Avi Bryant demo'd this exact concept at an old CUSEC: https://vimeo.com/4763707#t=27m20s
I wish I knew which paper he was referring to - it's a great feature :).
5,445 karma · joined June 21, 2009
phillmv [at] okayfail.com https://hachyderm.io/@phillmv
formerly appcanary (S15)
I wish I knew which paper he was referring to - it's a great feature :).
This is false. I suggest reading Command and Control; it is illuminating and terrifying.
The setup you described evolved from a tug of war between competing bureaucratic interests combined with ineffective oversight. The various military organizations fought to keep control and funding of prestigious nuclear weapons; the political arm dealt with the paradox inherent in having a system that was ready to be deployed at a moment's notice, but impossible to detonate accidentally.
The compromise that emerged were these broken systems.
To quote from Command and Control:
>After the accident at Thule, the Pentagon had ordered SAC [Strategic Air Command] to impose some form of use control. Instead of relying on PALs, during the early 1970s the Air Force put a coded switch in the cockpit of every bomber that carried nuclear weapons. The switch permitted an arming signal to be sent to the bomb bay when the right code was entered. The lock had been placed on the bomber, not inside the bombs—and a stolen weapon could still be detonated with a simple DC signal. SAC was far more worried about its weapons being rendered inoperable during wartime than about someone stealing them or using them without proper authorization. During the late 1970s, a coded switch was finally placed in the control center of every SAC ballistic missile. It unlocked the missile, not the warhead. And as a final act of defiance, SAC demonstrated the importance of code management to the usefulness of any coded switch. The combination necessary to launch the missiles was the same at every Minuteman site: 00000000.
The post-war American suburban drive was in large part driven by economics and policy. Mortgage subsidization from the 30s with the Home Owners' Loan Corporation and the GI Bill in the 50s made loans available to mass consumers, while the HOLC's discriminatory redlining policy and the deindustrializing of cities (driven chiefly by lowered shipping costs) caused dense urban areas to become less desirable.
Mixed in with this you also had suburban-oriented urban planning (lots of highways, little public transit investment), brand new car driving infrastructure, low energy costs, lots of cheap land to expand to and in the 70s and 80s rising urban crime.
If you were looking to live somewhere, you had lots of incentives to prefer the suburbs. Today, most of these trends (energy cost, crime, job markets) have changed course.
I hadn't heard of income-protection insurance and after some googling it's no wonder: as far as I can it's a kind of disability insurance - it doesn't kick in if you're merely unemployed.
At that point, you're at the mercy of your state's unemployment insurance - which you might not be eligible for if you've been working as a contractor or self employed. Not to mention that seasonal work makes it harder to plan, since you don't have reliable income to plan around.
There just aren't that many "no-brainer" options for absorbing this many shocks, at a scale most individuals can cope with.
I wouldn't be that smug; you're still one accident or one cancer away from destitution. The surgery may be fully covered, but you're shit out of luck if you're unemployed and need physio/cancer drugs.
I'm still baffled by the complexity Americans have to put up with, but we still got pretty large cracks in our system.
Also, authors generally don't rake it in and certainly not at the magnitude of "a few years' expenses".
Maybe she could've would've should've but fixed costs are sticky and you don't have to look around very hard to find people who can't absorb that many shocks in such a short period of time.
>this is really just making up numbers and calling it "wealth distribution".
We can go deeper. Almost everything you hear about the "economy" is based on a mathematical model that makes a variety of assumptions. What is income? What is wealth? Who are the people participating? How does information get transmitted? What is a "good" outcome and what is a "bad" outcome?
Further, "waiters undereporting tips" is a tiny problem next to "wealth is somewhat unmeasurable since we don't survey it or tax it".
The best we can do is measure what we can and try to make reasonable inferences. But it's not an exercise in making up numbers. It's an exercise in interpreting what the numbers we have are saying.
On tangential note, though, I was a bit surprised by the hypothesis. 'Meritocracy' to begin with is a dubious fiction, but especially so when mapped on to the vote distribution of a given post in a semi-decentralized human-moderated environment that is constantly being gamed. "Merit" just seems like a big value judgement over such a noisy channel.
Think of it less as "fancy IRC" and more of "tool that lets people have fewer face-to-face meetings just to catch up on what everyone is doing".
The problem then is changing the regulatory framework - reduce barriers to entry and the need for Uber per se vanishes. That said, industrial-scale corporate civil disobedience is extremely unlikely to be the most socially-optimal way to achieve this.
It sounds incredibly self-serving for VCs to be pushing that cultural expectation. It sounds out-right unhealthy. It sounds like a great after-the-fact excuse to make workaholics feel less bad.
I know it's hyper competitive landscape out there, but it's unreasonable. If Mark Zuckerberg found a way to learn Mandarin, then the rest of us should be able to go home at a reasonable hour.
I mean, you go and do whatever you want. I'm just really enjoying imagining that meeting.
Is this something the lead was just passionate about? Are they serious about the "friends walking around in a park who casually want aerial selfies" use case? Are they serious about the "people who go adventure sporting but can't plan ahead to carry an extra couple lbs of gear" use case?
Do any of them regularly think "geez, if only I could spontaneously capture aerial footage at any given moment of any given day"?
Did they assemble a team of experts, and this one guy just stonewalled them because his flexible wing design was a pet feature and they had no other way to incorporate it into the product?
Did they approach an investor, and the investor said "Nah, someone's already working on next-gen brain-dead easy adventure drones. You know what's sexy? Wearable next-gen brain-dead easy adventure drones".
>During the 1970s, after a brief stint at Amdahl Corporation, Ellison began working for Ampex Corporation. His projects included a database for the CIA, which he named "Oracle". Ellison was inspired by a paper written by Edgar F. Codd on relational database systems called "A Relational Model of Data for Large Shared Data Banks".[10] In 1977, he founded Software Development Laboratories (SDL) with two partners and an investment of $2,000; $1,200 of the money was his.
It's really not clear from the first few hits off Google what his role was in developing Oracle, the application, but he's not like, _untechnical_.
It's easy in hindsight to cast aspersions, but to me it seemed prima facie an 'invasion' of a private space. Like, Apple decided that owning a U2 album was now mandatory.
I'm reminded of that Page quote last year where he dismissed any Google Glass privacy concerns.
I don't have a good articulation for this yet, but it seems an awful lot of people are blind to the alienation these systems are capable of causing.
The difference is you don't get to see the haggling and back and forth. Ten years from now, when a large bitcoin institution has a mission-critical legacy app that depends on some facet of the network, we're likely to see similar shenanigans.
I would venture, at least. Simplicity is probably the product of a) abstraction, or b) a small number of stakeholders.
It just comes up a lot whenever I visit.
Regresso com frequência (tenho que marcar viagem mas em princípio daqui a duas semanas…), mas como emigramos enquanto eu era catraio não tenho network nenhum e é-me difícil ficar acompanhado com as notícias.
Can you explain why it feels rude to you?
Do you plan on going back to Russia? You can't keep living on tourist visas forever. Even a permanent residency in Thailand seems to require a degree.
Anyone commenting here who has not personally immigrated to another country in which they were not born with work rights needs to seriously consider their advice.
This is probably not how it works where you're currently living. Without an engineering degree or a lot of money, it will be really hard for you to emigrate to North America or Europe.
Your life is not ruined, in so far that you can probably still get a job in your current country.
I don't know about your education system, but can't you retake the university entrance examinations?
To my knowledge, that's usually possible in most countries. Quit design school, study for the exams, and apply again. You'll lose a year, but that's better than being shut out of the rich country emigration stream.
Ideally, if your parents can afford it, study abroad. Here in Canada, for instance, it's easier to attain permanent residency if you went to school here.
Good luck,