Tech isn’t a competitive advantage, Experienced talent, credit, and operational excellence through management and training, cant be bought.
Source date (UTC): 2015-10-01 09:29:00 UTC
Tech isn’t a competitive advantage, Experienced talent, credit, and operational excellence through management and training, cant be bought.
Source date (UTC): 2015-10-01 09:29:00 UTC
Husbands are a lot of work. So why do you want one? Children are MUCH more work than husbands. So why do you want children? So maybe that’s a man’s job. To train a woman to care for children. lol
Source date (UTC): 2015-10-01 09:06:00 UTC
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
Source date (UTC): 2015-10-01 06:17:00 UTC
TECHNOLOGY IS NOT A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE: EXECUTION IS.
Technology is not a competitive advantage. Nothing stops a competitor from duplicating functionality or buying hardware and software.
A competitors advantage is created by your failure to rapidly fill niches and thereby denying them the field, without simultaneously overextending yourself.
For these reasons experienced talent, credit, and operational excellence through management and training on execution are your competitive advantage.
Source date (UTC): 2015-10-01 06:17:00 UTC
(diary)
Kant is interesting really because on the one hand, I see him as the sort of root of all continental philosophical evil, and the man who gave license to the ‘liars’ with:
—“I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith.”—
For which he will ever be damned.
On the other hand, he does produce a few gems. Particularly that you should try never to lie, and a simple test of moral action:
–“the categorical imperative … Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law”–
But he goes into god’s plan:
—“The friction among men, the inevitable antagonism, which is a mark of even the largest societies and political bodies, is used by Nature as a means to establish a condition of quiet and security. …. The history of mankind can be seen, in the large, as the realization of Nature’s secret plan to bring forth a perfectly constituted state as the only condition in which the capacities of mankind can be fully developed, and also bring forth that external relation among states which is perfectly adequate to this end.”—Kant
I state this instead as “Any super predator such as man will evolve to create a condition of pacification of the universe around him. history of man is of his pacification of the earth. Sometimes more so than he desires.”
–“The problem of establishing a perfect civic constitution is dependent upon the problem of a lawful external relation among states and cannot be solved without a solution of the latter problem.”—Kant
I state this instead as “competitive pressures determine group evolutionary strategy, expressed as norms, morals, laws and institutions.”
Source date (UTC): 2015-10-01 00:11:00 UTC
(diary)
Listening to fellow Seattlite Greg Johnson, same interest in (a) art history (b) archaeology (“Gods Graves and Scholars), but instead of philosophy and culture, I was interested in the history of war, history of invention, science, cognitive science, AI and computers – and not in philosophy and culture. I was (as an aspie) far more anti-social. I remember starting with Durant’s POV that after his study of Philosophy, there is nothing much there, and history provides insight into man. I have ended up viewing law as the only honest philosophy.
So despite similar backgrounds and gene pools we approached the problem differently.
I used to complain that my mind had been transformed by writing so much software, and that it had affected my writing. And it wasn’t until I’d understood the failure of the operational/intuitionist revolution, that I grasped that the reason I’d made the discovery (or connection) was precisely because I had been so affected by writing programs, each statement of which is a test of existential possibility.
It’s the same reason that I am clueless about pop trends in the alt-right and libertarian movements. I don’t read ‘points of view’ or ‘opinions’ or ‘beliefs’ so much as ‘what is’. It’s why I reduce statements to equilibrial transfers.
Kind of fun to listen to someone so similar who took a different path.
Source date (UTC): 2015-10-01 00:09:00 UTC
AESTHETICS IN A NUTSHELL
—“Beautiful women, beautiful children, beautiful cars (and guns), friends to chat with about interesting things, and food to share with them. Everything else is just means to those ends.”—
Source date (UTC): 2015-09-30 23:38:00 UTC
NOT A WHITE NATIONALIST. SORRY.
Culture-ist yes. Class-ist yes. Intelligence-ist, yes. Gender-ist, yes. Right of exclusion-ist, yes. Tribe-ist, nope. Racist Nope. Sorry. Not my thing. The meaningful differences between the races and tribes are differences in distributions not differences in properties. Aristocracy is for everyone. The more tribes the better. The more colorful the better. I read Darwin. I’m reasonably current on genetics. I’m all for restoring eugenic reproduction via one child policy for the dependent classes. And I’m all for charity for the dependent underclasses. But I’m into bettering every human family, not blaming other humans for acting like humans. So my preference is to criticize westerners for their suicidal group evolutionary strategy, not others for exercising theirs. But then again I am a rather scientific philosopher, and not a populist.
Source date (UTC): 2015-09-30 12:57:00 UTC
( is it the moon or something? Why is it these women are hitting on me today? Must be tourists. Or the season change. Or God knows. Although I do notice that women are more attracted to you when you’re in get-it-done mode. Despite the fact that it means you’re oblivious to their interests. I am sure I could figure it out but I am too busy. )
Source date (UTC): 2015-09-30 12:22:00 UTC
ACTUALLY I DONT READ PHILOSOPHY.
Marco just reminded me of something I take for granted: I write philosophy but I read science.
Philosophical tradition provides us with an established framework for conveying a complete framework of ideas. I use that framework. But I don’t read many philosophers. They’re largely horrible mixtures of theology, pseudoscience, justification of priors and empty verbalises obscuring the absence of relations.
I view a philosopher’s function as integrating new knowledge into our frames of reference with the ambition of increasing correspondence with reality, because there is advantage in correspondence and disadvantage without.
And as a consequence a philosopher restructures relations, values, and institutions to make use of that new knowledge.
Hence in Propertarianism I follow epistemology with psychology, and I follow ethics with sociology, thereby uniting philosophy psychology and social science.
I view the law as western philosophy and religion. And the judiciary as our priesthood. I view religion and theology, and philosophy largely as propaganda.
And hence my criticism of continentals who seek to construct a new religion. We already have one – and it’s bad: Progressivism. (Liberalism). Or more precisely “democratic secular redistributive(equalitarian), consumer capitalist, humanism”.
I usually argue that the mythos of the church was destructive but the church as an institution was amazingly beneficial.
Source date (UTC): 2015-09-30 12:15:00 UTC