MEN: We have a death from risky occupations gap. We have a health gap. We have a working lifetime gap. We have an employment gap.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-23 10:06:25 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/690837985097555968
Reply addressees: @wef
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/690832620528242688
IN REPLY TO:
@wef
Are you more biased than you think? https://t.co/ItBhCxp2y1 https://t.co/bBSWLQnngO
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/690832620528242688
http://www.voxeu.org/article/technological-progress-thing-pastTECH WILL CHANGE BUT NOT OCCUPATIONS
—”It seems plausible that the future, too, will create occupations we cannot imagine, let alone envisage.”— Joel Mokyr
But have professions really changed in 2500 years?
Looks much more like a limited set of roles adapting to technology.
All we seem to see is shifting to increasingly abstract tools, and abandoning the tail jobs as utility of tail technologies dissipate..
Tech changes, But do occupations?
Research, Invention, Entrepreneurship, Investment, Production, Distribution, Trade, and Consumption, and Reproduction all continue.
Those are our Occupations. Technology is merely a product.
What about Disciplines? Coercion by Force, Coercion by Exchange, Coercion by words.
We have constant disciplines and occupations, but the technology merely rolls on through them.
We have made the earth our anthill.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-23 05:31:00 UTC
Interesting to look back over the past 15 years at the people who succeeded with our company but didn’t succeed so much without it. Conversely, those that succeeded after regardless of it.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-20 16:11:00 UTC
WHY ARE SOME PROGRAMMERS 10,000 TIMES BETTER THAN THE REST? DOES IT MATTER? THEY ARE.
Kirill just fixed a problem that has been with us for two years, that he solved in just a few hours – flawlessly. Yet, instead of being arrogant, he will also say “Alexey will do that, he has more patience than I do”. And Alexey will make fun of us both at times because we miss the logically obvious (to him). The difference is “Talent”, experience, research, persistence, hard work, and humility.
So:
– There many reasons that make a happy family, any one or more of which will make an unhappy family.
– There are many reasons that an animal is domesticatable, any one of which will make it impossible to domesticate.
– There are many reasons that make a programmer great any one of which will make the others only adequate.
We have only four substantial issues left that I know of before BETA clients can use it:
a) deliverable (sprint) accounting – which should not be hard. It means tracking the history of additions and subtractions of children from estimated and in-progress work.
b) The reports which are our last feature for v1.
c) The addition of reservations and appointments (forecasting) to the gantt chart. (I should never have cut it. it’s my fault. I know). We have to have them.
d) Then my job…. :
d0) Edit all the error and other messages.
d1) Documentation and tutorials.
d2) Default (sample) workflows and projects.
I GO THRU THE LIST EVERY DAY, AND THATS IT FOR BETA.
We’re in the last stretch!
NITS I”M CONFESSING
Some nits I’ve noticed that make me a little crazy, but aren’t blockers for release to beta sites.
d) the inconsistency of button labels when editing tables. This will be something Kirill and I do in a few hours over coffee.
e) a lot of the admin screens need to separate SELECTED items from UNSELECTED items. Right now they are combined in one table and this is confusing for users.
I SUSPECT I WILL NOW BE THE SOURCE OF ANY DELAY since the documentation is enormous, and while I write fast, and I am partly through it, I degrade quickly when switching between the screen capture and art, and the text.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-19 05:57:00 UTC
—“The Marxists learned, the hard way, that ‘work’ is much more mysterious than they had imagined.”—Joshua Zeidner
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-17 13:55:00 UTC
—“Given that all wealth was produced by humans (everything around us was once raw matter in the ground), as long as parasitism is suppressed and the reproduction rate is lower than the consumption rate for each family, the production of more humans (those of likely high-productive ability) would yield more productivity than merely maximizing production from the current population.”— Steve Pender
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-17 12:32:00 UTC
Lower prices are not an intrinsic good.
They appear to be bait for consumption.
Higher productivity is hard to argue is not an intrinsic good.
Saving the Results of Productivity Increases, rather than expanding the population, appears to be an intrinsic good.
In other words, encouraging hyper-consumption is an attack on the commons.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-17 04:14:00 UTC
[I]’ll simplify it: we cannot all be parasites. ergo: NAP/Rothbardian libertinism is to commons as socialism is to production.Socialists lay claim to the fruits of other’s production under the false premise that they will continue to produce. Libertines (rothbardians) lay claim to the fruits of others production of commons under the false premise that they will continue to produce commons. But humans don’t tolerate free riders on production or commons. It’s a form of aggression against their property-en-toto: that which they have expended effort to inventory as potential for future production or consumption.*** A condition of Liberty is constructed by the common production of the suppression of parasitism in private, social, political, and out-group human action. Propertarianism seeks the incremental suppression of parasitism in the informational commons such that it is no longer possible to engage in parasitism through deceptive (or erroneous) language. Propertarianism seeks the incremental suppression of parasitism in the government by the demand for strict construction under the one law voluntary transfer, so that it is no longer possible to steal via the government. Propertarianism seeks the incremental suppression of parasitism in the bureaucracy by universal standing in court, and the restoration of rule of law so that all citizens are subject the same prosecution for involuntary transfer. And much more. Rothbardianism is just parasitism. If you want a world without commons try to make one. It isn’t rational that one can exist, and it isn’t empirically demonstrable that one can exist.
[I]’ll simplify it: we cannot all be parasites. ergo: NAP/Rothbardian libertinism is to commons as socialism is to production.Socialists lay claim to the fruits of other’s production under the false premise that they will continue to produce. Libertines (rothbardians) lay claim to the fruits of others production of commons under the false premise that they will continue to produce commons. But humans don’t tolerate free riders on production or commons. It’s a form of aggression against their property-en-toto: that which they have expended effort to inventory as potential for future production or consumption.*** A condition of Liberty is constructed by the common production of the suppression of parasitism in private, social, political, and out-group human action. Propertarianism seeks the incremental suppression of parasitism in the informational commons such that it is no longer possible to engage in parasitism through deceptive (or erroneous) language. Propertarianism seeks the incremental suppression of parasitism in the government by the demand for strict construction under the one law voluntary transfer, so that it is no longer possible to steal via the government. Propertarianism seeks the incremental suppression of parasitism in the bureaucracy by universal standing in court, and the restoration of rule of law so that all citizens are subject the same prosecution for involuntary transfer. And much more. Rothbardianism is just parasitism. If you want a world without commons try to make one. It isn’t rational that one can exist, and it isn’t empirically demonstrable that one can exist.
[W]ell, I am not sure we should unless we want to subsidize the production of more ideas and opinions than can be produced without subsidy. And the evidence is that we produce far more ideas and opinions than the market will bear. Propertarianism says the opposite: that you may not sell those ideas and opinions without contributing a percentage of the income to the author. We call this the Creative Commons license. Which is that creative products cannot have commercial use without compensation, but have free use for non-commercial use. This strategy does not violate the test of productivity or parasitism. This would have an enormous impact on the publishing industry, all of which would be for the better. One of the reasons, if not the most important reason that we have sh_t art, literature and cinema, is that the creative subsidy of copyright protection shifts the quality downward. This is what I object to, and I consider immoral. I do not consider individual cases of ip protection (subsidy generation) necessarily bad if they are to produce goods that the market cannot afford to. In other words, I consider IP an effective method with which a market can conduct off-book research and development at low cost and risk. In fact, I cannot think of a better combination of incentives than the private sector taking all the risk and paying all the cost of failure, and only profiting if they succeed. This is a great set of incentives.