My current world view: for monster multiples you need someone who knows how to go 0 to 1, repeatedly. That's almost always only the founder. People after are incremental. If they weren't, they'd just be a founder. Hence why everything is done through acquisitions post-founder. So there's armies of engineers incrementally scaling and maintaining dollars. But not creating that wealth or growing it in a significant % way.
The police also killed 19 people but your comment doesn’t mention that.
In addition the military has not taken over, but currently seems to be honoring the demand of the protestors for new leadership and addressing the widespread corruption in the nation.
It’s too early to call, to be sure. But I’m hopeful that there can be a peaceful transition from here towards something better for Nepal.
This reads to me as a somewhat quaint snapshot of politics from 30 years ago.
What the author is getting at is the overlapping of the bundles of individual policy stances that we give the label of a single ideology, the folding of the left-right political axis through higher dimensional space. People who agree on some things disagree on others and the old categories become less useful.
These days I think JREG is doing good work tracking political categories if you’re interested and don’t mind some irony-poisoned jargon check him out.
Yeah, I think we've all seen the term "socialism" prettymuch destroyed into having no coherent meaning beyond "when government does stuff" for as long as I can remember, for example.
I mean, I've seen people decry market-oriented solutions to problems (eg congestion pricing) as "socialism" which is broadly hilarious.
> "socialism" pretty much destroyed into having no coherent meaning beyond "when government does stuff" for as long as I can remember
This is actually the best definition, for certain values of government. What's bizarre is that a bunch of people gave communists ownership of the definition of socialism. The communists who never even described it specifically, just refer to it as a mythical state that spontaneously occurs after all of the revolution that they do actually describe. Even worse, those people tho give communists total ownership of the concept don't claim to be communists (because it's too strict, and requires too much reading.)
Socialism is when people cooperate to do things as a group to benefit the entire group. Socialism as a governance system is when that cooperation completely subsumes other methods of resource distribution and dispute resolution. To be clear: Socialism is when the (popularly sovereign) government does stuff, and the more stuff the government does, the more socialister it is.
Markets can also be socialism. Markets are artificial constructs within which transactions are enforced by an overarching power. If that power is popularly sovereign, and the markets are meant to equalize distribution without regard to the power of individuals, of course they're socialist. There has never been a "socialist" society that has not introduced markets. There are still market socialists, maybe look them up.
Markets can be used for any purpose, but a very obvious one is that if people all begin with the same amount of currency, but with a different array of needs, they can use markets to get rid of the things they don't need to get the things that they do, in a fair way.
"Socialism" instead has become popularly defined among a certain class as a society that has infinite wealth and distributes whatever anybody wants to whoever wants it, without requirement or delay, and allows people to contribute in any way that they see fit. It's just rich kid summer camp.
A million kinds of socialists showed up to the First International. Communists bullied them all out (and they would eventually be the "social fascists" who were a bigger danger than even fascists, and needed to be liquidated), and decided that they were the Workingmen now. Now, the children of the most elite classes on the planet dictate that real socialism is their socialism.
It's very hard to find out about a lot of those different socialisms, because how overjoyed they were to see a worker's revolution had happened in Russia, how they flocked to it, and how those people were slaughtered or forced to conform to Stalin's new socialism with classes (S++, maybe? The Fabians couldn't get enough of it.) Whatever Kronstadt hadn't said was said when Stalin explained how some people deserved larger apartments than others, and ruthlessly suppressed those who disagreed.
Read Owen. Learn about labor vouchers. Read anything but Marx and Engels.
Engels was a mill owner who was sleeping with his employees, and Marx was a brilliant economist who relied on Engels entirely for his financial support. Engels served a badly determined mishmash of socialist theories that were already ancient by the time he arrived, wrote a nice thing about the state of the English working class, and needed Marx to lend him intellectual authority.
Marx wrote Capital, which adds almost nothing new to economics and makes the same mistakes that all other economists were making at the time (it's basically Ricardo), but wrote it from the perspective of the individual, as opposed to nations, which was revolutionary. It was not a message to princes, it was a message to wage-laborers.
Engels frankensteined this into his own warmed over cliches, and never allowed Marx to publish a word that he hadn't scribbled all over. Please ignore them when thinking about socialism. We've done the experiments (although we started with peasants instead of a society well prepared by capitalism), and the first output was Stalin.
Maybe give the Left SRs a little attention, or remember Fanny Kaplan. It's a miracle that Bogdanov survived, but even the Bolsheviks couldn't bring themselves to kill the person who came up with the idea of "dialectical materialism" which they hopelessly butchered because Lenin clearly didn't understand what he was reading. Read Bogdanov. Lenin once "refuted" him by basically denying the existence of the material world, and sneering at those who believe in it. Lots of parallels there to today.
Sorry for hijacking your offhand comment. But congestion pricing is socialism.
> city-run buses are absolutely socialist organizations
I agree totally.
As for the military, I'm not so sure. As far as I know every military is run by a state. A private army is generally called milita. A military is also not really providing value to the people, but rather providing value to the government, sometimes over the people. Mandatory public military on the other hand might qualify for that term.
> Socialism is when people cooperate to do things as a group to benefit the entire group.
No, that's altruism: putting the group ahead of the individual.
Socialism is when the means of production are socially owned, instead of privately owned. It implicitly is altruistic by nature, but that's of course not guaranteed.
> just refer to it as a mythical state that spontaneously occurs after all of the revolution
I think you have switched the terms here. Communism is what the mythical state is called. The political agenda leading to, during and after the revolution until that mythical state, is called socialism.
It's true, that socialism used to describe also a liberal way to curing poverty, but that split occurred over 150 years ago. Since then the parties that intend to keep democracy call themselves socialdemocratic and socialism is used exclusively for those calling for councils and revolution.
I'm a bit tired of hearing times and times again, that actually maybe socialdemocrats are also socialists. Socialdemocrats are not against private ownership, they just want it distributed differently. That's not socialist.
Nah. Don't waste your time reading about Owenism and labor vouchers. It's utter tripe, wishful thinking made up by some random guy with no connection to objective reality. The labor theory of value has never and will never work in practice.
This isn't debate club, you can figure out sources yourself. The guy spoke groyper lingo, dressed like a groyper, posed for pictures like a groyper. It is not unreasonable to use duck typing.
Does this mean he IS a groyper? Ha, of course not, it is just anecdotal evidence pointing in that direction. But your argument is that because law enforcement says he has a transgender roommate or partner, he can't possibly be a groyper. Uh, sure. Okay.
I like a lot of the redesign suggestions but how much of that is a result of cards vs no-cards. For example removing the tags and using colored words ("privacy") could still be a good move while keeping cards.
I'm not super educated as a UI designer though can someone help me better understand the distinction?
author here (not super educated either). That's part of the idea — when cards are removed it becomes obvious that tags become the most noticeable part while not being the most (or any) important one. When you look at the cards you see cards and _something_ inside them.
So maybe if this post was in less flame-provoking tone I'd suggest trying to add cards back and see if it makes it better. It might, on landings there is a good chance it will.
I've been at companies where the company itself has no code assets but depends on a bunch of 3rd party enterprise services to run the core business. Brings up the question of how to measure how much code you have: if you depend on a legacy saas provider, do their lines of code count as your liability?
I think the top liability If you depend on a bunch of 3rd parties is if they close or are acquired and change the terms. Many times, we are using services from startups that were only well-funded and have not reached break-even and/or a sustainability business.
A lot depends on the details of what the service provides, but yea, the worst is when your critical data is not accessible or recoverable because someone else holds it for you and something happens that cuts you off. The doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t use any service, but you do need to think through some worst case scenarios and think about your recovery strategy.
At a previous place we used a dreadful email marketing SaaS tool and it caused us no end of fire-fighting, even though we probably only had 500 lines of integration code. We ended up rewriting the functionality we needed and bringing it in-house and saved a ton of pain and money, and added ~3k lines.
Relativity Space | Long Beach, CA / Stennis, MS | Full-time
Multiple software teams hiring to help build the next great orbital launch company. Our Terran-R vehicle will be a strong competitor to Falcon (and bigger) and will launch late next year.
Software roles include full-stack web devs, embedded, low level performance, data pipeline engineering, and more. Teams work on projects like our in-house systems powering the factory, our ground control system, telemetry ingestion, data analysis tools and flight software.
If you're interested in learning about hardware manufacturing, excited about space, and want to build high quality software for engineers across all disciplines... come work with us! No prior aerospace experience required at all.
Search for "Terrestrial Software" and "Vehicle Software" on our careers page for roles including more details and our pay ranges: https://www.relativityspace.com/jobs
Earlier this year Eric Schmidt joined as CEO and invested in a big way -- his involvement is doubling down on our commitment to building high quality software teams in-house, and we're hiring across the board.
