122 karma · joined January 20, 2009
Through the lacings of the leaves, the great sun seemed a flying shuttle weaving the unwearied verdure. Oh, busy weaver! unseen weaver!--pause!--one word!--whither flows the fabric? what palace may it deck? wherefore all these ceaseless toilings? Speak, weaver!
Love Moby Dickalso in this vein, somethingawful had an ancient story about a guy who got reorg'd into a position of no responsibility that was pretty great. i can only seem to find the third installment[2] of the series, though. like bartleby, he begins by doing good work for a while. but where bartleby's abdication of duty is intentional, driven by something like a depressive episode, somethingawful-guy's company slowly just stops asking him to do things as waves of reorgs and mergers leave him 'on the heap, but without any references' as it were. the zany antics of avoiding his hr dept are quite fun and i think the whole thing should be dramatized.
[1] https://www.owleyes.org/text/bartleby-scrivener/read/bartleb... [2] https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=26...
what i am implying above is that i view a management team that makes decisions based on share price as about as delusional as one that drinks its own urine for power ahead of important meetings.
indeed. and i congratulate you on your recent success in predicting the tastes of others who buy equities based on speculative price action. spac management likely makes their decisions largely focused on share price, which i suppose as an equity investor would feel like they have your back. but when you consider the role equity is meant to play in corporate finance, you would concede that in an ideal world management would not pay attention to share price at all, they would be working on making the most money possible using the assets and equity they already had, and then either returning or reinvesting those profits. the equity markets will always have a chaotic bent in the short term, so we should be careful of the ways we let them influence policy. its really a circular dependency if you think about it.
the main premise, forcing plato to engage with the modern world a la bill and ted, doesnt have to be bad. but this dramatization comes off quite patronizingly fellowkids. but if your students want to read about drunk people you can stick to the ancient texts! honestly, plato is one of the most accessible philosophers out there so this strikes me as doubly useless.
additionally, woe to the person looking for meaningful engagement with ethical topics where philosophical tools are actually used to answer modern questions. Here's a spot where a topic comes up, but then is lost in the banality of the author's stupid device.
> “So you’re telling me that the purpose of all this knowledge is merely to make money? Greed is driving the great search engine for knowledge? This bewilders me more than anything else I’ve gathered about this place. How can those who possess all knowledge, which must include knowledge of the life that is worth living, be interested in using knowledge only for the insignificant aim of making money? Well, what do you do when you’re faced with monumental cluelessness of this sort? Plato, I said, I think you have a somewhat exalted view of Google and the nerds who work here. Nerds? he said. Another word I do not know.”
it goes on to explain what a nerd is but never revisits the question of google's business model! the book leaves the reader at the end with a hotdog of chopped up, edited, and overly seasoned ancient philosophical ideas. i bet in high enough doses it causes cancer.
tl;dr - patronizing, zero actual engagement with technology ethics questions
hard to believe? I can confirm - tcp sessions with average flows of >1Mbps do exist.
you are right in identifying a weakness of the system but incorrect as to its significance. A drag racer cannot turn, because it has been optimized for something else.
[1] https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(17)30344-6
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/d080c3fc-c561-11e8-8670-c5353379f...
I agree that is a decent criterion for health, but is metafilter really so notorious for special interest coddling? I always found the administration there fairly transparent, especially around topics of decision-making. Did I miss something scandalous? I tend to hold them up as the only example I know of for a healthy general-purpose discussion forum.