88 karma · joined November 18, 2020
Coders are always climbing the learning ladder and should add co-working with a code-writing AI to their toolkit, especially if it truly is 'open' (CoPilot will be a paid service I believe?).
The long term possibilities for eliminating many types of labour seem enormous. It is not so easy yet to understand what forms of labour will be not only resilient in the face of this developing tech, but even 'antifragile' to it. If these are few (could by definition be an oxymoronic assumption), how will the relative returns on labour vs returns on asset ownership diverge? Will a fundamental revision of socio-economic systems be required?
How do some salespeople learn the art of dressing up absolute crap as 'the next big thing' and wielding substantial power with zero capability, whilst many brainiacs are effectively ego-midgets who even if they invented time travel would struggle to find a ready buyer?
I think Jordan Peterson is right for many people when he says you need to act beyond your self-imposed mental limits because otherwise you sell yourself short.
There seems to be a level of self-criticism which causes certain types of people (say type Theta) to work on developing real skills but hurts their sales ability and self belief. People who lack that (say type Zeta) are capable of selling sand in the Sahara but may have very little other technical / professional skills - and this is in no way a criticism of sales ability, which is worth gold.
If you're a Theta, perhaps you need to be more Zeta, and vice versa.
Perhaps technical liability would be more accurate, but I like the sound of technical debt.
There is always the temptation to say, 'We have made something. It works. Pure asset.' (E.g. concept of passive income.) But it is seldom true over the long term. The debt is almost always there, or will be as the rest of the world moves on and the existing asset needs to be developed or becomes obsolescent.
The trick for asset owners (asset defined as the right to future economic benefits) to profit from an asset is to spend some of the returns from the asset on paying others to maintain and refresh the asset. In this way, the asset owner enjoys the truly passive net benefit.
Infrastructure carries both the attributes of a static, tangible thing (a good) and a service.
I like that the coding world is so conscious of technical debt, and it makes sense: the sector is moving so fast, and the fixes can be applied with access to a skilled problem solver, a computer, access to software and time. The maintenance &/or switching costs are comparatively low in comparison to the benefits.
I think that providers of physical infrastructure could pay more attention. Maintenance contracts and dilapidation reserves do make (small) inroads into acknowledging the ultimate sclerosis that additional large infrastructure introduces to the built environment. But the time scales for its regeneration to a large extent alleviate developers from the obligation to apply a more overarching perspective of the debt it will place on future generations to improve on what has been laid down.
Rather than questioning the term, it should be rolled out more widely.
On this basis, Bolsanaro is right: we can talk up a storm about how Brazil needs to protect the Amazon, but when push comes to shove those poor people in Brazil are going to have to tough it out by themselves.
And of course the rest of the world is not going to funnel funds to Brazil to protect the rainforest, because it will be on a hiding to nothing, forking out cash to a neverending stream of poor folk with increasingly outrageous demands.
Real change in many of the things we lament in the world at the moment would require a mindset shift in people en masse - either that or a tyrannical top-down command structure. I would be curious to know which of the two is more likely.
Throughout the chain of manufacturing, sales and distribution will be a myriad of people with a profit motive, so even if feedback starts to be received that the drug is causing nasty things to happen, the risk of news suppression and continued sale is probably high. E.g., if power goes out at a storage facility and the temperature at which the drug is held exceeds recommended levels, people might still sell it to get their income and avoid blame even though they know the batch has limited usefulness. Pfizer probably has to protect itself from these elements of fraud and / or negligence which are probably exacerbated by the basic risk of the drug's effects and efficacy.
If the drug has been rushed to market, it is probably not only the drug's effects which have been compromised, but the security and integrity of the entire supply chain that will support how, when and where the drug is administered and by whom.
Yes, Pfizer could just package 100 million vials of tap water and send them to SA. However, whether SA was powerless to do something to the co or not as a result of the agreements it had signed, I very much doubt Pfizer would last long after the news of its behaviour reached the rest of the world. I am sure it still needs to ensure that it does the best job it can.
On the other hand, politicians are masters of the blame game and of wriggling out of any agreement. Even if their language does not allow for deniability, circumstances may change so that old agreements are rendered unenforceable.
I have no doubt that if SA (or many other countries) found it to their advantage to not honour their side of the agreement when circumstances allowed, that they would do so - potentially even without raising any spurious reason to do so other than "we don't want to and you can't make us".
So although I find the terms Pfizer negotiated distasteful, I do not blame them.
I do wonder, though, whether their terms are universally the same for all countries they deal with here. I suspect not, because SA does not have the power of USA or China or even Australia. It is far easier to say to SA 'we do not believe you, so give us the rights to your military base as a guarantee' than it is to say this to many other countries.
But, much of the blame for this poor negotiating position rests with SA itself.
1) With the perspective that this feature of how society operates can and should be changed; 2) With the perspective that this is simply how society works and you can adapt or die.
Either can be viewed as more tractable than the other (probably quite correctly depending on one's circumstances).
To adopt the former approach may mean that you are faced with the dilemma of whether or not to override the rights of detractors and those who disagree.
Even if you adopt the second approach, you may encounter a similar dilemma, e.g. you will decide to order your shoes from a company with operations in a third world nation paying lower local wages, or buy via Amazon despite reservations about their practices.
Whatever approach is adopted, awareness of what choices exist and what consequences they bring will be required.
To develop the tools that will enable this awareness and measurement is a massive problem on its own because of the complexity of interrelated systems, events, consequences and disparate interests. It may not even be possible.
But when there is no objective or even widely accepted 'true north' for decision making, the trend to deepening inequality is likely to continue.
Customers may think that "Agile" teams are stacked with experts all working in a state of grace, effortlessly pulling off technological miracles.
Behind the scenes, however, most of the work may have to be delivered by junior devs under the supervision of stressed-out micromanagers who use top-down bureaucratic control to progress the work.
Excel is a glorious tool which welcomes all, the savvy and the unskilled but imaginative newbies alike. There is something about all those little cells that presents an itch everyone wants to scratch, and you just know that for some that scratching is going to produce something akin to a spreadsheet version of gangrenous melanoma.
On the other hand, some people are happy to say that the complexity of sophisticated Excel models means they would have been better off built in a code interface. Ha ha ha!
Even with the right mix of functional and object-oriented code and suitable documentation and version control applied to code, I respectfully disagree.
Data handling capabilities could benefit from skill in all of these tools: error checking (including analytical review); pen & paper; calculators; databases; spreadsheets; math & stat techniques; Word processors (& clear logical explanations).
Together, they form a rich menagerie of tools which will probably all be around until we have an AI that follows us around and we just tell it what we want. Actually, even then, it would be good to know them so that we can grasp the underlying logic and frame the concepts leading to the actions that we ask the AI to assist with...
6 hours of cursory 'scrutiny' before they decided to blow £8bn on the acquisition... I wonder if the (now ex-) CEO would be interested in buying my house?
And what was the rest of the board doing when the CEO decoded to trample on due process to get the deal over the line in a hurry?
Cathie Lesjak, the HP CFO, never even read KPMG's preliminary DD report (https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/business/finance-strategy/hp...).
Interestingly, the KPMG report itself can be downloaded from the above site and I have given it a brief glance (thus surpassing Ms Lesjak's pre-purchase attention).
It is pretty clear from the caveats and predicating statements in the report (e.g. 'We make no representation for the sufficiency of your purposes of the procedures you selected, and those procedures will not necessarily disclose all significant matters about Target or reveal errors in the underlying information, instances of fraud, or illegal acts, if any.') that KPMG was saying 'Look, bud - you hired us in a very limited capacity, knowing the data was bad: the consequences of this going belly-up are gonna be your problem, not ours'. To be fair, this is probably par for the course in many transactions.
What is interesting is that the report does look at revenue recognition, which is supposedly a major contributor to the eventual SNAFU (out by 38%!!! - see https://www.itpro.com/strategy/24554/hp-says-autonomy-revenu...).
Page 26 even says 'We understand that your auditors may provide a grace period post acquisition to perform a more rigorous analysis using the industry accepted calculation methodology.' (Did they do this?)
HP was determined to buy without looking under the hood because it was afraid it would be pipped to the post by Oracle.
Subsequently, the Serious Fraud Office dropped an investigation against Lynch and Hussain (CFO) because of insufficient evidence.
38% is material enough to not just be a 'to-mah-toe / to-may-toe' difference of opinion, so maybe there are grounds for a further grilling of Mr Lynch.
However, given the clear incompetence of HP's board and the shoddy DD they did, and the fact that the SFO could not find grounds to pursue the case, I would have thought that handing over a UK citizen to the US when he was at the time of the deal managing a UK co listed on the London Stock Exchange seems to indicate undue pressure has been brought to bear on the junior partner in the 'special relationship'.
I won't have much sympathy for either the incompetent or the shady (if this is the case) if they wind up in a relationship that has gotten messy, but this does not reflect well on the extradition reciprocity of US and UK.
For example, to combat lies about the source of money from crime, banks are required to verify the ID (photographic, residential address) of depositors, as are other transactors e.g. property sales intermediaries.
Lies can easily be disseminated via technology, and identity verification as retrospective tracing to origin can be done at the device level, the network level, or both.
However, perhaps we are getting to a point where the default of communications tech will be a much higher level of user identity checking as a precursor to communication and operation of devices.
Although this is a dystopian scenario where a centralised controlling system regulates who can actually even use tech or to what degree, it is easy to imagine that it would be technologically possible.
The concern is that the actions of criminals will be used as an excuse to apply this kind of system and make possible the oppressive restriction of freedoms in future.
Reaching out to other people - generally true that staff w. greater expertise are more likely and comfortable doing so;
Form elegant abstractions - also true: experts more likely than newbies to be able to find a simple way to describe something that is built on sufficient complexity to cause at least some bafflement.
Also, for staff of a similar degree of experience and role, I have a greater degree of confidence in the outputs produced by those who can answer more searching questions, showing they have drilled down to the fundamentals. I suspect that this type of person is more likely to develop into a real expert than those who adopt the how without caring about the why. Experts may be better at ensuring that the substance of an objective is delivered rather than just the form.
What do you think? - Is this something tech CAN do today, with an open source application and publicly available data?
On Monday, before you serve yourself up as toast, have a triple shot latte and take a long look at the hollow-eyed face in the mirror. Why is this person about to be spanked? Probably because this is a situation you have landed him/her in.
When someone (most times a moron in at least one respect) asks/tells you to do something, the proper response is not 'Yessir, I will do this or die trying because I am the best of the best of the best, sir!'
No, it is 'Why?! What EXACTLY is required? No, I mean EXACTLY!!! When do you want it? You know that I have this to do? And I have not taken leave for two years? Who is supporting me on this? You do know that it could need double that number of people?' Etc. And report every day about how crap your life is and that you are overworked and underpaid and saddled with unrealistic expectations.
Weirdly, this type of response a) builds respect from your seniors (particularly if you flag up all the failings in their thought processes); b) is ultimately more likely to get you promoted; c) means you will not get kicked like a beachball inch by inch to an early grave of overwork and slave labour.
Not everyone you will work with is a complete idiot, a narcissistic egomaniac or a psychopath, but until they have proven themselves to be otherwise it may be safest to assume that they are.
As science advances and the vagaries of thought are linked to organic and atomic, physical processes I expect the Grand Unified Theory of Quantum Mechanics to explain Discourse Mechanics too.
You have fewer resources, less influential contacts, less social standing, and are viewed as more of a credit risk. You may be viewed as easy meat by competitors. You cannot afford the same premises or advisors or equipment and when you are short of cash there is no bailout buffer. You have more obligations and less time to rest. You are likely to be more stressed and if you get ill, you will struggle.
This sucks - big time. It is going to mean that quite often less competent or industrious people are going to enjoy greater success and prosperity.
But you cannot let that consume you. You can still do a great deal by using your initiative and using the opportunities that are available to you. Because, it is possible to succeed even from very humble beginnings - I have known quite a few people do so.
And work with good people. Find intelligent, hard working types who appreciate where you are at and what you are trying to do and who will have your back. Work with these people - make sure you have their back too.
With the right allies it may cost each of you half the time and half the pain to improve your financial situations by 100% compared to going solo.
With the wrong 'allies' you are committing suicide, so drop them. Whilst people can be your greatest assets, they will generally also be your biggest liabilities.
Statistically, even with changes affecting government and society, more people are likely to be of below average wealth.
So, if you want to pursue a system-wide level of change, I suspect that a measured approach to doing so would be wisest, using opportunities as they arise, focusing on your immediate circumstances first and being aware that the tangible outcome for yourself can be very hard to control.
Unfortunately, many white collar types of work are insular and while you are sitting on front of a screen getting a buzz about solving little problems, or even quite big ones for specific issues, the world is moving on.
It is possible that you may even be compromising your career by being good at the technical issues of a job to the extent that some bosses who cannot stay on top of what you are doing may feel they would be more comfortable with a safe, matey colleague than a bit of a strange wizzkid who gets to be known as the oracle of all things.
Fortunately, 47 is still pretty young no matter what the newer generation of employed go getters thinks, and there is life yet to be pursued.
I would say try taking up a sport - gym, cycling, rowing, jogging, or even something physical and competitive. Get the buzz of routine and physical wellbeing and socialising going again.
Then take a deep breath and think about everything that you have learned over the years that can be actualised into real value. The great thing about coding is that it teaches its practitioners that progress only happens from meeting certain logical imperatives - build on that and problem solve your way to another commercial enterprise.
You have got this. The main thing holding you back is your own thoughts.
Why do I not accept that the attempt to classify things as 'hate speech' is about 'reverse' discrimination (i.e. I do not agree that this is something 'we both know')? Because this implies that it seeks to react to and target initial discrimination. But because it is subjective and open to abuse it can be used opportunistically against individuals who have done nothing to the other party (no initial discrimination to reverse). So, it is a label that can itself actively be applied in a discriminatory way.
Which are these 'obviously vulnerable groups' that you think 'it is obvious who they are'? Children - agreed. People with some disabilities - agreed. Some frail elderly people - agreed. Even with this set of groups, the degree of vulnerability will vary hugely. Are these the groups you refer to?
For info, the first citation is from the 2019 UN Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech (https://www.rightsforpeace.org/policy-docs), so is a pretty influential body for this topic and may well affect policy. It is true that Wikipedia should not be relied upon as an authoritative resource, but the link to the Guardian article can be found here: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/27/karen-race-whi...; how broadly the term is applied can be gauged from the article or other instances where it appears on social media.
Addressing each of your points:
1. I agree that every insult is not a threat and its severity is subjective. One person might be hurt or even feel threatened by seemingly innocuous language whilst another might shrug off deliberate, targeted insults; simply using a person’s name or words like ‘boy’ or ‘girl’ can be threatening if the other person is about to be violent. People can even deliberately claim offense to exploit the subjectivity in dialogue. In this instance we are in danger of granting a term a degree of recognition which it is actually too subjective to deserve and this is opening up opportunity for misuse.
2. The vulnerability of the target argument is again subjective; 1 violent criminal amongst 30 sheepish academics will feel zero threat whereas the 30 will all be intimidated by this person. My experience has been that bullies are generally a minority in a pool of people – but weak people will follow and support them. History is full of instances where subordinated groups have vastly outnumbered the minority which holds sway over them (the feudal system, caste systems, colonialism, crime bosses, corporate org structures, etc.). Power systems are not necessarily gauged by the number of people in the group – a lion will not be threatened by a herd of sheep.
3. I agree that centralised micro-management of this issue is not possible or even desirable. Will some people have to overcome prejudices against them irrespective of whether they have the same rights as everyone else? Yes. For example, women may be regarded as the weaker sex or more emotional, whilst men may be regarded as dictatorial, insensitive ‘mansplainers’. Should we try to even things out for them by introducing subjective rules that favour them above others? I do not think so.
For example, is the word 'Karen' hate speech? It is used derogatively against white women (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_(pejorative): "the term was increasingly being used in media and on social media as a general-purpose term for middle class white women"). It seems to fit the definition - pejorative, discriminatory, based on colour, gender (and economic class?)... But it is the fashion for this term to be in widespread use and for it to be applied generally to dismiss and demean this demographic (The Guardian even calling 2020 the Year of the Karen).
Introducing rules based on subjective standards will make it impossible for them to be impartially applied. It is difficult enough apply laws even in cases where it should be far easier to judge rights violations (workplace bullying, rape, domestic abuse). Subjective rules will be open to abuse.
They are so disingenuous, pretending a faux-surprise that innovation has to work against immense resistance in the workplace (and life in general). You have to be hopelessly naive and indoctrinated by ivory tower institutionalism to be surprised at the way real life works.
The next time you are on a management course which asks 'How do you foster innovation in the workplace?' or 'Do you see yourself as a rebel?' just write the obligatory guff and think of how you, the boss and your mates can have a few beers and work out how to shut down Bob, Sue or Jo because 'He / she's bright, sure, but his / her people skills could use a bit of work.'
E.g. studying sea urchin skeleton formation could provide insights into blood vessel growth in humans, but which co would pay someone to study sea urchins in the first place? Or mole rats - in the course of studying the creatures, scientists realised that they are age-defying - but which co would pay for the initial few decades of mole rat research that led to this realisation?
Commercial gain is only a problem if it becomes the tail that wags the dog of science, narrowing its scope for the pursuit of short term profit.
If universities are going to collaborate in research, then allowing multiple universities to benefit from patents arising from joint research makes sense, else patents would raise a competitive bar between scientists which would be counter-productive.