Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • “By and large, it appears that there’s just a very high cost of temporal flexibi

    —“By and large, it appears that there’s just a very high cost of temporal flexibility in certain occupations.”—Claudia Goldin, Harvard

    the marginal difference in gender pay

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-08 22:43:00 UTC

  • BRIEF DISCUSSION OF THE EPISTEMOLOGY OF TESTIMONIALISM All non-tautological stat

    BRIEF DISCUSSION OF THE EPISTEMOLOGY OF TESTIMONIALISM

    All non-tautological statements are incomplete, and as such no non-trivial premises are complete. Therefore all statements consist of nothing more than theoretical promises contingent upon their survival of criticism.

    We can systematically criticize each dimension of every statement for identity, internal consistency, existential possibility, external correspondence, morality, full accounting, limits and parsimony.

    If the statement survives this (admittedly expensive) criticism, then it remains a truth candidate that we can take risks with or not as our judgement sees fit.

    Instead of justification providing legitimacy or support, provides a discount on later warranties, not an increase in truth content.

    This last statement kind of threw me because I wasn’t expecting to come to that kind of conclusion.

    So it still behooves me to work on this problem. I still move it forward a bit at a time. The further I move it the less questions are left open and the more survivable the theory is from refutation.

    The hardest problem of all is parsimony, and as far as I know the only way to achieve this is through publication and social criticism.

    Thanks for following me on the journey.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-08 13:14:00 UTC

  • REASONS TO ARGUE WITH “AMATEURS” ON THE WEB. There are two reasons to conduct ar

    REASONS TO ARGUE WITH “AMATEURS” ON THE WEB.

    There are two reasons to conduct arguments in forums, or their long history of ancestors back to Newsgroups, CompuServe, bulletin boards, and newsletters.

    First is to learn how to defeat BAD arguments made by amateurs. Primarily because the mass of political voters in this world are amateurs.

    Second to understand the psychology of those who engage in sentimental rather than informed arguments.

    What you learn is that many men cannot argue from a position of weakness by simply asking questions. And that many young men in particular who feel outcast, hold to rationalist status seeking life rafts like rats in a sinking ship.

    So what you eventually come to understand, is that (a) it’s a combative way of learning for some who do not have access to quality teachers, professors, or the ability to digest written material. And (b) a combative way of getting attention on the other, from those who feel alienated. And lastly (c) a way to develop skill debating amateurs.

    I have a great deal of respect for the latter use, and used it myself. It is a great way to learn to conduct verbal sparring, and to learn all the logical fallacies that amateurs depend upon.

    I like to help individuals who need access to someone informed due to their inability to make a connection during their education. I see this as something between a moral obligation and a public service. Men are not treated well by our feminized education system.

    But I don’t like to waste my time on the borderline schizotypal personalities or those who merely want attention.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-08 11:29:00 UTC

  • ***A moral man asks questions until he understands. He seeks to understand. An i

    ***A moral man asks questions until he understands. He seeks to understand. An immoral man imposes costs upon others in the hope the others cannot pay those costs, rather than seek the truth. As such cost-imposers are liars and cheats, and thieves.***

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-08 11:08:00 UTC

  • FAITH IN PRIORS IS NOT RATIONAL ITS INSTINCTUAL —“The problem with this moral

    FAITH IN PRIORS IS NOT RATIONAL ITS INSTINCTUAL

    —“The problem with this moral and immoral discourse is the following: I act merely as someone defending the non-aggression principle which I, to use a colloquialism, regard as sacrosanct.”—

    So you mean then that you are arguing from faith? Is that what you’re basing your definition of morality upon?

    Well the problem with the half-truth of non aggression, is that one must aggress against something.

    By referring to the NonAggression Principle RATHER than stating a complete sentence, “I will define the category ‘moral’ as those actions in which one does not aggress against …[something or other]…” since the verb (aggress) lacks a noun (subject) and is therefore dependent upon substitution (suggestion) and therefore an appeal to introspection (deception).

    So you argue from this position that you have faith in an incomplete sentence that is structured precisely to avoid the necessity of defining the subject. In other words like ‘god is great’, NAP is a self referencing fallacy.

    Perhaps it does not occur to you that all debate in the different wings of libertinism are reducible to the same problem: the scope of that which we aggress against (initiate imposition of costs upon). Without this definition what libertinism’s NAP must and can only refer to, is that which is suppled by introspection by the listener and speaker.

    And while you can cast at me the accusation of sophism, it is somewhat ironic that one would fail to grasp that his entire moral basis is predicated upon a rather simplistic verbal sophism: a half truth that relies upon subjective substitution for agreement. But when articulated as it is by the various wings of libertinism, is no longer decidable.

    If you can grasp this – that you have been duped, and a useful idiot – then you will be on the journey OUT OF SOPHISM into truthfulness.

    You may not understand it right away but this argument ends rothbardian ethics and the NAP forever.

    Hoppe tries to rescue it with NAP IVP: Intersubjectively Verifiable Property. Meaning physical property. Yet IVP is insufficient to suppress retaliation, reduce transaction costs, and eliminate demand for authoritarian intervention on the basis of decidability.

    (That is the beauty of the lie of NAP: it leaves individual decidability but not intersubjective decidability, meaning that it is not logically possible to resolve disputes logically. It requires discretion (arbitrariness) and therefore authority not rule of law. )

    I repair this problem of undecidability by using property en toto, or demonstrated property: that which people retaliate against the imposition of costs upon, and therefore that which is sufficient for the elimination of discretion, and therefore elimination of authority and demand for the state.

    By consequence this definition of Non aggression against Property-en-toto defines the scope of that which we must reciprocally insure one another such that there is no demand for authority and such that we can rely entirely upon rule of law.

    I know it is hard for you to give up on a bad investment, but you’ve made a bad investment. You were played – just like Socialists and NeoCons.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-08 10:57:00 UTC

  • It’s amazing that you can share values with another person so nearly identically

    It’s amazing that you can share values with another person so nearly identically yet not really be understood by the other person – not because of difference in values, but because of differences in experience, and differences in trust.

    I always think that while my ideas may be hard to understand, that I’m actually pretty simple. I’m out there in public – completely.

    I’m a hamster. Family, friends, food, chatter, and ideas. Business is a sport. Simple. 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-08 10:35:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-08 10:09:00 UTC

  • ***When human capital is the only remaining marginal difference, then the cultur

    ***When human capital is the only remaining marginal difference, then the culture of one’s organization, and the genetic distribution of talents, and the deployment and utilization of talents, is the only remaining competitive advantage.***

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-08 10:09:00 UTC

  • OVERSING UPDATE FOR JANUARY 2016 – HAPPY NEW YEAR. 🙂 I love our product Oversin

    OVERSING UPDATE FOR JANUARY 2016 – HAPPY NEW YEAR. 🙂

    I love our product Oversing. I wish I had ten more guys and six more months to add the few nits I think would make it easier for newbies to work with, and add a lot more reports. But I love our product. Damn. Really.

    It’s so interesting – it’s an essay on the evolution of technology – that no one started with task and project management and added email to it, and instead, started with email and tried to incorporate tasks into it. I guess we could say that Lotus sort of tried.

    Here is a list of things I told board and investors I want to add next (this) year to make it easier to use for newbies.

    IMPERFECT FEATURES

    There are a few issues I don’t like but we can fix later.

    (a) Technically, an appointment is just a subtask for any task. But because of my own legacy thinking from our TIMESYS application, we implemented forecasting/appointments as a pseudo-task rather than as a subtask of a task. For a variety of reasons we wanted appointments to be configured as a general business rule independent of the program/project. So we separated data and workflow. This wasn’t necessary. We could have maintained a universal appointment workflow and program/project specific task workflows. This decision has added unnecessary complexity and we might want to change that in the future.

    (b) We need more granular ability to share workflow choices between task types. Right now they are ‘cloned’ not ‘shared’ and this is a mistake. It was just the easiest solution. What we need instead is the ability to point a workflow choice (a workflow button) at a single configuration and share it with any of the workflow entity types. And we need a ‘report’ that shows the contents of these choices so that users can edit complex sets with greater ease.

    (c) I want the Board View to hide subtasks of Stories / Problems / Opportunities / Challenges (the ‘Story’ type). (I am losing this battle with Kirill for some reason.) My vision is that the user works with stories as discreet units: as sets that must be completed. And that he does not work ‘across’ stories. in other words, a story is a micro-project or micro-job component of a deliverable (finished state).

    (d) the decision to use the backlog for both sprint/iteration backlog and project backlog instead of creating a separate backlog for sprints/iteration(work in progress) has been a mistake and has created unnecessary complexity in the application and unnecessary confusion for the user. I want to change that. (Another battle I have lost. ) In our earliest draft this made more sense than it does today.

    (e)I thought that the decision to use a [Scheduled] “state” rather than just a flag was a mistake that I made to save memory in the gantt chart. But this is merely a corollary to the backlog vs todo-backlog in that it’s ‘on the way out’ just as the todo-backlong is ‘on the way in’. I should have figured this out earlier but believe it or not I am as great a victim of priors as anyone else. 🙂

    (f) There are still problems with cascading states between parent and child containers. And there are still problems with cascading dependencies on the gantt chart. This is because we do checking only on the backend, rather than both front and back, and reverse it if the back has changed. (a cost cutting measure I took at the time on purpose but maybe shouldn’t have).

    (g) Customer/Client needs to be renamed Company/Contact, and the relationship between contact and user better integrated as a one user to many contact relationship. This again is a hangover from our first draft when we did not anticipate including customers clients and contacts as users.

    (h) My attempt to encroach on Slack’s functionality probably added confusion rather than clarity. At the top of our activity stream we included the ability to make comments without opening a page and entering the comment in context. I increasingly feel that this should be reduced to a command line for advanced users at the bottom of the page.

    MISSING FEATURES THAT MATTER

    There are some features that we are missing that I believe hurt us, but I had to cut.

    (a) The subtasks tab’s single-depth list of tasks should be added to the workspace. The outline invites abuse of the agile method and I want to answer that, as well as give people a very simple list view to work from without any of the monetary and scheduling values displayed.

    (b) Likewise a view of ‘trello’ style columns rather than the full board would help new users. Trello’s visual list-architecture is halfway between agile boards and lists. And for newer users it’s really useful, since it removes discretion from the person doing the work, whereas the full agile board view is more of a funnel approach consisting of a lot of discretion on behalf of the person doing the work. I find myself creating lots more deliverables and relying upon the Tree (outline) view simply because ordering work rather than leaving the sequence of work to the person doing it is not really possible on the board view. Now, the board view is ‘ordered’ separately from the outline view. But without single columns it’s not intuitive that the board view consists of ordered lists just as the outline view is an ordered and hierarchical list.

    (c) Next, the “Views” feature that retains the same program selections but changes panels and filters. I should have pressed for this earlier. Sharing of views, and better sharing of favorites, workspaces, appears to be necessary to get to the level of simplicity I feel we need for users to incrementally learn the product. IE: we want to share Workspaces (layouts and selections), Views (layouts), and Favorites (individual items). By doing so we allow the users to create custom experiences for different roles in the company.

    (c) We had to cut the content management feature (a content tab, and the integration with WordPress) and I think this single feature assists in positioning us in the market quite differently by leapfrogging Atlassian. All the “document” components and workflow are there (Folder,Document, Section, Article, Card, Citation, Definition) . But we could not even start working on the api for displaying them in web sites.

    (d) For simplicity purposes we did not use amazon’s search functionality (as did Slack) for our Activity Stream and Search functionality. I can ‘sense’ this when using the activity stream. It’s just work. We can do it pretty easily with a little time.

    (e) Most importantly perhaps, is the fact that the gantt chart functionality is weak without visibility of appointments (scheduled resources) and this must be done for the rather amazing resourcing functionality to be easily used by managers of many projects – common in big companies. This is the only one that gives me consternation because I know from experience that it will take some time to implement.

    WHY “DATE STUFF” IS HARDER FOR US TO PROGRAM IN OVERSING

    Well, you know, we have one large architectural difference in that ‘scheduling’ can be done a)any time during a week, b) any time during the day c) at a specific time during a day. And that one can forecast time loosely (the equivalent of a PM sprint budgets), or schedule it (reserve someone’s time). So nothing on the market that does all this and we have to write or rewrite all these libraries by hand. (and the truth is everything we find on the market leaks like a sieve anyway).

    CLOSING

    Anyway, I thought I would share. (I love sharing. lol)

    We are just knocking out bugs, almost all of which are usability issues or tweaks. And trying to get the reports done. (Honestly I have postponed a lot of very minor language or clarity issues because they won’t inhibit use enough to delay release.)

    I was wrong about reports. There are just four categories of reports – although many variations within each – and we can let people start using it as soon as the primary report in each category is completed.

    We did it. We created a new generation “erp” at the high end of the current market, and with the ambitions of reaching the top of the market, with just four of us really, over two and a half years.

    Pretty crazy. But over the next two or three years we are going to make something very amazing that will change the workplace forever by eliminating politics through transparency and truthfulness. This will advance healthy organizations, improve the health of marginal organizations, and illustrate the failings of dysfunctional organizations.

    ***When human capital is the only remaining marginal difference, then the culture of one’s organization is the only remaining competitive advantage.***

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-08 08:13:00 UTC

  • ***Why would you think you can rely on the objective morality of an action using

    ***Why would you think you can rely on the objective morality of an action using introspection rather than empirical measurement, any more than you can rely on the objective measurement of anything else by introspection rather than empirical measurement?***

    Seriously. In the future people won’t.

    Propertarianism and Testimonialism = “Radical Empiricism” in some people’s terms, but as far as I know it consists of ‘complete empiricism’ and every discipline that we call science before now consists of ‘incomplete empiricism’.

    There are only so many existentially possible dimensions to test.

    If we test them all then we have created complete empiricism.

    We stopped people from many forms of introspective reliance.

    The next step in our conceptual evolution is stopping people from introspective reliance on moral questions.

    Which is pretty cool really. Humbling. Terribly humbling. But cool.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-08 07:53:00 UTC