anyone know where to find such for less than $1 each?
I'm sorry if I was a bit unspecific. I haven't really formed a clear opinion yet so it's hard to articulate what I don't understand. Also that was written while I shoveled down my lunch.
About the obvious small group thing, it thought the following quotes:
> "if people were more involved in their society"
> "the aim is to build a society that people want to defend by themselves"
meant that you'd prefer that people get involved directly rather than elect people to "defend" or rule their society for them. It seems I misunderstood that part though.
However now I'm now confused by you clarification. If there's any kind of voting and representation, no matter how revocable, isn't that a form of government? If these persons are elected by the majority (I don't see any other option) they will sooner or later make choices for you? I was under the impression that anarchism is about getting rid of any kind of government?
in most governments today representatives' statuses can be revoked. It might be more or less difficult and opaque - I'm the first one to admit that most current governments are broken - but that does not necessary mean that governments are inherently bad.
---
My thoughts about efficiency and organization was based on the assumption that large scale organization can't happen without a governing body. I realize now that might be were my major misassumption and possible our disagreement lies. You say that
> A highly organised society - from the bottom up - is not a government
I would argue that in any highly organized society the top unit is the government. Assuming of course that the top unit has some actual increase responsibility and/or accountability compared to the rest of the organization (otherwise they're not really on the top).
I'd also argue that all governments was at one point formed from the bottom up. I'm not sure if it's very productive to reason this way though, but governments are not a separate unit from the rest of human society. They are created by humans and are upheld because most people agree enough to not try to abolish them.
A counter-argument here might be that people are sheep and irrational and that the governments have evolved into something so complicated and convoluted that they're not able to change to the people's will anymore, but I don't see how that changes anything. If the current governments occurred as a result of earlier (eventually) anarchisticish societies, what will prevent them from regressing?
It's obvious that this ideal society of yours is modelled for a rather small group. Complete lack of delegation can't possibly scale very far at all. But to me it seems a society has to grow and specialize to become more effective. If for not other reason than because there will be competition from external groups.
If you have two or more of these decentralized groups, how would conflicts be handled between them? If two or more wants to trade or create an alliance, some kind of organizing unit has to formed to ensure all parties play by the rules. Voila, a government.
I assume you're not advocating for going back to some tribal farming-style society? If so, can you explain how the anarchist society you're proposing would perform more complex tasks such as trade, or just large-scale manufacturing, without a government?
First of all, thanks for just the kind of explanation I was looking for.
> The main claim of left-anarchists is that in the absence of this oppression, a natural order based on community enforcement will evolve[...]
And my problem with such claims is that it seems like you're actually just proposing another kind of government; a local and decentralized one. After all a government is just an agreement between a set of people to organize affairs of mutual interest, right?
Would it be correct to say that anarchists (in general or the left kind) actually prefers several smaller societies rather than one big central one?
Also one could argue (as you kinda did) that once upon a time there were only such tribal societies, and that the societies we see today have evolved from those. So if you (with the belief you once held) argue that we should revert to such a system, how would you propose to prevent the inevitable "degradation" to the current system?