evr1isnxprt
I’m highlighting social hypocrisy.
Google isn’t sustainable without policy concessions; the market value gibberish is added onto something that is propped up by government looking the other way to sell the idea to people who don’t understand finance is an ephemeral con game. IMO “big software products and services” are only big business because it’s also profitable to politicians insider trading schemes. Open source and for hire software workers and ridding ourselves of big corp protectionism provisions in law and policy would be great. Very little of this distributed ledger and accounting nonsense has value to the average worker; their day to day is being a worker. Make the minority of “successes” compete on an open labor market instead of giving Bezos a pass. Having 25 people willing to chuck $50k each at my dreams.
Make him a gig worker too.
Constraining “survivability” to one metric is stupid.
Was tired and busy yesterday. Got rambly.
Google isn’t a sustainable business without paying enormous sums to remain in business, without a whole lot of political concessions that have been made to hype USian markets.
What is and isn’t a sustainable business is relative to how frequently you have been told what is and isn’t sustainable business.
Economic trade is just something humans do. Babbling about it in rambling fluffy semantics is not what gives rise to economic activity.
A lot of these builders should build themselves into fuller better rounded people than office workers who memorized an emotional caricature they use to extract attention from others. HR, marketing, etc exist to insulate financiers, give off an air of building big ideas, but it’s layers of indirection so the financier can avoid real work.
The majority don’t have to import your relative emotional context anymore than they have to import a preachers religion.
That’s what’s going down with the economy; the majority are tired of the over hyped coddled office worker. This is just the start of the barnacle shedding. Source? Data models forecasting economic “plot lines” I collate with others to inform investment choices, not a bunch of high emotion semantic gibberish intended to sell me on a relative perspective.
SEs and otherwise, too many are addicted to an emotional confidence game that is sapping agency in other contexts. This is low hanging fruit being shed, but ML will come for content creators and SEs sooner than most expect; it’s all electron state in machines. Generating data/code as a job will be automated; that is a stated goal of many powers that be in tech.
I’m not the only one who sees it; in a 2 year old interview Gabe Newell was calling ML content creation an extinction level event that’s right around the corner.
More and more “builders” of hype and ephemera are going to be receiving the wake up call as the months and years progress. Building layers of indirection as a career is not long for this world.
But more simply; “software builders” is not language I see as constrained to SE. Like you said it takes a village to build a software business. I think you inferred a bit much.
I did not realize currency trade was constrained to your sensibilities; my bad. Private property, free markets! Until two parties enter into an arrangement then you demand they open themselves to business with others?
Parameters could be over or under weighted given current state, choices of scientists.
And we have ZERO data points from a future where people actually are living with another 100 years of climate change; we could be massively over or under weighting without historical data of a future that hasn’t happened; your goal is rife with paradox and uncertainty; how do we use our trend modeling tools that rely on historical data without historical data from a future we haven’t experienced?
All our model is is old data points and some guesses at trends which may or may not hold. Scientists now cannot force people to stick to their model.
These are mathematical truths too, sorry you don’t have the context. I’m just gonna be done here. Cya later bye.
How the turn tables.
I guess people who like to use language that’s “bad” by traditional standards will have to build something new.
I see a difference between bad acts and bad language alone; people are trained to hate certain words but are powerless to prevent certain acts so low hanging fruit is over policed. It’s an outcome of human memory which is a feature of reality we can’t do much about to soothe those who fee oppressed by loss of a bit of figurative self (Minecraft no longer being “for them”).
Private property creates subjective use of property. What objective social good is coming from private monopoly and erosion of local ecology?
You see arbitrariness but relative to me I see a subjective perspective.
Y’all should really sit and meditate on how flimsy and quickly inverted human language semantics are.
The person seeking to build the house has an objective of subjective behavior that impacts others. You don’t exist in the vacuum you can conjure in your head.
We have no baseline for human behavior after another 100 years of climate change. Future hasn’t happened yet, past experience is not viable as it lacked the new constraints of the future.
There is evidence in biology that we go crazy after years of living in hot weather. The body heats is better than it cools us, and cooling us strains our systems.
So perhaps it can be shown in some academic way our biology could literally survive the conditions, but they can’t predict how well humanity will actually deal with it; we may destroy ourselves over resource constraints or the wrong people going mad, launching the nukes out of paranoia.
There are too many ways we can end ourselves to take the prediction “it won’t get too hot for the species to biologically survive” as evidence we won’t still destroy ourselves.
Constraining the prediction only to that which they can have most confidence in undermines the accuracy of the model.
Current residents have private property rights too. Both sides arguing in defense of their rights under the law is exactly how our “rule of law” works.
Rule of law does not give you special say over these proceedings. Clearly for good reason; you seem keen to rush ahead without considering the rights of others with an established investment under law. When you can’t you’ll call everyone else arbitrary even though an established process and precedent were utilized.
Modeling the future of a species of billions, many irrational actors, is too complicated to put my trust in scientists today.
My MSc in math may be old now; maybe I’m getting the math wrong, but I don’t need a math degree to know every scientist is a fallible human and fallible humans often lie unintentionally or intentionally to keep the peace and maintain their paycheck. Who wants to be the scientist that is all “end of the world is coming.”
Many “scientists” in industrial roles were complicit in keeping climate change evidence hidden since the 1860s.
“Authority figures” is the dumbest social construct we cling to.
By their time physical science had placed upper and lower bounds on what’s possible even if the public was not aware of it.
I get the appeal and went through that phase in life, but no theories have superseded Entropy, Relativity; yes the information we generate is always “out there” but it loses structure, the meaning of it being out there is relative. Information theory is a model for discovery, not memorization.
Daily life is as it looks; work to survive for some, subsist on their work for others. Those who spend more time subsisting might try discovering literal self sufficiency, and those who work to live might try spending more time subsisting. That’s all I get out of past philosophy these days.
The building and refueling of gas stations.
Shipping replacement parts.
The trip to the store is not their only impact.
You’re cherry picking a stat that represents the smallest part you want to take responsibility for but demand for all of it as resource costs.
Think of the loss of figurative identity a minority of landlords might incur!