Curt Doolittle

Form: Short Note

  • Bluehost, supposedly the number one WordPress hosting service, has put all its e

    Bluehost, supposedly the number one WordPress hosting service, has put all its eggs in one basket (a SAN) without keeping spares, or ready access to spares, and the SAN for my server has died, and my sites have been down for almost 24 hours.

    They have a great console system, which is why I chose them – despite the lousy response times. But, I also now know why they have such lousy response times compared to other vendors. Time to move on I think. Time to move on.

    We need more research into how employees construct internal inflexible rents, and now accountants drive up efficiency and down flexibility. Becuase business is hosed as it currently sits.

    I have this fantasy that someday oversing could evolve into providing what does not exist. And that is to use blockchain technology INSIDE of companies to provide the tracability of money that does not exist because of how accountants ‘fudge’ numbers for tax and credit purposes.

    The only data that matters is operational data. EBITDA. Taxes, Interest, Amortization, Depreciation, are all distortions of operational data, and as we use them are artifacts of the age of sail.

    Eh… I have tried to solve enough problems for one lifetime.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-06 06:27:00 UTC

  • (Getting Closer)

    (Getting Closer)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-05 03:47:00 UTC

  • The Future: Doolittle, Haidt, Hawkins, Dennett

    William L. Benge just pointed out to me that “Dennett and Hawkins” have pretty much demonstrated the end of the Cathedral’s fallacy, and have moved beyond it.

    I think if you watch Hawkin’s talk, then Haidt’s talk on moral blindness, then my talk on The Inter-temporal Division of Reproductive Labor. Then you begin to see the future : we act more like a set of hives than the individually rational actors proposed by the greeks and the enlightenment.

    DOOLITTLE
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBNg4NpDTxM

    HAIDT
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs41JrnGaxc

    HAWKINS
    http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_hawkins_on_how_brain_science_will_change_computing

    DENNETT
    http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on_our_consciousness?language=en

  • The Future: Doolittle, Haidt, Hawkins, Dennett

    William L. Benge just pointed out to me that “Dennett and Hawkins” have pretty much demonstrated the end of the Cathedral’s fallacy, and have moved beyond it.

    I think if you watch Hawkin’s talk, then Haidt’s talk on moral blindness, then my talk on The Inter-temporal Division of Reproductive Labor. Then you begin to see the future : we act more like a set of hives than the individually rational actors proposed by the greeks and the enlightenment.

    DOOLITTLE
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBNg4NpDTxM

    HAIDT
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs41JrnGaxc

    HAWKINS
    http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_hawkins_on_how_brain_science_will_change_computing

    DENNETT
    http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on_our_consciousness?language=en

  • AMAZING WOMEN IN BUSINESS In business, in negotiations, V would eat most women t

    AMAZING WOMEN IN BUSINESS

    In business, in negotiations, V would eat most women twice her age like Pringles in a man cave on new year’s day. Not because she’s competitive. Not because she’s flirtatious or feminine. Not because of any ego. But, just because she’d just work harder, longer, and smarter.

    Women have a particular advantage at certain layers of business: they obtain their status elsewhere and so can compete for results at a discount. The women at the top tend to be outliers and other than as outliers, not terribly impressive. But I still contend that women, in the main, hold the center better than men do.

    Women seem to need a protector – perhaps men do too, but I don’t see it. And if protected they can do amazing things. Men do not need to feel safe to act. Make women feel safe. (And they will start to adopt your framing unconsciously.

    It’s weird. Women can rationalize their mate’s biases, find the best in them even if it’s not there, and find ugly, stupid, annoying, children beautiful and charming. Good thing. Someone has to. They can rationalize anything if it makes ‘peace’.

    They can gather and allocate many micro tasks at once that men cannot even imagine a mind can do.

    Politics and theory are, however, masculine talents. And while female outliers exist they are only outliers, not general rules.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-04 09:44:00 UTC

  • You know, despite appearances, I am a pretty nice guy and will work irrationally

    You know, despite appearances, I am a pretty nice guy and will work irrationally hard to make others happy. But precisely for that reason, when people try to take advantage of it and press me into what I don’t want to do, it makes me incredibly frustrated.

    wtf people.

    Btw: always draw out negotiations as long as possible. 😉

    You learn more.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-04 07:42:00 UTC

  • Why Do White People Have Cargo?

    [A] lot of people hate white people. I have been discriminated against by Jews, Asians and Blacks in particular. But I have a lot of options within my tribe. So it’s an outlier condition. But it begs the question: Why don’t others have so many options within their tribes? Why isn’t opportunity in white organizations an outlier?

    Or as Yali ((Guns Germs and Steel)) asked: why do white people have cargo?


    Note: The answer is “Trust”.

  • Why Do White People Have Cargo?

    [A] lot of people hate white people. I have been discriminated against by Jews, Asians and Blacks in particular. But I have a lot of options within my tribe. So it’s an outlier condition. But it begs the question: Why don’t others have so many options within their tribes? Why isn’t opportunity in white organizations an outlier?

    Or as Yali ((Guns Germs and Steel)) asked: why do white people have cargo?


    Note: The answer is “Trust”.

  • The Ultimate Question of Economic Science: Eugenia or Dysgenia

    [P]eter Boettke posted an article by Paul Krugman yesterday which referred to the divisions in economics – with derision.

    And it’s been bothering me all night:

    Progressives, libertarians, and conservatives demonstrate an inter-temporal division of reproductive labor in their moral biases and cognitive biases.

    So why wouldn’t economists follow the same moral, inter-temporal division of labor?

    Well, they do. All humans do.

    Austrians represent the conservative long term: accumulation and competitiveness, and new Keynesian progressives the short term: consumption and reproduction.

    The question is whether consumption/dysgenia or accumulation/eugenia is preferable.

    This is the central proposition. And we avoid answering it just as much as our ancestors avoided the question of the existence of gods.

    Until we answer that question all economic debate is just obscurant deception as a means of avoiding the central question of economics: what is it that we are solving for?

    I can answer that question because western history answered it for us.

  • The Ultimate Question of Economic Science: Eugenia or Dysgenia

    [P]eter Boettke posted an article by Paul Krugman yesterday which referred to the divisions in economics – with derision.

    And it’s been bothering me all night:

    Progressives, libertarians, and conservatives demonstrate an inter-temporal division of reproductive labor in their moral biases and cognitive biases.

    So why wouldn’t economists follow the same moral, inter-temporal division of labor?

    Well, they do. All humans do.

    Austrians represent the conservative long term: accumulation and competitiveness, and new Keynesian progressives the short term: consumption and reproduction.

    The question is whether consumption/dysgenia or accumulation/eugenia is preferable.

    This is the central proposition. And we avoid answering it just as much as our ancestors avoided the question of the existence of gods.

    Until we answer that question all economic debate is just obscurant deception as a means of avoiding the central question of economics: what is it that we are solving for?

    I can answer that question because western history answered it for us.