Curt Doolittle

Theme: Incentives

  • 3) The uneducated speak in theology. The educated speak in morality, philosophy,

    3) The uneducated speak in theology. The educated speak in morality, philosophy, and pseudoscience. But those with existential responsibility speak in history, economics, and incentives. If you cannot explain phenomenon in economic terms you are just inventing fictions.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-30 15:46:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/990980733501149186

    Reply addressees: @HbdNrx @SRCHicks

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/990980209053782017

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @HbdNrx @SRCHicks 2) but those windfalls, the temporary lifting of the underclasses into middle class consumption post civil- and world-war because of them, created too much incentive for those against meritocracy – and they sought under marxism, and postmodernism to use US openness to destroy it.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/990980209053782017

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @HbdNrx @SRCHicks 2) but those windfalls, the temporary lifting of the underclasses into middle class consumption post civil- and world-war because of them, created too much incentive for those against meritocracy – and they sought under marxism, and postmodernism to use US openness to destroy it.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/990980209053782017

  • 2) but those windfalls, the temporary lifting of the underclasses into middle cl

    2) but those windfalls, the temporary lifting of the underclasses into middle class consumption post civil- and world-war because of them, created too much incentive for those against meritocracy – and they sought under marxism, and postmodernism to use US openness to destroy it.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-30 15:44:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/990980209053782017

    Reply addressees: @HbdNrx @SRCHicks

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/990979430792253440

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @HbdNrx @SRCHicks 1) The USA proposed a ‘Third Way’ (meritocracy), but that “third way” is very hard for the underclasses, who want to restore the old. Fiat money, Scale, Wealth from selling off a conquered continent, inheritance of the british empire and german science, created windfalls …

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/990979430792253440

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @HbdNrx @SRCHicks 1) The USA proposed a ‘Third Way’ (meritocracy), but that “third way” is very hard for the underclasses, who want to restore the old. Fiat money, Scale, Wealth from selling off a conquered continent, inheritance of the british empire and german science, created windfalls …

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/990979430792253440

  • 1) The USA proposed a ‘Third Way’ (meritocracy), but that “third way” is very ha

    1) The USA proposed a ‘Third Way’ (meritocracy), but that “third way” is very hard for the underclasses, who want to restore the old. Fiat money, Scale, Wealth from selling off a conquered continent, inheritance of the british empire and german science, created windfalls …

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-30 15:41:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/990979430792253440

    Reply addressees: @HbdNrx @SRCHicks

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/990978278142849024

    IN REPLY TO:

    @HbdNrx

    @SRCHicks @curtdoolittle Well that was clearly no good and had to be changed

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/990978278142849024

  • If You Cannot Speak In Economic Terms and Incentives You Are Just Inventing Fictions.

    1) The USA proposed a ‘Third Way’ (meritocracy), but that “third way” is very hard for the underclasses, who want to restore the old. 2) Fiat money, Scale, Wealth from selling off a conquered continent, Inheritance of the British empire and German science, created windfalls. 3) But those windfalls, and the temporary lifting of the underclasses into middle class consumption post civil – and world-war because of them, created too much incentive for those against meritocracy.  And so they sought under marxism, and postmodernism to use US openness to destroy it. 4) The uneducated speak in theology. The educated speak in morality, philosophy, and pseudoscience. But those with existential responsibility speak in history, economics, and incentives. If you cannot explain phenomena in economic terms you are just inventing fictions

  • If You Cannot Speak In Economic Terms and Incentives You Are Just Inventing Fictions.

    1) The USA proposed a ‘Third Way’ (meritocracy), but that “third way” is very hard for the underclasses, who want to restore the old. 2) Fiat money, Scale, Wealth from selling off a conquered continent, Inheritance of the British empire and German science, created windfalls. 3) But those windfalls, and the temporary lifting of the underclasses into middle class consumption post civil – and world-war because of them, created too much incentive for those against meritocracy.  And so they sought under marxism, and postmodernism to use US openness to destroy it. 4) The uneducated speak in theology. The educated speak in morality, philosophy, and pseudoscience. But those with existential responsibility speak in history, economics, and incentives. If you cannot explain phenomena in economic terms you are just inventing fictions

  • 1) The USA proposed a ‘Third Way’ (meritocracy), but that “third way” is very ha

    1) The USA proposed a ‘Third Way’ (meritocracy), but that “third way” is very hard for the underclasses, who want to restore the old. Fiat money, Scale, Wealth from selling off a conquered continent, inheritance of the british empire and german science, created windfalls …

    2) but those windfalls, the temporary lifting of the underclasses into middle class consumption post civil- and world-war because of them, created too much incentive for those against meritocracy – and they sought under marxism, and postmodernism to use US openness to destroy it.

    3) The uneducated speak in theology. The educated speak in morality, philosophy, and pseudoscience. But those with existential responsibility speak in history, economics, and incentives. If you cannot explain phenomena in economic terms you are just inventing fictions.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-30 11:47:00 UTC

  • LAUNCHING SUCCESSFUL TECH The problem is the same I have chastised microsoft man

    LAUNCHING SUCCESSFUL TECH

    The problem is the same I have chastised microsoft management about for most of my twenty years of involvement with them: technology is only ten percent as useful as the demo apps upon which applications are built. I was right then, and I’m right now. If you look at PHP for example, without the frameworks the language would be nearly dead. But because of the frameworks it lives. (its why I use it). I wrote the “Microsoft Access Solutions Pack” for Microsoft “back in the day” and it consisted of four fully functional applications, plus the utility library I developed for overcoming the weaknesses in the access architecture. It sold enough copies, but the interesting observation is that for a decade the basis of the better applications depended upon those demo apps and that library.

    The tech is less valuable than the application framework (plug and play basic app) and the ‘full size’ demo apps are more valuable than the framework.

    The reason is very simple, if you can’t produce a framework, and you can’t produce a suite of demo apps, you either aren’t ready to go to market, haven’t actually tested your tech, and have no idea whether it serves any material purpose.

    Tech survives at the EDGES, not the CORE of technology, because it is the EDGES that are uncommon, not the cores.

    Thus endeth the lesson that is always ignored.

    Microsoft chose to improve tools rather than demo apps because they had sufficient network effect that people would invest anyway.

    But once you understand microsoft tools were built on basic and vb3 to create that network you understand why they could do it.

    Holochain needs an out of the box running framework, making use of well understood design patterns, to dominate the market. Otherwise the cost of entry is simply too high for rapid market expansion. If Demo apps were created on top of that framework, then it would be a done deal. But the instinct of programmers is to work with core tech that has no customers where they have to solve real world problems, so that they’re just masturbating, and so rather than falsify their labors by producing applications that prove the utility of their plumbing they preserve the illusions and preserve their ignorance of application of that tech as a means of preserving their illusions (fantasies). We get paid for application tech, not invention tech.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-30 09:27:00 UTC

  • OUR STRATEGY IS LIMITED BY THE COMMAND AND CONTROL STRUCTURES When there is chao

    OUR STRATEGY IS LIMITED BY THE COMMAND AND CONTROL STRUCTURES

    When there is chaos the opportunist wins, which is why politicians do not operate like Trump, while entrepreneurs and soldiers do.

    In other words, we all use the strategy that our command and control structure tolerates.

    This is why democratic polities are a disaster.

    They are only even marginally possible in periods of windfall wealth and safety.

    Russians are exceptional at this technique, but they have very poor unit cohesion.

    We have the opposite problem.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-28 08:04:00 UTC

  • All you do is give them validity with their fellows, and inspire them. The most

    All you do is give them validity with their fellows, and inspire them. The most negative reinforcement is to ignore people, not play into their game, and pay them attention. All SJW antagonism is a currency in their book.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-28 02:14:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/990051611602051073

    Reply addressees: @OurDutyToResist @ParkerMolloy

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/990032667574980608

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/990032667574980608

  • IT’S NOT 4D CHESS, IT’S JUST USING HUMAN NATURE (INCENTIVES). —“The South Kore

    IT’S NOT 4D CHESS, IT’S JUST USING HUMAN NATURE (INCENTIVES).

    —“The South Korean middle class was more afraid of Trump than they were of Kim, and this fear of the US, gave an unusually dovish South Korean government the political cover it needed to approach DPRK without being called ‘traitors’. If Trump actually understands what he did, then sure: he’s cosmic-brain-4th-dimensional-chess-deal-artist-God-Emporer.”— James Brittingham

    You don’t have to be that thoughtful, as much as just understand human nature. Trump is sensitive to status signals himself, and so he knows how to use them to influence others. In this case I suspect that his intuition was right and he simply collected enough information (or had it forced upon him by the general staff) and used people’s fear of his ‘uncertainty’.

    He is player. He plays people. It’s not complicated.

    I mean, “Listen, China, we don’t want our troops there any longer. I want to shrink the US presence abroad. If we come here and have to fix this problem, we’re gonna stay, and we’re gonna blame you for making us come here. So either fix this problem or have us on your fucking doorstep with everything we’ve got.”

    The chinese increase sanctions, trump doesn’t ‘disrespect’ kim by accepting a meeting with him (which is what kim wants, status), and the south koreans have to seize the opportunity because they’re afraid if they don’t Trump will simply be ‘unpredictable’ (which in east asian parlance is a very evil word).

    The south koreans and kim as actors, they get the ‘face’, (credit), the koreans show they are in control of their destiny, trump gets his win, and gets to be fawningly appreciative of all sides, and say it was always possible if his predecessors were f–ckheads.

    I mean, that’s the game.

    (I think very similarly, because I have read a great deal of military history and grand strategy, and applied it in business the same way he has – albeit at a much smaller scale. )

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-27 22:11:00 UTC