Those conversations are an important part of the job. You can, for example, agree that something works in the sense that it is currently possible to use it to obtain a desired output, while simultaneously failing to work in various ways: It might fail to do so reliably, or it might only be able to do so at great cost.
On a recent project I fixed our deployment and our hotfix process and it fundamentally changed the scope of epics the team would tackle. Up to that point we were violating the first principle of Continuous: if it’s painful, do it until it isn’t. So we would barely deploy more often than we were contractually (both in the legal and internal cultural sense) obligated to do, and that meant people were very conservative about refactoring code that could lead to regressions, because the turnaround time on a failing feature toggle was a fixed tempo. You could turn a toggle on to analyze the impact but then you had to wait until the next deployment to test your fixes. Excruciating with a high deviation for estimates.
With a hotfix process that actually worked worked, people would make two or three times as many iterations, to the point we had to start coordinating to keep people from tripping over each other. And as a consequence old nasty tech debt was being fixed in every epic instead of once a year. It was a profound change.
And as is often the case, as the author I saw more benefit than most. I scooped a two year two man effort to improve response time by myself in three months, making a raft of small changes instead of a giant architectural shift. About twenty percent of the things I tried got backed out because they didn’t improve speed and didn’t make the code cleaner either. I could do that because the tooling wasn’t broken.
The article does state they were included, but is it "obviously" true that they should be? Who is more of an "investor", someone who purchases a primary residence to build equity or someone who purchases a second home to vacation in, spending large amounts of money to maintain it and allowing it to sit empty for long periods of time?
In what sense? An investor seeks a return on their investment. The former achieves this. The latter spends money for pleasure. I suppose you could argue that they are an investor seeking non-monetary return, but in that sense everyone is equally an investor, just with different goals.
It seems rather disappointing if typical management would make such impactful decisions so rapidly that their "on paper" analysis couldn't be made clever enough to consider more than a single variable.
Good question, I'll try to cram it but it's a whole book based on 3 years of modeling ultimate futures: imagine all the universes from the most dystopian to the most utopian. Ours is in the middle. If you want to go to an above average one - no problem, many will join you to "the party".
If you never helped no one and was in the most perfect utopia all the time and now want to go to a below average world (probably for nostalgic reason, it was the world of your childhood), others probably won't be so eager to join "the party". So you'll probably have to help someone else live in the below perfect world of their childhood first.
You see all world in a static fashion no problem or explore them with your powers but if you really want to forget it all and become a simple human in some a bit dystopian world, you'll need others to join you ("vote").
So people with multiversal powers (to recall and forget are the main ones) have 4D spacetime of each verse.
Easier to imagine 1 universe or 1 planet: the whole spacetime as a giant walkable long exposure photo but in 3d (when I say "4d" here, I mean it has many moments of time aligned on top of each other to make it look like a long exposure photo where you can focus on a moment or defocus and see billions of years all at once).
Multiversal people can basically change the shape of the multiverse and change the shape of themselves by forgetting parts of this giant geometric shape. If two or more people forgot the same parts, they "direct democratically voted" to be together there for some time, chose to visit the "same party".
Basically you're the 4D simulated multiverse and you can temporary choose to forget this fact to become some 3D slice of it that experiences the illusion of time (others can do it, too).
Almost infinitely many geometric shapes have almost infinite freedoms to change their geometric shapes instantly or slowly if they wish. To temporarily slice/forget parts of the multiverse. Anyone can choose to permanently die, too, but cannot kill their baby version, they are like eternal time loops.
> Good question, I'll try to cram it but it's a whole book based on 3 years of modeling ultimate futures: imagine all the universes from the most dystopian to the most utopian. Ours is in the middle. If you want to go to an above average one - no problem, many will join you to "the party".
Is there a literal book about this? Can you point us to it?
Tech's general atheism has left many tech people with a somewhat compromised ideological immune system: preposterous magical thinking is laundered with sci-fi language and accepted as plausible. (cf. the simulation "hypothesis", Roko's basilisk, paperclip maximizers, etc)
Why not stipulate that the Flying Spaghetti Monster oversees the elections like an FEC commissioner? It is equally rational: the only difference is that it doesn't jive with sci-fi aesthetics, just like how Pastafarianism doesn't jive with Catholic aesthetics.
> Tech's general atheism has left many tech people with a somewhat compromised ideological immune system
It seems wrong to blame atheism for this. Somehow I doubt that devotion to a more traditional "Sky Daddy" would make people any less likely to play around with thought experiments about AI or simulations and the idea that religion has some kind of inoculating effect against magical thinking seems ridiculous.
People are just generally susceptible to magical thinking for various reasons, and philosophers often enjoy coming up with fantastic scenarios and those tendencies can manifest differently in people with a passion for technology than it does for someone with other interests.
He's implying causality the other way. A desire to not want to die paired with a desire to avoid traditional religion leads people to indulge ideas and concepts they would otherwise dismiss as nonsense - singularity, simulation, medical immortality, and so on.
We want religion, but we don't want it to be called religion. I'm not just mocking others either. I'm quite compelled by the simulation hypothesis, but have the self awareness to realize my personal biases are likely playing a huge role there.
A nice 'scientific hypothesis' that I can comfortably discuss or debate with the benefit that I can convince myself that when I close my eyes for the final time that's not necessarily the end of the journey. Ahhh feels good.
Yep, if a civilization doesn't destroy itself it creates everything it wants. Some don't want simulations, so let it be for them. Some want, they can have it, too. Only you yourself will decide. It's a thought experiment to maximize non-enforcement of things on each other, maximize freedoms. By definition it's highly speculative. But don't die please, if we are in fact in the multiversal simulation, death doesn't lead you there or to some utopia.
It'll just be unfair for death to lead to something good, it's not freedom if before or after death, you'll have this thought: "ha-ha, you just needed to die, stupid!" Nope, you can recall your "multiversal powers" as a quiet thought as baby or at any moment of your life, possibly even live some time as a ghost (if you chose it beforehand), it can be fun to be a ghost for some time for some.
You'll still be alive and will be able to recall and forget as little or as much as you want. Or the whole thing. You don't die, you can stay and you can go at the same time (by basically choosing to make a clone of yourself who is as free as you. Who can pursue multiversal exploration, while you yourself stay and probably choose to forget about your multiversal powers again). It's counterintuitive and hard to explain, basically everything is possible but there are some things that happen more often because they cause less unfreedom.
Nobody dogmatically believes in this. This is not an "ideology", just some people having fun speculating existence. A far cry from religion and conspiracy nuts. Stop being so grumpy!
That's not true, as made aware to mainstream people when the Zizian murders made news.
People in crisis are finding their existential grounding in these emerging belief systems about "the simulation" and other scifi-inspired ideas, are taking them exactly as seriously as novel belief systems from other eras, and are assembling into communities that collectively reinforce their beliefs.
I don't think you can really prevent that from happening, as we see it throughout history and geography, sometimes just forthing in small communities over a generation or two and sometimes sweeping across a whole societies in a profound way, but its ultimately common for "speculating existence" to be both casual parlour talk for some people and an emerging dogmatic belief for others. And that's exactly where we're at with this stuff now.
Excellent points and I believe we all live and have always lived with poorly examined belief systems but I think the cynical assumption that folks have a slot for magical fantasies that they'll drive hard during crisies to be but unfair. Not untrue but unfair. It tends to ignore the amount of effort that went to maintain and enshrine these intricate ontologies of the past. It tends to blow past how much of a vehicle they were for other values of societies it reiged in. It underestimates the social functions of having common perspective play out, especially during times of crisies. And most of all, it forget that for a lot of people, they didn't have much evidence to the contrary. I'm not saying that you need modern science to see the magical aspect of some past system of beliefs but they were not exactly like the religious subjects of the modern age
I suppose neither you nor GP claim that most people have this "slot for magical thinking" but I find these properties of the religious thinking that I list above can be fulfilled by perspectives that aren't necessarily magical. And I dare say, such perspectives have supplanted them in general. I guess I'm replying to the adage "everyone has some religion." My reply being, "are you sure that's a religion?". Forgive the hazy brain rant.
It certainly does feel like there are all the right ingredients for a new, never before seen religion to emerge out of America from the elements you describe in the way you describe it, right about now.
I didn't say "dogmatically believe," I said "accepted as plausible" - Nick Bostrom built an academic career out of this nonsense! Effective altruism people uses these theories to justify their advocacy. I would guess most tech people agree the paperclip maximizer is a serious concern.
Your observation about how sci-fi trappings are the crack in the armour of techies and generally the modern subject are true but I still find the general disimissal of such activities as pointless as any crackpots musings unfair. Sure, Rationalists have a lot of crackpots in their midst and are generally a hard to defend bunch but falsifiable or not, I think there's value in proposing forms and colors of the unknown unknowns or the unknowables.
Paperclip maximizers may never come to be but what do you know, smart machines may upend the world order in Bostrom's lifetime. I'm not very familiar with his work and the amount of rigour that went to it but I generally expect we'll regret some of the consequences of this technology.
Most (all?) retirement plans offer you some amount of choice in funds to invest in, and most companies of the sort you're describing are not included in many of the more popular indices. For example, WeWork was never in the S&P 500. Similarly, target date funds are one of the more popular investments options available as by default and/or recommendation in retirement plans. The first one I checked (Fidelity's Freedom Index) applies its U.S. allocation to large caps, which again means it does not include many of the companies you have in mind.
Fair enough, I guess if the company never makes it to the S&P500 or NASDAQ-100 you're mostly shielded from this stuff if you do the default funds. There are some questionable tech companies on the S&P, like Uber for example, but not as many and nothing as dumb as WeWork.
I have a lot of VTI stock right now, which if I understand correctly invests in basically everything in the America stock exchanges, though I guess an argument could be made that I should have known that dumb companies being included in there was always a risk.
Still, I don't have to like it, and I do think that a lot of these companies IPOing when they don't really have any way of actually making money is an issue waiting to happen.
Yeah, I hear you. It definitely feels like there's been a shift toward investing based on sentiment rather than fundamentals, and there's certainly an argument to be made that's not a good outcome for society.
Personally I feel like it's a bigger issue for individual investors that in recent years companies now IPO only in later stages or not at all and that much of the more profitable bits of the growth curve are now accessible only to the private markets.
Is the idea that the attacker is brute forcing the login method and they are less likely to be successful if the input must be passed in an unexpected format?
