Curt Doolittle

Theme: Incentives

  • Q&A: A GENTLE EUGENICS? –What is the gentlest way to restrain underclass reprod

    Q&A: A GENTLE EUGENICS?

    –What is the gentlest way to restrain underclass reproduction?–

    The gentlest way to restrain underclass reproduction is to be honest about it, transfer from services to direct redistribution, and to make redistribution contingent on single child reproduction, and offer free sterilization after the fist birth, and require sterilization of those with severe histories in the family (we have studies on this it’s pretty obvious stuff).

    And secondly to limit immigration to those with IQ’s 125 and above.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 06:30:00 UTC

  • Q&A: —“CURT: WHAT’S WRONG WITH CAPITALISM?”— —“What is wrong with capitali

    Q&A: —“CURT: WHAT’S WRONG WITH CAPITALISM?”—

    —“What is wrong with capitalism? Can it be solved by economic theories alone, or is it a leadership problem as well?”—

    Well, let’s take a ‘meaningful’ name: “capitalism”, and restated it operationally, using a ‘true’ name: What problems arise from the voluntary organization of production distribution and trade(capitalism) with individual distribution of property rights providing individual discretion using information provided by the pricing system, compared to the involuntary organization of production, distribution, and trade (socialism) with the discretionary distribution of property rights, in the absence of a pricing system, and compared to a mixed economy, where we use the voluntary organization of production, distribution, and trade, with the individual allocation of property rights, and with individual discretion provided by the pricing system, yet representative decision over the amount and use of the proceeds from the voluntary organization of production? And why has no one really succeded at producing a mixed property economy (other than the fascists), whereby the majority of consumption goods are produced by the voluntary market, and the commons are produced by the involuntary organization of production? In other words, we use armies for building defense, why don’t we use the industrial equivalent of armies to build and maintain infrastructure, and maintain the beauty, and civility of the commons.

    That’s a very long way of describing the problem, but it still obscures the next layer of complexity: discretion (decidability).

    The market provides superior decidability for those things that will benefit from competition. In many cases, competition for ideas(architecture and engineering) is beneficial but competition for labor is not (construction and maintenance).

    The answer is that we cannot choose pure capitalism because too many people are of too little value in many markets, because of immigration, asymmetric class reproduction, or simply overpopulation in relation to the trustworthiness of the people and their institutions.

    Likewise we cannot choose pure socialism, because there are too few incentives for people to engage in value-creating production, and too many incentives for people to engage in corruption.

    When we try a mixed appropriation economy (what we call a mixed economy today), we seem to produce rapidly decreasing birth rates in our productive people, and extraordinary rents in the public sector.

    We considered trying a mixed production economy, but the problem is the statists and rent seekers in the productive sector compete using the government to deprive the private sector.

    So the problem is not capitalism or socialism. The problem is demographic mix, the mixture of voluntary and involuntary organiztaion of production to suit the demographics and institutions available, and the elimination of discretion from the people in what we call government so that even if they exist they cannot (easily) engage in corruption.

    The problem is:

    1) That we lack rule of law rather rule of legislation. Majority rule, representative democracy, is perhaps the worst government everyone ever produced. If we could vote to oust the entire government every 90 days, and rescind all acts of that government upon successful ouster, then that might be helpful. If we could sue government participants if they tried to construct or did construct immoral contracts, then that would be an a solutoin. And if we were still required to pay a progressive income tax, but we chould choose how it was allocated, right down to the paperclip, I think that would solve the problem.

    2) But then we get to the answer: That we lack a market for the production of commons (like we had under english houses of parliament). We rely on assent (majority rule) creating opportunity for corruption, instead of relying on dissent (violation of natural, judge discovered, common law) to prevent immoral and illegal contracts for the production of commons. We could allocate funds evenly and let areas negotiate exchanges. And that would produce a moral and naturally legal market for the production of commons.

    3) We rely on fiat money (which is an advantage) but we distribute liquidity and dividends through the financial system rather than directly to consumers. In other words, we cause consumers and businesses to fight for credit, rather than businesses and finance to fight for consumer spending.

    So as humans we tend to like to break ideas down into too simple a set of comparisons, becuase really, it’s hard to work with anything other than ideal types. Humans… well, we just aren’t that smart. (Try algebraic geometry, which in principle should’nt be too complicated, but our minds are just not often made for it.)

    Instead we must often thing in supply demand curves, becuase whether the thing we are discussing is persona, social, international, or physical concept, we deal with equilibrial forces.

    In this case we have a series of problems we must deal with:

    1) demographic distributions: the differnce between races is largely one of sexual maturity and asymmetric sexual dimorphism producing differences in abilities. This is magnified by geography that cuases various selection pressures. As such poor places just were worse at killing off the lower classes and suppressing their reproduction, and the wealthier places better at upward redistribution of resources and constant culling of the underclasses through sanction (killing), war, starvation, and the difficulty of surviving in cold climates.

    2) Information and incentives: the pricing system provides opportunity to FORM both information and incentives.

    3) Discretion versus rule of law: Discretion and corruption versus rule of law and non-corruption.

    4) The distribution of the organizaiton of production from authoritarian (originating in the fertile crescent and other flood plains) raider ethics (originating in steppe and desert), and libertarian (originating in the forest and sea peoples), and equalitarian, (preserved among hunter-gatherers).

    The solution is to solve all these problems with (a) rule of law (non discretion) (b) market production of commons limited by legal dissent. (c) extension of involuntary production for the construction and maintenance of commons, and reduction of the voluntary organization of production to those capable of surviving within it. (d) the restoration of the family as the central object of policy (e) the restoration of the process of intergenrational lending to preserve knowldge and calculability. (f) the direct and equal distribution of liquidity under fiat money (shares in the commons) to consumers in the case of the necessity to reorder the sustainable patterns of specialization and trade (the market) when it incurrs shocks or exhaustions (of opportunities).

    I could go on but I think you get the general idea. We got it wrong when we tried to steal the commons from the aristocracy by imposing majoritarianism, rather than constructing additional houses and continuing the tradition of using government as a market for the production of commons by negotiation between the classes.

    The middle class was nowhere near as good at governing as the aristocracy.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-14 16:17:00 UTC

  • BECAUSE THEY FOLLOW INCENTIVES: WORKING FOR EACH OTHER RATHER AT OUR EXPENSE RAT

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-global-elites-forsake-their-countrymen-1470959258ITS BECAUSE THEY FOLLOW INCENTIVES: WORKING FOR EACH OTHER RATHER AT OUR EXPENSE RATHER THAN WORKING FOR COMPETITIVELY FOR US.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-13 07:48:00 UTC

  • Q&A: –“CURT: WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON TAXATION?”– (important post) GREAT QUES

    Q&A: –“CURT: WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON TAXATION?”–

    (important post)

    GREAT QUESTION:

    I’m going to answer this set of questions in a different order from the one they were asked:

    –“Have you spent much time on taxation and it’s various forms? Perhaps you could do a post on your thoughts about how such a treasury would function and it’s relations to taxation. “–

    Of course. I think it’s a national preoccupation. I’m not alone.

    –“What is your position on taxation?”—

    Well, my position is that under rule of law – meaning if we possess liberty in fact, not fiction – that there exists no discretion in the use funds. That’s the purpose of rule of law: the elimination of discretion. If there is no discretion involved we are not in fact ruled by men, but by law: we govern ourselves by contract.

    Once we eliminate discretion we eliminate what we call corruption and, assuming we require truthful speech in the commons – not only in advertising and marketing, and warranty, but in ethical, moral, and political speech – we eliminate almost all of what we consider politics.

    Now another property of rule of law, if we are to prevent discretion, is ‘calculability’ or what we tend to call ‘operationalism’ in science and ‘specific use, or use of funds’ in contract law. Meaning that any fund collected must go to the purpose it was intended, or be refunded.

    Rule Of Law = Contractualism. Period. Discretion != Rule of Law.

    However, we must understand, that Rule of Law = Meritocracy, and many people living cannot prosper, compete, or survive on their merits. There are a limited number of strategies for preserving liberty, rule of law, and meritocracy: (i)limit the size of the bottom classes through control of reproduction and culling; (ii) limit their damage by paying them not to reproduce, and (iii) make use of them through involuntary organization of production (maintenance of the commons).

    This is one of the reasons for taxation: paying for the cost of suppression of reproduction of those who cannot prosper, compete, or survive in meritocracy. Just as the problem external orders (military defense and constructive offense), and internal orders (the judiciary and police).

    If we negotiate such contracts between groups and classes, and there is no means under natural common judge-discovered law, by which we can object to those contracts, then we have created a market for the construction of commons, in addition to the market for the construction of goods and services. Those are not taxes but installment payments, and enforceable like any other contract.

    If those taxes are used to make the evolutionarily competitive results of liberty possible, and if it’s not possible otherwise, then taxes for this purpose are simply the market price for the production of a condition of liberty under which we can produce the results of liberty: necessary commons, competitive commons, and desirable private goods and services .

    The problem then is not taxation per se, but the use of taxes. If we are paying contractually agreed to prices for goods and services obtained through under rule of law, and free of discretion, refunded if paid for, then that is merely contractual payment.

    Now, there is no reason to argue against either for income or consumption ‘commissions’ (taxes), on the production of goods and services in the voluntary construction of production distribution and trade we call capitalism, since that order is itself a good that is bought and paid for by shareholders, with both personal, normative, and material costs.

    And furthermore, there is no reason to argue against progressive taxation (commissions) on income or price, either. The question is ownership: In ancient societies order was created by force at substantial risk and expense. And it is probably the most important service we create. In modern societies, almost everyone is enfranchised (a shareholder). And if the shareholders can determine the use of funds by economic voting (proportional voting by contribution), or if they can determine the use of funds by share voting (voting their share of the tax pool), then we preserve operational rule of law and eliminate discretion.

    The inverse question is whether it is possible to produce a condition of liberty, meritocracy, and prosperity, that has been so rewarding in the ancient and modern worlds. And the answer is that familial, local, social, economic, political, and military orders exist in competition for people(consumers), human capital(skills and knowledge), business and industry, wealth, and leadership (the advocacy for the organization of normative, economic, political, and military capital). So people flee to regions that produce wealth and flee from regions that don’t. Which is a significant problem if they’re imposing a long-term genetic cost on the absorbing market. And this is the problem we face with immigration of underclasses and the rate of underclass reproduction vs middle and upper-class reproduction.

    The answer to the problem of creating an order in people of diverse abilities is not to choose either a monopoly capitalist market(voluntary organization of labor) or a monopoly socialist market (involuntary organization of labor), but to make use of both markets: one for the production of innovative consumer goods, and one for the production of ‘simple’ common goods: cleanliness, order, construction of bulidings, parks, and monuments, roads, sidewalks, and in general, beauty.

    —“Let’s assume a treasury issues currency and that through the treasury citizens can borrow money interest-free for consumption. Now the treasury needs to be funded through taxation, whether voluntary or otherwise is superfluous for arguments sake.”—

    Well, first, let’s clarify: the treasury can be funded through the sale of assets (minerals, territory, etc), inflation, taxation, fees, profits(returns on investments not possible otherwise – the Panama and Suez canals for example. Some of the great dams. Many projects cannot be ‘insured’ by an insurer of last resort other than the shareholders themselves). And hopefully we would fund the treasury in the opposite order: 1) profit, 2) fees, 3) taxation, 4) inflation, 5) sale of assets.

    In practice, if it cannot be achieved through profit or fees, it would suggest a political failure. Taxation and inflation are debt instruments. And sale of assets is a form of liquidation.

    Members of Nations(extended relations) do not squabble about taxes the way oligarchies and empires do.

    —“hrough the treasury citizens can borrow money interest-free for consumption”—

    I think that this is the great economic question of our time: why should distributors (banks) earn interest on money borrowed from ourselves for the purchase of consumption, when the data says that they perform no function not equally provisible by purely statistical analysis of data produced in extraordinary quality by actuaries.

    There isn’t any reason. None. There is no reason that we do not borrow to some percentage of the maximum of our statistical repayment ability from the treasury, and then when the economy slows, that money is equally distributed to those same accounts facilitating further consumption. Other than under democracy people would vote to increase such distributions by various schemes untili we were again bankrupt.

    But the financial sector is disproportionately rewarding given that it’s basically trivial clerical work that privatizes wins and socializes losses.

    There is no reason we don’t treat lending the public monies just as we do licenses of Lawyer’s, CPA’s and Series 7 holders. These individuals could have public records, and must retain certain scores in order to maintain their licenses. In exchange they can obtain a small percentage of each customer’s accounts that they manage from the treasury. And they would have no protection against suits that is afforded to our bureaucrats.

    Now aside form the misappropriation of profits by the financial sector, why is it that we charge interest on consumption? That makes no sense at all really. Why do we charge interest on production? Because that’s the only way we can judge whether intertemporal lending as increased productivity by compression of time.

    So my recommendation is to professionalize lending from the treasury (regional offices of central banks), and interest on consumption entirely (imagine the effect it would have on housing if the maximum period of a home loan using any treasury funds was 15 years, and at zero interest?) And to issue liquidity directly to consumers, on regular (yearly) basis. And to constitutionally eliminate the state manipulation of these funds for any purpose (preserving rule of law by preserving the probhition on discretion.)

    From what I can see ih the behavior of most countries, if yo have a small homogenous people they will be hightly redistributive voluntarily, and heterogeneity radically decreases willingness to both redistribute or to contribute in any way to tthe commons.

    Just to stay on message, and continue to falsify rothbardian libertinism: What separates libertarianism (anglo saxon) from libertinism (jewish) is that libertarians want to do no harm to the commons, and libertines want to do no good to it.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    (I have no idea where I am right now) 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-13 07:20:00 UTC

  • OVERSING – SERIOUS QUESTION – GO TO MARKET? (thinking in public) (long) (busines

    OVERSING – SERIOUS QUESTION – GO TO MARKET?

    (thinking in public) (long) (business questions) (oversing details)

    QUESTION: Will the WordPress/Craigslist Strategy Work for our product Oversing?

    WHEREAS (challenges and opportunities)

    – Oversing is a huge and fairly complex product, it’s an ERP.

    – It is bigger than Jira by an order of magnitude, because it addresses the needs of the entire business not just development and help desk.

    – It is easier to use than Jira and MS-CRM and Sharepoint.

    – it is relatively easy for us (me) to customize oversing for and organization’s use.

    – It is possible for someone with experience with CRM’s or ERP’s to configure oversing for use in an organization.

    – It will take someone with experience with Jira or a less advanced product to configure it for departmental use.

    – It will take users some time, and administrators more time to learn all of it.

    BUT (handling challenges)

    – We can turn features on and off incrementally as users need them by simply assigning features to roles, and flipping a switch on a user’s profile granting the user access to that role’s features.

    – Jira is notoriously unintuitive and complicated, and for that matter, so are Salesforce and MS CRM. Complexity and learning curve are not a challenge for market leaders. However,

    WHEREAS (current conditions)

    – the product is in beta state, and we have spent the summer with clients, and only half our efforts or less focused on the bug and usability issues.

    – The bugs are standard fare. But the little usability issues in this complex a system can frustrate users. And we did not predict many of them – simply because it’s so large.

    – There are three areas that concern me: (i) we need a lot of help and tutorial work (ii) we have improved the performance of the ui, but we can still improve it, and possibly need to. But my decision was this: given the rate of advancement I should design the app for a decade or more, not for current limitations. (iii) the gantt view doesn’t work well enough because honestly it is just too big and heavy. It will handle more records than any competitors products. But I feel it is not yet usable in mutli-project businesses that I want to address in agencies and consultancies. So I want to write something custom and light. (iiii) We can migrate workflows just fine, but we haven’t written code to migrate between organizational structures.(v)

    – It will take us three years of additional versions to complete the vision we have for the program. This involves (i) the future of email messaging, (2) the addition of financial accounting to our existing management accounting, (3) custom properties, (4) changing our database searches to rely on Elastic Search technology. (i viewed it as something I could push until later since it’s not important until we have custom properties.).

    THE VISION (Goal)

    – The vision is that we provide both web and desktop equivalents, and provide an alternative to the Microsoft platform stack (although not the document creation suite).

    – But more importantly, that Oversing captures much more detail about you and your organization’s behaviors than do google and Facebook combined. But instead of selling this information to marketers *against your interest, and against your will* we will provide this information about you and your organization back to you – and provided it in the context of similar organizations in the marketplace.

    This is our long-term objective: to provide continuous career-enhancing feedback to users, managers, and executives that reflects the needs and wants of individual personalities (characters and goals), while producing reputations for people in the workplace that are independent of political and personal bias.

    We want to disrupt the business sphere as much as Facebook has disrupted the social sphere – but for entirely different reasons.

    THEREFORE (hypothesis)

    Given that we need to incrementally expand the product over the next two or three years, How do we enter the market now?

    Originally we had thought that we would take the enterprise sales route, and grow slowly. But this creates a fairly high barrier to adoption since it’s a huge commitment on the part of a customer.

    On the other hand, if you have ever run a services organization in tech, marketing, or advertising of more than 200 people (I have) you really stop caring about the cost of learning, because without that information it’s really hard to maintain operational profitability.

    The reason we were (wildly) successful at our business is (a) we had Microsoft as a cash-cow, (b) we could overpay for talent to serve them, giving us room to experiment (c) even if we were creatively weak, we were operationally excellent in ways that only the big six firms can match. And the reason we were operationally excellent is we used the internal precursor to Oversing to run the entire business under the agile model using weekly sprints for project management and resourcing.

    Now you know, the truth is, most management doesn’t manage the organization, but instead, tries to (a)contribute in say, sales; or (b) play with financial information – meaning they have lousy systems, because your systems should tell you everything every moment without investigation, or (c) do anything they can to shirk management by pushing it off on someone else. When the answer is working people as a process of continuous improvement in them, the work, and the relationship with the customer,and of course, reaching profit goals without sacrificing people, work, or relationship with the customer.

    So the challenge to this model is that Oversing is designed to allow you to manage an EXCELLENT business, not a lazy one. I built it to duplicate our agile management of the entire business.

    Then we thought we should create a community edition without financial and administrative features – purely project and program-centric, and then allow users to purchase (license) their own database instances (like Asana etc), all of which run off of the same web server instance, but different database instances. Yet all reputation and statistics are promoted to the main server database, giving you a superior reputation to that of say, LinkedIn. This is how Oversing works today.

    But again, we feel we need a lower barrier to entry.

    This summer we started working with one of the online talent marketplaces, (freelancer and contractor type work). These sites take a commission on arranging work between buyers and sellers of talent in all sorts of fields – particularly technology. Becuase the workforce has gone global. Particularly for even moderate English speakers.

    We’d originally designed oversing for in-house use, then for public use, but we hadn’t addressed the issue of freelancers bidding on work. But adding the freelancer marketplace to Oversing was just a matter of a few additions: (i) creating a few new panels (talent market, work market), and modifying the Skills panel so that it updated both of those market panels if they’re open. (ii) creating new entity types to add to the workflow engine for bids/bid-requests, bid-invoices, and bid-invoice-payments (there are 30+ types of tasks you can add to a project, and this adds three more. you can think of a project as a combination of a task list, project plan, and project accounting journal). Then hooking into the payment processing system. (iii) updating our various reporting views (there are really just a few of them) to include the new entity types. Sure we can do more, but that’s the minimum necessary. So we set about doing that.

    This seemed to us that it might be the right level of barrier to entry – because it’s free. Yep. Free. Just as WordPress sites are free unless you want customization, and just as Craigslist is free unless you want to post a job ad.

    So we can run the site overhead on (low) fees; charge for custom instances for those who want them; charge for setup and integration services if customers want them.

    Fees in the business work about like this:

    (i) – The “dating service’ between talent and project manager: 20%,10%,5% depending upon the size of the customer relationship. Basically after 10k, you’re just making 2.5%.

    (ii) – Outsourced project management of freelancer projects for customers: 20%.

    (iii) – Outsourced work at agencies and consultancies: 50%.

    (iv) SAAS Licensing Fees for instances: $5-25$-$50-$300 per user per year depending upon which product we’re talking about. In my view we want to be at the bottom end of that. Even though we will offer a combined stack that is far beyond what established companies provide. (100 people 6k-60K per year). (It’s cheap really if enterprise software costs you one admin headcount per year there is no way it’s not a wash.)

    BUT IS IT ENOUGH?

    Entry points at different levels of the application allow users to get exposure to the features they need without feeling that they need to master the entire thing from the beginning.

    We need entry points for end-users, so that they create profiles, and reputations, and bid on and post work. In house or out of house.

    We need entry points for the various kinds of leads, project managers and department managers

    We need entry points for the executive team that decides upon which package to implement.

    If you told me as an exec of a large services business that I could modernize without much risk, and really cut my licensing, and software costs, and probably cut my headcount costs, I think I would at least give it a shot assuming the analysts were paying attention to it.

    Now, if you told me that, as an exec, I could use Oversing for free, and that the only price I’d pay was a commission on freelancer deals, then I would say that was pretty cool. Most of the time it’s 10K+ for the software, then 10-100k for the configuration and training.

    If you told me as a department manager that I could get an enterprise platform for free, I think I would find that pretty interesting – certainly, I would take a look at it.

    If you told me I could use another project management site, I don’t know why I would pay the high learning costs without having a client request I use it.

    If you told me that I could sign up for another freelancer site, I doubt that I would bother unless someone invited me to in order to get work.

    If I saw advertisements suggesting I try oversing versus Jira I think that would be a pretty interesting choice. But you know, most of the expansion in dev tools has been at the low end, and for them, simple things like Basecamp are fine.

    So the customer is really not the casual user but the professional that is accountable for performance: project, program, department, operations, and execs.

    I mean the difference between oversing and Jira is the difference between internal support and consulting, agency, and freelance businesses.

    SO, REPEATING THE QUESTION

    If we can make enough money (we can) on transactions, why not make it free, and only charge for private instances? Can we make the same attack on the mainstream platforms over time the way FB, WordPress, Craigslist, and to some degree, Jira has?

    OUR BUSINESS PROBLEM:

    AWARENESS VIA ENTRY CLIENTS ->

    …..TIME FOR EXPANDING FEATURES ->

    ………COMPLETE MAINSTREAM CORP STACK COMPETITOR

    OVERVIEW OF OVERSING FEATURES

    ====================

    OVERSING SYSTEM SERVICES

    —-Workflow System

    ——–Users

    ——–Contacts

    ——–Companies (customers)

    ——–Invoices

    ——–Programs

    ————Overhead, Cost Center,

    ————Revenue,

    ————Vacation/holiday,

    ————Personal

    ——–Program Task Types

    ————Strategy (Management initiatives),

    ————Sales,

    ————Recruiting,

    ————Career(hr/mentoring),

    ————Delivery (any kind of other project)

    ——–Operational Periods (‘Revenue Sprints’)

    ————–Timecards

    ——————-Work Logs (Timeslips)

    ————–Expenses

    ————–Adjustments

    ————–Transfers

    ————–Commissions

    ————–Proposals(bids)

    ————–Proposal-Invoices

    ————–Proposal-Payments

    —-Reputation Systems

    ——–Skill and Reputation System

    ——–Awards (Gamification) System

    ——–NPS Survey System

    —-Accounting Systems

    ——–Currency System (real time, fully preserved)

    ——–General (Project) Ledger

    ——–Project Accounting System (no accrual services)

    ——–Costs allocation system

    ……………….(to individuals giving real p&l per person)

    —-Security Systems

    ——–User Authentication System (access to app)

    ——–Access Roles System (access to features)

    ——–Workflow Automated Permissions

    ——–Permissions System (access to content)

    —-Support Systems

    ——–Internationalization (translation) system

    ——–Scheduling (cron) System

    ——–Queue Manager (‘Ratchet’)

    ——–Workspace State System (‘Redis’)

    ——–Websocket Publishing System

    USER SERVICES

    My Organization

    —-My Org Structure

    ——– My Workflows

    ——– My Chart of Accounts

    ——– My Rate Sheets

    —-My Users

    ———My Workspaces

    ———My Favorites

    ———My Programs / Projects /Tasks

    ———My Skills and Reputations

    ———My Files

    ———My Rates

    —-My Customers (Organizations)

    ——–My Contacts

    ——–My Contracts

    ——–My Invoices

    ——–My Programs

    ————-My Program Accounts

    ————-My Projects / Tasks / Xactions / Files

    ——————Deliverables / Tasks / Xactions / Files

    ——————Documents

    ———————- Sections / Articles / Scrivenings

    ———————- Citations, Definitions, References

    1) FINISH TALENT MARKETPLACE WORK

    2) OPERATIONAL TEMPO WORKSPACE

    (Not yet)

    allows you to manage the different time periods more easily

    3) REPLACE HEAVY GANTT WITH LIGHT TIMELINE

    4) WORDPRESS INTEGRATION

    (not yet) Easy but not done.

    5) FULL FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING

    (not yet)

    6) Elastic Search

    7) Point to point secure messaging and mail.

    If you made it through this, thank you. I always appreciate feedback and the opportunity to air my ideas in public.

    I’m aware that most anyone who reads this probably is not working in an executive capacity. And oversing is too much for you as an individual or small business member.

    Affections all

    Curt Doolittle

    (h/t: and many thanks to my good friend Kevin Dillon for the WordPress Strategy)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-12 04:28:00 UTC

  • The information provided by sets of price levels is insufficient to convey the t

    The information provided by sets of price levels is insufficient to convey the totality of demand. Only what markt can tell us.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-11 13:58:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/763736248238342144

    Reply addressees: @mightyboom_

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/763705296845807616

    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/763705296845807616

  • The state doesn’t do it. The people in the companies do it. If you troll you wil

    The state doesn’t do it. The people in the companies do it. If you troll you will pay the price. If you argue you won’t. I argue.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-11 06:43:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/763626857552027648

    Reply addressees: @mfckr_

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/763626664836247552

    IN REPLY TO:

    @mfckr_

    @curtdoolittle They also make it their business to police “hate speech” and people are imprisoned & lose jobs/etc over it.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/763626664836247552

  • Has Communism Ever Been Successful?

    At killing millions. Yes. But for very obvious reasons it can’t: incentives.

    https://www.quora.com/Has-communism-ever-been-successful

  • Has Communism Ever Been Successful?

    At killing millions. Yes. But for very obvious reasons it can’t: incentives.

    https://www.quora.com/Has-communism-ever-been-successful

  • New life lesson. Hire female programmers over 35. The value of young men is thro

    New life lesson. Hire female programmers over 35. The value of young men is throwing their lives away to master disposable technology. The value of programmers over 35 is they don’t do all the stupid stuff. God.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-09 12:29:00 UTC