incangold
“It’s not always going to be the (oligo|mono)polistic corporation you personally wanted” either.
So we invent democracy, term limits, anti-trust, branches of government, environmental safety regulations, the SEC etc. etc.
Whether in the public or private sphere we have created social technologies to make power more diffuse and constrained, and corruption and misalignment less likely (never impossible).
One feature of the last decade is the steady erosion of these safety rails.
Even if humans failed at the same rate, if you tried to exploit at scale you’d be throttled by the size of the support team. The failure would happen at human-scale time frames and throughput.
I have ADHD. YouTube shorts are poison. I don’t want them. I keep clicking “not interested”. They go away for a bit, they come back, I waste hours of my life scrolling through them before I notice. I click “not interested” 20 more times to get a few days relief…
Even when you’re the customer, you’re not the customer.
[edit] assuming we’re talking about VAT on things that everyone buys. Which is why tax codes often exempt essential items from VAT.
For a disease as serious as ME/CFS, a treatment with a 22% recovery rate is far from good enough. Even if PACE stood up to scrutiny it wouldn’t have made sense to give up on finding better treatments.
But anyway, gini is a coarse measure. Look at the chart below that, showing income percentages going steadily upwards for the top 10 and 1%.
Most worryingly, look at the decline of the middle 40%. A healthy middle class keeps countries stable. You need a good chunk of society who feel like the system works for them.
And it’s not just perceptions, it’s fundamental stuff. A teacher could afford a house in the 90s; they can’t now. For all the boomers bang on about mobile phones and flat screen TVs, in the end those are luxuries compared to clean, secure accommodation. The days of getting a mortgage on one income, or having access to nice council housing are gone.
A small nit pick but having loads of data that “most likely no-one will look at ever again” is ok to an extent, for the data that are there to diagnose incidents. It’s not useful most of the time, until it’s really really useful. But it’s a matter of degree, and dumping the same information redundantly is pointless and infuriating.
This is one reason why it’s nice to create readable specs from telemetry, with traces/spans initiated from test drivers and passed through the stack (rather than trying to make natural language executable the way Cucumber does it- that’s a lot of work and complexity for non-production code). Then our observability data get looked at many times before there’s a production incident, in order to diagnose test failures. And hopefully the attributes we added to diagnose tests are also useful for similar diagnostics in prod.
If someone’s going to object to improving the system it’s mostly likely going to be on grounds of cost.
I wish Hickey had built gradual typing in to the language.
I still love Clojure anyway.
But I still dislike OTel every time I have to deal with it.
People blame the payment processors, and they can certainly be opaque sometimes. But perhaps fairer to lay most of the blame on the fraudsters.
I’m sure Stripe would love the revenue from this enterprise, but they can’t have it without making KYC as complex as banks and losing a lot of their value prop.
"They’ll invite themselves to live in beaver dams and make for a vaguely tolerated roommate that helps patch up walls and stuff. They’re not as good at the big picture stuff as beavers."
Founders also underestimate the degree to which good technologists who’ve worked at several startups also understand the business.
I’ve watched friends who are CTOs get in to the same conflicts over and over with founders and product owners.
The founders and product owners throw out 10 different ideas and push small dev teams to execute on all of them. There’s no focus or strategy, it’s just throwing ideas against the wall.
Expensive-to-maintain ideas with no uptake are held on too for way too long.
Expensive-to-create but sexy ideas are prioritised over cheap-to-create ideas with obvious potential for customer retention or up-sell.
CTOs are often the ones taking about disciplined experimentation to find product/market fit against head-in-the-clouds founders with a vague, uncommunicated vision.
I repeatedly see founders ignoring solid advice until, if they’re lucky, experienced boards say the same things as the ignored CTO.
So often founders seem to think they’re a fictionalised version Steve Jobs, not understanding that Apple’s success was as much down to gritty, detailed engineering as a single visionary. And of course not understanding that they themselves are usually not visionary geniuses.
These impressions are from a small sample of maybe 10 CTOs, but some of them had the same experience at consecutive startups before learning how to screen companies better.
We need more founders who care about the unglamorous nuts and bolts. Or at least value the people who do.
I keep coming back to the fact that if you asked even GPT 3 how to solve climate change, it would give you a perfectly good answer. We have this idea that AI will “solve climate change” at some point in the future. What we really mean is “give us a different answer to climate change that has zero cost”.
Climate change is not currently being solved because of politics and existing systems, not because of a lack of intelligence.
There are so many similar situations in medicine. Intelligence is not enough- you also need a system capable of acting with that intelligence.
AI could be transformational, but not without systemic change to support it.
She is a wonderful clinician who has enormously helped other patients with complex diagnostic paths and with diagnoses that are severely neglected.
The conversation here makes it sound like this is unprecedented, whereas it seems to me completely normal. There are no CFCs in my deodorant any more, or lead in my paint, or whatever.
Once regulation is in place, producers have motivation to innovate and drive the cost of disposal and reuse down, which is a great application of market mechanisms.