Siderea

I have chatted with someone else, and they pointed me to a blog post (will attach if I can find). The general idea is deliberately doing something triggering some people and if the person you're interacting with is triggered by what you're doing, they are not worthy of your attention because of their ignorance to see what you're doing beyond the form of the thing you're doing. While I respect the idea, I find it somewhat flawed, to be honest. Edit: Found it! Original comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39028036 Blog post in question: https://siderea.dreamwidth.org/1209794.html

Classic encounter with an improper noun.[0] I think the more substantive critique here is that when people hear “learning styles” they stop thinking and just reject the idea reflexively. To be fair, this is a reasonable defense to a scam that persuaded a lot of people historically and still has a fair bit of traction. A practical response would be to work around the wordings that have baggage, not because you have to for Big Brotherish reason, but because you have empathy for the people you’re speaking to. [0] https://siderea.dreamwidth.org/1773806.html

https://siderea.dreamwidth.org/ is another widely read blog. Most DW users post under friends-lock. You're not going to see most DW posts unless someone has given you access.

This is the best explanation of (my take on) this I've seen so far. On top of the article's excellent breakdown of what is happening, I think it's important to note a couple of driving factors about why (I posit) it is happening: First, and this is touched upon in the OP but I think could be made more explicit, a lot of people who bemoan the existence of software development as a discipline see it as a morass of incidental complexity. This is significantly an instance of Chesterton's Fence. Yes, there certainly is incidental complexity in software development, or at least complexity that is incidental at the level of abstraction that most corporate software lives at. But as a discipline, we're pretty good at eliminating it when we find it, though it sometimes takes a while — but the speed with which we iterate means we eliminate it a lot faster than most other disciplines. A lot of the complexity that remains is actually irreducible, or at least we don't yet know how to reduce it. A case in point: programming language syntax. To the outsider, the syntax of modern programming languages, where the commas go, whether whitespace means anything, how angle brackets are parsed, looks to the uninitiated like a jumble of arcane nonsense that must be memorized in order to start really solving problems, and indeed it's a real barrier to entry that non-developers, budding developers, and sometimes seasoned developers have to contend with. But it's also (a selection of competing…

One hopes he has read this, a classic slate star codex post on leadership: https://siderea.dreamwidth.org/1209794.html#cutid1 Sincere questions for Musk would be: How are you supporting your management team when you've asked their subordinates to bypass them with good ideas for exposure, leaving them only to provide risks and bad news their subordinates didn't want to bring forward? How do local team leaders take risks when their team is encouraged to defect and draw in the exec at the first sign of controversy, or just opportunistically? How do your teams commit to shared outcomes when an arbitrary member can call in a veto from the top? How do you as the owner not become the bottleneck (and blocker) while everyone clambers to have your support their pet issue because they know nothing is going to get traction without your royal assent? How do managers not just fire people who call in your air support for things they are in fact wrong about, and how do managers trust those people to be a part of the team after? His company, his rules. But having seen this kind of naive abdication of responsibility for effective delegation in practice, it is reasonable to ask how this thing scales when you add the uncertainty of a random super veto, and encourage and reward transgression. edit: better link to "The Asshole Filter," article.

> If you find yourself wondering, or just feeling, "Why is everyone I wind up dealing with an asshole?" you might want to consider the possibility that you have set up an asshole filter. https://siderea.dreamwidth.org/1209794.html

> [..] it incentivises people to behave as unpleasantly as possible — because it's often the only way to trigger the exception [..] Thus creating an asshole filter: https://siderea.dreamwidth.org/1209794.html

Blogger siderea has talked about this a lot in relation to patreon, and the challenges for any platform wanting to replace it. EDIT: https://siderea.dreamwidth.org/1824441.html and https://siderea.dreamwidth.org/1371510.html Apparently it comes down to how card processing fees work, as long as there's a constant fixed cost per payment (whether or not there is also a percentage fee), "microtransactions" become uneconomic for the platform. Apparently the problem with letting people pay say $10 into an account and then dispense $1 a time to read articles is that makes you a "payment processor" in some states which comes with strict regulations and extra costs. EDIT2: and yes, we've already tried blockchain for that too.

two reasons: 1. writing in lowercase is freeing. it reminds me that grammatical rules are arbitrary, and by extension other rules. "you can just do things." 2. people who are pedantic about this when it's clearly intentional are probably not people i want to interact with anyway, so it's a good anti-asshole filter (https://siderea.dreamwidth.org/1209794.html)

> These folks didn't read https://siderea.dreamwidth.org/1824441.html and they're going to suffer for it. None of the business logic matters at all. Patreon is a payments company, full stop. You compete with them by creating a better payments system, that can offer higher margins and less fragility.

These folks didn't read https://siderea.dreamwidth.org/1824441.html and they're going to suffer for it. (It was discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37808115 )

"Algorithm" is similar to "cloud" and (much earlier) "online" in that it's acquired a popular/marketing meaning distinct from its original technical meaning. It's an example of an improper noun[1]. [1] https://siderea.dreamwidth.org/1773806.html

Telling people to apply online and hiring people who show up anyway is an asshole filter (https://siderea.dreamwidth.org/1209794.html ). You're preferentially giving benefits to people who are willing to break the rules rather than to obey them, so you are selecting for assholes.

Some other articles that are a little more academic in tone about the nature and study of class in America, and might be of interest to people interested in this article; https://siderea.dreamwidth.org/1237182.html https://web.archive.org/web/20151006183427/https://michaelochurch.word…

> you might short list those who have a tendency to violate contract terms. An asshole filter https://siderea.dreamwidth.org/1209794.html (maybe you've read already?)

According to https://siderea.dreamwidth.org/1237182.html "In the US, we have a rule: to describe a person as "lower class" is an insult; less obviously, to describe them as "upper class" is as well. To describe something as "lower class" or "upper class" is to denigrate it, and to attribute a "lower class" or "upper class" thing to some one is to denigrate them. It is the designation "middle class", alone, which is virtuous – a fact which explains in a nutshell why, famously, all Americans arrogate the term to themselves."

i have to go with siderea's response https://siderea.dreamwidth.org/1361333.html

> What do you think you need an MD for, in your primary care visit, that an NP can’t do? I guess not much at this point where PCPs don't seem to do much beyond use rubrics, prescribe, and refer. Which is why I used the word enshittification - it's part of a continual gradual march down in quality/services to a captive customer base. Basically the opposite environment of innovation aiming to serve customers. > How much time, in a day, do you think doctors are spending on “insurance”, I'd say at least half their time, if not much more. They certainly aren't scheduling these 10-15 minute appointments back to back all day. By "insurance" I am of course including all of the extra documentation and runaround they have to do simply to satisfy the third party beancounters' demands. I'd say this even includes a good number of patient visits themselves. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/what-your-doctor-spends-80-of-their https://siderea.dreamwidth.org/1182366.html Observations in my personal experience line up with this: - Number of signs at my primary care office about their procedures for providing/processing referrals, like this is the majority of their work - The numerous questionnaires every office makes you fill out ahead of every appointment, that they themselves never actually read - Experience with a not-terribly-large specialist office who employed an entire full time "nurse navigator" whose job it was to help doctors prepare documentation for "prior approvals" -…

To participate in an American healthcare treatment you need to interact with a private for-profit company which will shut down if it doesn't on average attain significant profitability; Let's say 30% goes to shareholders, taxes, receptionists, keeping the lights on. But they don't deal with everything. They have to interact with upstream providers! And they have to pay somebody to negotiate with them. So another 30%, and add 5% just to pay somebody to bargain the price with the Flu Shot Distributor. But the flu shot distributor has to interact with yet more upstream providers - the flu shot packager, who interacts with the flu shot pharmaceutical company, and the syringe company. Everybody adds their overhead and then their premium; "Price signals" become exponentially complex and more a matter of the mood of the negotiation than anything else. This is all an externality of a non-vertically-integrated capitalist system, which is somehow, somewhy, supposed to be regulated by your desire to get a flu shot relative to your ability to pay; It is not at all optimal in the market system for everybody to get a flu shot, that defeats the fundamental mechanism of the supply-demand curve. https://siderea.dreamwidth.org/1179450.html this essay series offers some of the better hypotheses on cost disease that I'm familiar with.

> His Her, actually: https://siderea.dreamwidth.org/profile

It sounds like the whole field is contaminated with mind-body dualism. But there's a bigger problem; even once you accept that humans are fully physical, embodied minds in a sea of whatever chemicals can cross the blood-brain barrier, the scope is wider. Humans are part of a society that can harm them without effective means of redress. Also, from the original paper, via the linked LJ: https://siderea.dreamwidth.org/1388220.html "I began taking blood samples from everybody who came to the clinic. At times it seemed like Transylvania Station. The state Department of Public Health's laboratory tested blood free for anyone under the age of 12 and provided plastic pipettes, finger puncture equipment, and even mailing envelopes at no cost. So, for a while, everyone in the clinic was declared to be under 12 years of age." Both a nice public healthcare hack and a risky thing to admit in a journal article.