On Cultures That Build (2020)
scholars-stage.org
scholars-stage.org
I also disagree that Silicon Valley represents any kind of solution to this issue. The centralization of power in the Valley is almost more extreme than in the "old world", as multinational companies dominate the industry and destroy competition. Most people will do better for themselves financially by joining the elect of the fiefdoms of FAANG than by fruitlessly attempting to build a smaller company or product, and the big companies keep it that way through massive networks of financialization and regulatory capture.
In order for civic and social institutions, or small self-built institutions, to be attractive to Americans, people who join them have to have some experience of succeeding in their aims, and I think this is less and less the case, as the institutions that already exist suck the oxygen out of the space of potential action.
Civic participation, by constrast, is difficult because it runs into the giant morass of public institutions laws and rules. Well serving the political forces in places but again not much to do with the FAANGs. (For example, while the city of Mountain View professes its pride in Google, it fights everything that Google wants to do inch by inch. Google doesn't exactly find much "proud cooperation" with its city.)
Perhaps, but not for actual, bonafide, geniuses and super-geniuses.
Which is more than enough, it's not like having hundreds of challengers instead of dozens is 10x better, there's rapidly diminishing returns for society past the first few bonafide, competent, institutional challengers.
It might even be net negative beyond a small amount.
This is a good point. Do you belong to any non-governmental organization where the members can vote to fire top management, and this happens once in a while? A golf club? A maker space? A gym? A homeowners association? A mutual insurance company? A savings and loan? A school? Anything? Such institutions used to be common for non-profits. Now they are rare.
Robert’s Rules of Order is for meetings where the members hold the power. Motions are voted upon and then are binding on the organization. Unless the members have power, it's just a talk shop.
When someone set up a local maker space, they set it up as a nonprofit with a self-perpetuating board. That is, the management chooses its own successors. I declined to contribute.
Separately, I can’t find the example but Robert’s Rules for Order can be trivially DDoSed and have been in order to bring down or paralyze organizations. I think there was a conversation here about it some time back.
Nonprofits are legally required to have boards, AFAIK. What would you have preferred the nonprofit do?
There are fields of (american) activity that clearly understand the strength in building things fast - and that are designed for that. The startup world is still one of these - both for starting a new venture and for deploying fast and sorting out the details later. This is about the "rules of the game" and the infrastructure (funding, legal entity formation, getting people to join, hosting, software tools...) All around, the infrastructure and culture support the principle.
Other institutions seem built as-if for endlessly delaying projects. In most cases this was not the goal. And in some cases, that IS the goal: it works so well that some don't let it go to waste.
Still other institutions DO exist so as to allow moving legislation at a decent pace but have fallen out of favor - with the executive prefering endless ad-hoc informal processes in the vague hope of achieving unity, consensus, peace well in advance of actual change. With not much change possible as a result.
That is not to say that "emergency committees" don't make plenty of harm. Brings to mind the ruling against fat and in favor of carbs: [Senator: I do not have the luxury. My constituents are dying. I can't wait for your scientific data.]
But this should be a deliberate area of effort: improving institutions for time effectiveness and correctness. Even from a basic economics point of view, there is quite a bit of economic growth potential that comes merely from responsiveness. Same from a quality of life point of view. When need is recognized, pouring money in study (scientific, engineering, legal...) including study of unintended effects, then moving on with a ruling. Which does not mean in the sense of "environmental impact study" which seems to have become a weapon: a financial barrier against doing anything.
In other cases, strength should be in recognizing that headline cause X is not actually an emergency and tabling it until it naturally accretes more data or is simply forgotten.
On Cultures That Build - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23569638 - June 2020 (189 comments)
My niece who dealt with the kid hitting her on the playground every day by throwing a cinderblock at his face respectfully disagrees. I'm not sure this author has seen a modern public school.
the maintainers are doing excellent and praiseworthy work, but this is not just a result of 'culture' but also incentives: if they aren't sufficiently responsive to user needs, they'll quickly find themselves maintaining software with a user base of only themselves
the problem with this theory is that it can't explain the absence of successful forks of python 2, wikipedia, and firefox
So what is being advocated here appears to be the opposite of the truth. In the past things were relatively quick because we knew our limits and when to stop. We used to be a culture that could refuse to build. In contrast, this modern idea of being the culture that decides now is the time to build leads us astray so vast fortunes end up being spent on misguided adventures. Want to be a culture that is good at building quickly? Start by saying no to most things. And try to understand history as it is and not through meaningless comparisons of cut and cover subway construction to the modern wonders of tunnel boring machines.
Slow building in layers, with each layer providing a context and a foundation for the next.
That takes time, and can be V E R Y, V E R Y, B O R I N G.
In order to do infrastructure successfully, we need to commit to a long, protracted development process, with a shitton of testing at every stage, and refusing to go on to the next stage, until we have the one we're working on, now, complete.
And we may not even see the final results. We may simply be the first-stage booster of the project, and our name may be buried in the dust, raised by the folks that stand on our shoulders, and get the credit.
It's not easy. I've done it, multiple times.
American culture, as it stands now, is no so good at this kind of mindset.
Sometimes I think we went too far the other way, but lets not swing too far back.
It's absolutely mind-boggling that the first 3 countries hit hard by covid were China, Korea and Italy. China and Korea appeared to keep it contained and given everything we know about trusting these two countries, we chose to trust the Chinese model?
In Feb of 2020 the U.S. committee of foreign affairs was posting documents detailing some of the lies China has told[0], but we chose to trust their data in one of the biggest crisis of our lifetime?
Meanwhile, Korea was being pretty open with their approach and while I don't think it would've been effective in the U.S. it was certainly the more palatable approach and less damaging to the poor and most vulnerable population.
We also saw Italy using the Chinese model for containment and it failed miserably, yet the U.S. stood firm in following their failures. Insisting that we protect the middle and upper class while demanding the lower class keep the "important" jobs running and giving the poverty class nowhere to turn.
[0] https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/...
Were we really banking on making a perfect vaccine before the world couldn't sustain lock-downs? If not, what was the "real" plan? I believe it was probably all just political game-theory, but it's hard not to wonder if there were people at the top hoping poor people could take the brunt of the contagion and die off before the rich people started going back into public.
When ICU beds filled or looked like they might, we optimized for not having excess people drowning in cytokine storms in the waiting rooms. It doesn’t seem very nefarious to me.
I suspect you're asking what would I have done at the time, though, and I think at the time the most practical approach was Korea's contact tracing and just like we've done for as long as I've been alive, staying at home would be something recommended for the sick. Lock downs were at no point in the pandemic a reasonable strategy, not even explicitly in the context of saving our healthcare system. Just look at how many hospitals have gone bankrupt and had to lay off huge amounts of staff. Our hospital system suffered the most because of lockdowns, not because of covid.
The hospitals are laying off because they overstaffed out of fear of not being able to handle the demands of the pandemic. Now that the pandemic is gone they cannot economically support the headcount.
If we had not locked down many many more people would have died, and the health care system would have actually broken down. You’re saying that we should have not locked down and just staffed the crematoriums instead?
Have you actually read the document you linked to?[1] Are you seriously arguing China is not to be trusted because it "lied to us" about "Xi Jinping being the President of China", about it "lifting its citizens out of poverty and improving their lives", about it "not being a threat to Americans’ way of life"?
Almost every single "lie" listed in there is an assessment, a normative statement/conclusion, something you may agree, disagree, criticize as irrational, reach the opposite assessment etc., but for which the concept of "lying" is simply inappropriate.
[1] 1. Lie: Xi Jinping is the President of China.
2. Lie: The CCP is lifting its citizens out of poverty and improving their lives.
3. Lie: China is a benign power, not interested in territorial expansion.
4. Lie: The CCP is not interested in spreading its digital authoritarian system to other countries.
5. Lie: The CCP is not a threat to Americans’ way of life, including our education system and personal freedoms.
6. Lie: China’s rise is inevitable
7. Lie: China is a champion of multilateralism and the “global south.”
8. Lie: China is a market economy
9. Lie: China remains an unmissable opportunity for businesses.
10.Lie: China is a leader in the response to climate change.
I don't care how substantial those things are, I care that the official stance was one that China lies a lot and then we proceeded to mimic their covid response while we had other options from more reputable sources (i.e. Korea).
These article presuppose that China will grow fast and endlessly and "take over the World" (economically, then perhaps militarily). Haven't we seen this before? Oh yeah, Japan in the 1980s.
Now for my ad hominem attack: The about page on this blog is hysterical. Choice quote:
taught Homer to the children of Beijing billionaires> There was a time when average Americans could get together and, in one afternoon, build an entire barn.
> Yes! A barn! Can you imagine average Americans doing that today? Not a chance!
> They’d spend weeks debating the membership and organizational structure of the Barn Architect Selection Committee, whose members would then get into a lengthy squabble over the design of the logo to appear on their letterhead. Ultimately this issue would become a bitter and drawn-out dispute, be taken to court, and the people involved would start complaining of depression and anxiety, and psychologists would announce that these people were victims of a new disease called Barn Committee Logo Dispute Distress Syndrome, or BCLDDS, which would become the subject of one-hour shows by Phil Donahue and Sally Jessy Raphael, after which millions of Americans would realize that they, too, were suffering from BCLDDS, and they’d form support groups with Hot Line numbers and twelve-step programs. That’s what we modern Americans do.
Some mediocre little guy got to call himself "subcommittee chairman" and be king for a day while he made pronouncements on barn logos (and got a little experience in leadership for future occasions). Everyone who cared about the barn logo had their say, got to give input and be heard, and so they felt they owned the end result.
The committee was inefficient as hell, but the end result was that people were bought in because they got a little slice of the power and prestige. They didn't just get paid, they got a little standing in the community. They made their mark of the whole project and that feeling is one of the greatest motivators to work in the world.
So when it came time to raise the barn they were dynamos because they wanted to see their logo on high.
Compare that to today when I give my TaskRabbit barn raiser $200 to raise my barn. They aren't invested in the success of the barn, they just want to do the least barn raising for the most money while I want them to raise the most barn for the least dollars. Our relationship is adversarial. I'm under no obligation to listen to anything the barn raiser has to say and the only way they can express dissatisfaction is by quitting.
The barn raising is a big event that has obvious visual progress. I've seen bridged being built - they work for months with seaming little progress (putting in foundations!) before they put up beams - before then it looks like nothing, then in a few days they have the beams up and they are painting lines on the new bridge.
As misguided as our policies were during the pandemic, It’s sort of ironic reading this article knowing that American companies “built” the coronavirus vaccine.
moreover, even inside the usa, moderna's vaccine was only made publicly available months after covid had killed most of the most vulnerable people
here in argentina our first vaccinations didn't come until the next year, and they were russian sputnik v, not pfizer or moderna, because the companies in the usa couldn't produce enough to meet demand. the russians struggled with this too, but were still able to deliver earlier
of course the following statement is even more true of the chinese and russian covid vaccine efforts
> In the 21st century, the main question in American social life is not “how do we make that happen?” but “how do we get management to take our side?” This is a learned response
whether it is true in general or not of the chinese or russian economies, i cannot say. the article argues that it is false in china, but virtually everything it says about chinese history is so wrong as to be nearly the opposite of what I understand to be the truth, so I don't trust it
the fact that you couldn't get chinese and russian vaccines in the usa (and apparently don't know about them) has nothing to do with who could and couldn't build covid vaccines and everything to do with whose side management took