http://gizmodo.com/senate-gop-launches-inquiry-into-facebook-s-news-curati-1775767018FACEBOOK TAKES A STEP CLOSER TO LEGAL “UTLITY”
Source date (UTC): 2016-05-11 00:29:00 UTC
http://gizmodo.com/senate-gop-launches-inquiry-into-facebook-s-news-curati-1775767018FACEBOOK TAKES A STEP CLOSER TO LEGAL “UTLITY”
Source date (UTC): 2016-05-11 00:29:00 UTC
(FEELING OF AWE: I feel it again. I’m struck by just how CLOSE Hayek came. He started with the mind. He correctly identified information as the model. He correctly identified Law as social science.
He was SO CLOSE. So close that in retrospect we can see he was right as far as he went.
He just couldn’t assemble the pieces DESPITE being so close an associate of Popper and Mises.
And Popper came so CLOSE also. Mises had a piece, but he was too confused by his righteousness.
These people were at the END of the enlightenment, so that they could look at what had failed. But they just couldn’t put it together.
They might have if it had not been for Keynes finding a pseudoscientific excuse for Britain to inflate away her war costs, and for the democratic socialists to fund their scheme.
But the answer was being discovered in mathematics, computer science, and physics. And It seems that no one (at least until I stumbled on it) put it all together.
Thank you Rafe Champion for putting the seed in my head so many years ago. )
Source date (UTC): 2016-05-06 02:59:00 UTC
True. But is that open to an institutional solution?
Source date (UTC): 2016-05-05 08:44:16 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/728143259868925952
Reply addressees: @JayMan471
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/728043851039055873
IN REPLY TO:
@JayMan471
No. Clannish people kill social trust. Mix English, Dutch, Finns, and Japanese and trust will remain just fine. https://t.co/YrjWYMEPhq
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/728043851039055873
CONSULTING COMPANY HIERARCHY
VERTICAL AXIS:
6) Strategy Work.
( Presentations on Financial, Operational,Market Goals – ie: empirical analysis and planning – big players)
5) Consulting work
( Presentations on initiatives: usually consensus building or research work. )
4) Project Work
(deliverables – responsibility for p/l)
3) Production work
(many small deliverables)
2) Outsourcing
(housing staff under management of customer)
1) Staffing
( recruiting and supplying talent for project work)
0) Temp
( recruiting and supplying talent for short term work)
HORIZONTAL AXIS
0) Scale.
Source date (UTC): 2016-05-04 03:50:00 UTC
When some can no longer engage in productive labor they lack incentive to respect norms, market, institutions: pay-to-conform
Source date (UTC): 2016-04-30 09:04:05 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/726336311464960000
Reply addressees: @CatoInstitute
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/726173518841417729
IN REPLY TO:
@CatoInstitute
A guarenteed national income sounds good in theory but breaks down when it comes to implementation. https://t.co/bZM2vDImVj
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/726173518841417729
It’s possible that in building Oversing I see the future of the workplace differently from others. But I just have to believe that there are people at MSFT if not Apple that see the next generation of software in the workplace – and that its going to look a lot like Oversing.
I mean, I never think I’m a lone in seeing something like that. But I lack visibility into MSFT/Apple that i’ve had in the past. So I don’t really see how they view the current marketplace.
WHAT I DO KNOW is that they are both misled by revenue streams. And they both overestimate the progress of technology in the workplace and out of it.
Source date (UTC): 2016-04-30 09:01:00 UTC
#iOS Like I said. Apple’s only choice will be to pivot to business displacing MSFT. The only question is how much they lose before doing it.
Source date (UTC): 2016-04-30 07:32:00 UTC
https://t.co/fCzDVhIr68Retweeted hbd chick (@hbdchick):
lookie here!: Duman Bahrami-Rad: Ethnic heterogeneity, sub-ethnic fractionalization, and corruption –
Source date (UTC): 2016-04-29 05:34:00 UTC
Religion, Ideology, Philosophy, Law. Science A religion consists of a set of myths and rules the purpose of which is to resist outsiders, and to set limits on behavior or to be treated as an outsider and deprived of opportunity and insurance of the in-group. Hence most religions evolve with the weak, who have no means of competition except resistance and exclusion. An ideology consists of a set of ideas the purpose of which is to excite subclasses to act under democracy to obtain political power. Ideologies are used to obtain followers. Likewise followers, follow ideologies. Hence most ideologies if not all ideologies are lower and working class ideologies, and most followers from the lower and working classes. A philosophical system provides criteria for making judgements in the pursuit of preferences. Philosophies are used to obtain peers. Likewise peers seek philosophies with which to pursue preferences together with their peers. hence all philosophies are class philosophies, and most philosophies are middle class philosophies. A scientific system provides for making truthful (true) statements for the description of operations (transformations instate). Scientific systems are used to decide, create, invent, and to provide power over nature and man. Hence, science . Hence science is a largely professional or upper middle class philosophy. A legal system provides a means of resolving differences so that a group can cooperate in the production of generations, goods and services. Legal systems are used to rule others. But require strength to enforce. Hence most legal systems are the product of the upper classes that rule by force, and make use of scientific, philosophical, ideological, and religious systems to speak to classes while ruling them with law and violence. War is a scientific not emotional process. It is only the men at the bottom who need inspiration. And it is the foot-soldier at the bottom whose tenacity most determines a battle. So the relationship between the top and the bottom is necessary, and this is why non-martial polities cannot compete with martial polities – we fight together even if we conceptualize differently.
Religion, Ideology, Philosophy, Law. Science A religion consists of a set of myths and rules the purpose of which is to resist outsiders, and to set limits on behavior or to be treated as an outsider and deprived of opportunity and insurance of the in-group. Hence most religions evolve with the weak, who have no means of competition except resistance and exclusion. An ideology consists of a set of ideas the purpose of which is to excite subclasses to act under democracy to obtain political power. Ideologies are used to obtain followers. Likewise followers, follow ideologies. Hence most ideologies if not all ideologies are lower and working class ideologies, and most followers from the lower and working classes. A philosophical system provides criteria for making judgements in the pursuit of preferences. Philosophies are used to obtain peers. Likewise peers seek philosophies with which to pursue preferences together with their peers. hence all philosophies are class philosophies, and most philosophies are middle class philosophies. A scientific system provides for making truthful (true) statements for the description of operations (transformations instate). Scientific systems are used to decide, create, invent, and to provide power over nature and man. Hence, science . Hence science is a largely professional or upper middle class philosophy. A legal system provides a means of resolving differences so that a group can cooperate in the production of generations, goods and services. Legal systems are used to rule others. But require strength to enforce. Hence most legal systems are the product of the upper classes that rule by force, and make use of scientific, philosophical, ideological, and religious systems to speak to classes while ruling them with law and violence. War is a scientific not emotional process. It is only the men at the bottom who need inspiration. And it is the foot-soldier at the bottom whose tenacity most determines a battle. So the relationship between the top and the bottom is necessary, and this is why non-martial polities cannot compete with martial polities – we fight together even if we conceptualize differently.