CuriousSkeptic

Try handing them a copy of “10X Org”

(the authors tries to abstract over team topologies, adding some additional design dimensions)

I do wonder though, how does metric based factoring compare to expert intuition based factoring? Can the latter be emulated by agents? Are there studies?

Has it been tried?

I mean, it is a common moderation goal, in physical meetings, to make sure the silent ones gets heard.

Could be interesting to try a social network approach om those terms: promotion inversely correlated with engagement.

A better analogy would perhaps be to consider the land the farm uses as the commons (it was before becoming private property)

We can debate the just access to land (commons) and point to Henry George, John Locke, Thomas Payne and others, but still agree that the value produced by the farm comes from the labour put in to refine the common resource into something more useful.

There can be rent seeking and value produced at the same time.

Edit: One can provably extend the rent seeking parts of the analogy in terms of John Deere and Monsanto

You can substitute Robin Williams with Peter Naur, and the speech with his “Programming as Theory Building” essay, and that is more or less what you’ll get

we must fix these top three problems!!!” And it’s all the stuff everyone has known for years but management has refused to give anyone the authority to fix

So a net positive then?

You can’t is an acceptable answer. The entitle point of such a feature is to prevent people from doing that.

Tristan Harris?

Your graph model lack the aspect of increasing complexity. As you traverse the graph every available node gets increasingly more distant. In some areas of the graph less so than others, a good heuristic function not only identifies a single shortest path, but also dense areas of possible value in the graph.

The question is if blind speed scales quicker then distances grow.

Could your observation be any other way though?

It recognise addiction (limited agency vs influence) and monetisation (economic rewards the primary means to influence behaviour) as problematic. It kind made “doing bad for pay” a premise of the system.

Large pay-checks incentivising bad behaviour is exactly another observable outcome of the same systemic issue.

death by 1,000 monthly subscriptions

Is another area needing new legislation. Changes to copyright, interoperability requirements and such, we can change more than one parameter

I like to think of it as the period when software engineering finally grows up to be a respected discipline with a body of actual theory

the contractor

If there is a single policy change I could pick for public spending on IT it would be to forbid outsourcing to “contractors” and thinking of software delivery as “projects”

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/dev-drive/

Proponents of what we now call "open source" wanted to distinguish between two senses of the word "free"

Some would argue its a little deeper than that

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....

A lot of NVC writing is pretty bad. I recommend going directly to the source https://youtu.be/l7TONauJGfc (3h video, but worth the time)

I think NVC is better understood as a framework to reach deep non-judging empathic understanding than a speech pattern. If you are not really engaging in curious exploration of the other party using the OFNR framework before trying to deliver your own request I don’t think you can really call it NVC. At the very least it will be very hard to get your point across even with OFNR if ot validating the receiver.

Validation being another word needing disambiguation I suppose. I see it as the act of expressing non-judging emphatic understanding. Using the OFNR framework with active listening can be a great approach.

A similar framework is the evaporating clouds of Theory of Constraints: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporating_cloud

Also see Kants categorical imperative: moral actions must be based on principles that respect the dignity and autonomy of all individuals, rather than personal desires or outcomes

Not sure this equation works out. If demand for labor goes towards zero it really means there is no demand. In other words, when AI and robots fulfil every desire of their owners there really is no need for “tax payers”

This exchange reminds me a bit of the experience of becoming a parent. The permanent reconfiguration of priorities from the intense oxytocin high is also quite impossible to explain to non-parents.

The idea being that if we put apple in a regulatory environment where rent-seeking is no longer the winning strategy they could be forced to redirect their resources towards competing on customer value instead.

How about instead of a single os level toggle you get a trillion dollar company, renowned for their high quality design, invested in providing the best possible UX while respecting the user as the owner of the device?

They may also produce text describing an internal representation of a negative sentiment towards themselves

https://www.anthropic.com/research/introspection

I don’t get it. Did you men that “It seems totally right to protect people's intellectual property” follow from “your financial model depends on you being the only distributor of copies of something”?

Im sure this guy has some helpful hints on that: https://youtube.com/@azisk

From a PM point of view waterfall and agile can both have clear end dates. The main difference is in how they approach scope and quality to meet that deadline.

This idea that "woke" has somehow threatened people is an amusing but rings more hollow every day.

Tim Urban makes an interesting argument to the contrary in https://waitbutwhy.com/whatsourproblem

Though he argues that both “sides” are dangerously anti-liberal, but in different way.

aged care workers

Just picking out this one out of curiosity, not arguing the broader point.

In a world where people have more freedom on what to spend their energy and time on I would expect some things to return to the realm of unpaid labour. Child care, mentoring, care for the elder, local community contributions. Probably not replacing the demand entirely, but surely some shifts in supply and demand would be observed.

UBI could be funded in other ways than taxes. Instead we could collect rent from all commons added to the economy as private assets.

Why don't LLMs get frustrated with you if you ask them the same question repeatedly?

To be fair, I have had a strong sense of Gemini in particular becoming a lot more frustrated with me than GPT or Claude.

Yesterday I had it ensuring me that it was doing a great job, it was just me not understanding the challenge but it would break it down step by step just to make it obvious to me (only to repeat the same errors, but still)

I’ve just interpreted it as me reacting to the lower amount of sycophancy for now

If you by moving the goalpost mean I'm not that interested in the actual size of an UBI, then yes that is probably fair. The point of my argument is exactly that an UBI does not need to be conceptualized from the perspective of needs but rather from the perspective of rights. As such I do agree that the math may not balance out to an amount that is actually livable. Which I think is a fine outcome.

The point of my source was not so much the economic argument, which, after all, talks about a reality several hundred years ago. Perhaps I should have linked to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism instead, to focus on the moral side of it.

I do think however that a modern take, especially if it turns out that recent AI developments will have sizable impact on the demand for human labor, could very well turn out to result in a dividend that is actually livable. Paine talks about land, but we should really consider all commons: Land, carbon emission rights, patents, copyright, trademark protections, electromagnetic spectrum, ip4 address space, dns names, the list can be made pretty extensive.

Perhaps it should end there. We could establish the idea of cooperatively owned legal entities representing various commons. These entities can collect rent in exchange for allocating parts of the commons to private use. I have a feeling it would make sense to take it a step further though, even if the details are probably over my head at the moment. It's already the case that pension funds function as a cooperative ownership of a part of all capital assets. And then there is home ownership and its connection to loans and wages. There probably will need to be some creative restructuring of this situation.

income redistribution schemes such as UBI

It’s a common framing, but UBI does not have to be that. Another may be that of a just compensation for giving up access to land.

Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrarian_Justice