367 karma · joined November 12, 2015
He runs his entire business off the contact list in the software. Customer has over 50,000 contacts, which the software supports a max of 8k. I got around this limit by using the "Profiles" feature in the software, which allows you to configure multiple users-Each user allowed max of 8k contacts.
I created 10 profiles by dividing the English alphabet into 10 groups based on the frequency of last name first letter in his set of contacts:
Contact Group 1: A, K, T Contact Group 2: B, L, U Contact Group 3: C, M, V Contact Group 4: D, N, W Contact Group 5: E, O, X Contact Group 6: F, P, Y Contact Group 7: G, Q, Z Contact Group 8: H, R Contact Group 9: I, S Contact Group 10: J
Of course, when he needs to search or get data from his contacts, he needs to constantly switch profiles. I can only imagine how mundane that must be, but whatever floats your boat.
The CRE bubble is going to burst in the next 18 months as the 5-year commercial office leases signed in 2017+ are all going to come to an end, and the banks will be realizing these losses starting now and the next few years. Its going to get ugly soon.
TL;DR If you don't live there, you pay big massive taxes. If you live there, you don't.
He isn't advocating for a return to the past, or to the structures of the past. For Debord, Spectacle exists independently of humanity; history, however is specific to human beings, as it corresponds to humanity's existence in time, and to its awareness of that existence. He contends that human beings are capable of shaping and determining their own lives and circumstances. Consequently, history, in his view, is something that can be made: we can consciously shape our own existence in time. His critique of Spectacle is that Spectacle has dominated history for its own purposes, beyond the control of humanty.
History, therefore, is not just a retrospective catalog of events for Debord, and nor is it just the discipline of studying such events. Instead, it is a process through which human agents shape themselves and their world, and through which they come to know themselves through such activity. This isn't a return to a golden past, but an assertion of control and emancipation from the existing force of Spectacle that determines history outside our control.
> 5. In the final paragraph of the book (Paragraph 221), the author sums up their position on returning humanity to (the author's perception of) historical-existence: >> [221:] Self-emancipation in the contemporary period is emancipation from our material basis within falsified reality. This “historic mission of establishing truth in the world” [...] by returning power [...]. [...] This can only be made possible when individuals are “directly linked to world history”—where dialog within the council arms itself to defeat its own conditions.
Here again, he is advocating not a return to some mythic past, but to take conscious control of history, to create meaning in our own lives. I fail to see where he is advocating for a return, nor "what" to return to.
> Its [fascisms] strength is how it presents itself truthfully as a violent resurrection of mythic origins—to claim the past as a “Golden Age” and a return to the successes of this golden past. It demands participation in a community held together by mythical archaic pseudo-values: race, blood, and the leader. Fascism is a cult of the archaic fitted out by modern technology
https://unredacted-word.pub/spectacle/#section-103
Debord wants to move beyond a period where time is made up of clock-segmented moments of equally valuable commodities to a time determined by the creation of events and situations of our own making, with our own values and meanings inscribed into those successive moments.
Social media, and TikTok in particular, push the limits of SotS which is mainly mass media focused.
Keep in mind that Debord was familiar with Lyotard, but postmodernism had only just recently started when this book was written. That said, Debord specifically refutes postmodernist tendencies in [thesis 179](https://unredacted-word.pub/spectacle/#section-179)
Note that Debords concept of Spectacle had *Three Degrees*
the concrete reality of the spectacle, as opposed to its relatively superficial existence as a set of mediatic and ideological practices, ‘can only be justified by reference to these ^^three degrees: simple technico-ideological appearances / the reality of the social organisation of appearances / historical reality^^’
On the first of these three ‘degrees’, or levels – that of ‘simple technico-ideological appearances’ – the spectacle is simply an ideological and media-driven ‘part of society’: something very much akin to Adorno and Horkheimer’s ‘culture industry’. Seen in these terms, the spectacle is the sector of society ‘where all attention, all consciousness, converges’. This is the level of Debord’s analysis upon which much of the academic work referred to earlier has tended to focus.
Social media, TikTok, Facebook and the issues you discuss concern this level.
On the *second level* of this schema, however, and thus ‘behind the phenomenal appearances of the spectacle’, such as ‘television, advertising, the discourse of the State, etc.,’ we find what Debord refers to as ‘the general __reality __of the spectacle itself’, understood as ‘a moment in the mode of production.’ The concept of spectacle, addressed on this second, deeper level, pertains to the social operation of capitalist value, and to the manner in which society has been ordered to suit capital’s continued operation. On the first, more ‘superficial’ level of this schema, spectators contemplate the fads, fashions, adverts and trinkets that celebrate this social order; on this second, more profound level, they become contemplative observers of their own lives, because their social activity has become so thoroughly governed and shaped by that same order. This is the dimension of Debord’s theory that has been addressed by the best studies of his work. Anselm Jappe’s excellent __Guy Debord __(1993, in Italian; 1999 in English) is of particular significance here, as it deals with this theme in detail.
The second level entails that the concept of spectacle also operates on a *third level*: that of ‘historical reality’. In this regard, spectacle needs to be understood as __a relation to historical time__. For Debord, the articulation of all social existence via capitalist social relations involves the separation of human subjects from their own lived activity. The result is a historical moment characterized by a loss of historical agency; or, as Debord puts it in another letter: modern capitalism has produced the paradox of a ‘historical society that refuses history’. Thus, this third and deepest level of Debord’s tripartite schema concerns a state of separation from history itself. Although we will touch on the first level of Debord’s theory in later chapters, and although we will also discuss the technicalities of its second level at some length, this book will focus primarily on its third, ‘historical’ level.
The Californian Ideology was written by Richard Barbrook, who subsequently wrote a book on Debords tabletop game _The Game of War_.
Lemon socialism is a pejorative term for a form of government intervention in which government subsidies go to weak or failing firms (lemons; see Lemon law), with the effective result that the government (and thus the taxpayer) absorbs part or all of the recipient’s losses. The term derives from the conception that in socialism the government may nationalize a company’s profits while leaving the company to pay its own losses, while in lemon socialism the company is allowed to keep its profits but its losses are shifted to the taxpayer.
So the imbalance: Why does the Fed continually save the financial industry every 10 years, but not any other industry? Why does the Fed create and spend 1.5T dollars to purchase worthless and arcane financial instruments, but never spend on public goods like housing, student education, public infrastructure
https://0xadada.pub/2015/11/05/a-retrospective-responsive-de...
but to summarize some of its main points:
Responsive design is:
* A process * A relinquishing of the false sense of comfort we get when designing for a “design comp” * An experience-first / MVP friendly approach to building dynamic, consistent and importantly a complete experience that adapts to users context * A conduit for the flow of of communication, and much much like water, it flows into different browsers & devices, flows into robot search engine crawlers, flows into RSS feeds, flows into meta-data (hReview) parsers, flows into printers, flows into read-later tools like Web Clippings, Pocket, Instapaper and FlipBoard
Responsive Design isn’t a set of CSS features, a technology stack or a set of tools. Its when an organization decides to collaborate around a process; with accountability to the user first, to each other second, and to solve the technology last, once all important decisions have been made.
Especially relevant to my developer followers who are fellow web accessibility advocates
As such, we should not self-censor, but instead disengage from these proxy-cops and move to more distributed spaces.