hos234

World War 3 starts.

Personal data stored in banks/ISPs/FB/Google etc are taken at gun point and used for population scale psychological warfare.

Kissinger(World Order)/Niall Ferguson(Square and the Tower)/Graham Allison(Thucydides Trap)/Moises Naim(End of Power) say networks of power are more and more unstable similar to 1914.

To maintain stability they(irrespective of ideology) keep pandering to their fan clubs and therefore get more and more inflexible.

Small triggers turn into national and then international conflict between major powers.

Kissenger's reasons - 1 The international economic system has become global the political structure of the world has remained based on the nation-state. 2. Acquiescing in the proliferation of nuclear weapons far beyond the Cold War club, so multiplying the possibilities of nuclear confrontation. 3. The new realm of cyberspace, in which asymmetry and a kind of congenital world disorder are built into relations between powers

The last time it took 30 years 1914-1945, after about 100 years of peace between the world powers, for everyone to take a breath and reboot to happen.

This time around the reboot should be much quicker. The nukes will get dropped faster, because thanks to tech all the major powers can do serious damage to each other very fast as soon as things escalate beyond control.

Dominic Cummings, Steve Bannon, Olavo de Carvalho, Amit Shah, endless number of similar clones in EU...just amazing to watch what kind of people are getting propped up by the attention economy.

Temple Grandin does talks about this stuff but it's more along the lines of awareness raising. Join that mailing list...might be a good place to find people that are trying the same thing.

Ironically where I worked, the person had it easy getting the Leadership position. They too had serious experience, expertise in a subject, had produced products that had benefited the company. So upper mgmt approved it despite internal objections being raised about interpersonal comms, a track record of dealing badly with others in stressful situations etc. They actually made the person report to me, because I had some experience managing the person in the past and I said no. Told the person what issues would arise, which resulted in a HR complaint against me. My case to mgmt was simple - if you guys think this is going to work, you need someone who is psychologically knowledgable about the condition for the person to report to. That's the healthiest option and we all knew there was no one around like that. So they made an even bigger mistake of giving the person a team and not having to report to anyone. It blew up in dramatic fashion and I did get an apology from the person later for mistaking what my point had been.

You have to be clear about what leadership is and why you fit. The answer shouldn't be well thats the next rung I see on the org chart.

Are they saying a Current is spontaneously emerging and disappearing?

I have had experience with someone who wanted to do this and it didn't go well. A subject matter expert wanted to be team leader because that's what he thought career progress was. Within a few weeks the team collapsed.

Creativity, unconventional thinking, hyperfocus etc is required as support to conventional leaders more than in being leaders. It's not just about improving communication. You have to be much more social, political, be good at handling stress, people have to want to work for you etc and you have to do it competing against experienced people for who that stuff is natural.

The way ahead maybe to think up a role that fits your strengths and then pitch it to higher ups, more than trying to fit into roles that are conventional. Just remember that conventional roles haven't been designed with your strengths in mind.

Which country?

Good points about familiarity and regularity. There is a lot of scope to improve online spaces by bringing those elements in. And maybe getting rid of/reducing - infinite scroll addictive news streams + upvotes/likes/retweet/counter stuff which I guess distracts everyone from connecting.

If you are interested in Third Place stuff, Howard Shultz talks about how that philosophy is behind the success of Starbucks much more than the coffee :)

Sounds like a 'Third Place' - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_place

Once upon a time I worked at a Video host for news and other content publishing companies. They track (and in many cases decide) what you watch as you jump from site to site.

They know exactly what kind of people (personality trait wise) will keep clicking the next vid recommended. They actively seek out these personality trait combos and hit them with the right vids. And then ads.

It's very sophisticated because their player is embedded on so many sites spanning so much different type of content that profiling people becomes almost automatic. And also hooked into all the ad networks which have their own profiling data. The only reason we haven't reached mind control abilities yet is Psychology/Neuroscience as fields are still very young and are playing catch up - as in what do you do after you identify an addict, a sociopath, a psychopath? It's easier to identify (and trigger certain behaviors) than it is known what should be done, that is in the interest of the individual and society in all cases.

Its much more clear what benefits the corporation. "Keep showing the person with issues stuff because hey its free revenue"

For example, they know triggering/negative content energizes people more than positive content. And the most "energized" people will keep producing more content to feed into the machine that keeps the addicts coming back. So the system automatically has a selection bias for certain content producers and content types.

In many cases, in different parts of the world, what can be done even after you identify bad actors/people with issues etc is limited because capacity to do it doesn't exist. There are more cops per 100K people than there are shrinks by a large factor. So the response of society to negative content that triggers misguided behavior is almost always Violence or some form of taking away peoples rights.

Monetization also sets up this game, where if you (content producer/advertiser/distributor etc) don't cash in on a money making pattern some one else will. So lots of people in the ecosystem get trapped there and don't see ways out.

But as the public begins to realize the consequences of all this targeting/profiling, on kids, on the workforce, on consumers, on the defense establishment, on politics, on journalism etc liability questions are snowballing.

Depends on size of the project. They do it often actually. Sometimes after they have decided to move internal maintainers/teams elsewhere, or don't have budgets to support the project anymore, or the company strategy has changed etc

That's when they suddenly develop a great affection for the "community" and "giving back" :)

In large orgs it can be a costly process for large codebases. Requires a bunch of planning. Large codebases (sometimes with code from acquisitions/different source control systems/clients/sold off divisions etc) are full of all kinds of stuff (stolen code, proprietary code licensed from others, non attributed open source stuff, server passwords, user data etc etc) that no one knows anything about. All that needs to be checked sometimes by a large number of tech people and then legal teams to make sure no one gets sued.

I agree everyone has an agenda but if they are all just playing the same move - Tit for Tat - provoke-react then what happens? Nothing. Stalemate.

Someone has to use some imagination and change the way they play the game. Right now, one day propaganda of one side wins and another day propaganda of another side wins. Its a trap.

It's like an arms race. With no Winner. Sort of like World War I trench warefare.

John le Carré had a good quote, cant remember in which book, which went something like - There are always some people in the population, who if you invite into a group want to control it, and if you kick them out treat the group as a conspiring enemy.

By hand one Excel cell at a time :) It's why they get paid well.

Doesn't the pie chart show to make others laugh, to protect others feelings, to maintain social norms, for economic/personal advantage (usually benefits family), to escape harm (again usually benefits your family when you don't get yourself killed while dealing with evil) etc

Both honesty and lying are tools. You choose how you use them. Whether to benefit others or to take advantage of others is a choice you make.

But there will be situations where the tool of honesty wont work, and if you walk into those situations having convinced yourself that lying isn't a tool available, then people who don't think that way will be better prepared than you to handle those situations.

Basically be aware where lies can be used. Don't just dismiss it totally as only useable for evil.

During Hitler's rise people like to point at the Honest folk who stood up against him like Carl Goerdeler, Dietrich Bonhoeffer. But there were people like Wilhelm Canaris who lied day in day out and did all kinds of damage and saved a whole lot of lives.

Facts are freely accessible these days compared to the past. A large part of Education in the past wasn't designed with that in mind.

So Education IS changing to meet that reality but its still a work in progress. Consensus is still developing on what the best route ahead is.

You are right that expertise is only possible through the accumulation and quick recall of facts. That said, the time it takes for an expert in Physics to become an expert Programmer or vice versa is much more than it takes for an expert Physicist to find and collaborate with an expert Programmer. So in a networked society, Educations focus is shifting to collaboration and healthy communication at an early age rather than producing mediocre experts in all subjects which is what past education systems have produced in great volumes.

You should be able to make that case to your prof. You would probably get points for it :)

Some profs are subject matter experts who have no actual understanding of Pedagogy. So they pick up whatever rules someone else tells them to use, and then with time figure out what works and doesn't from feedback (which students are always very hesitant to give).

> Humans are notoriously good at coming up with bullshit explanations

This is true, but bullshit stories have benefit not just to one side but both sides of the relationship more often than not, which is why evolution hasn't got ride of lying - its not a bug its a feature (for certain class of problems)- https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/06/lying-ho...

If Pepsi was heavily regulated in how they advertise, as the Alcohol Industry is in most parts of the world, then you would be reading about how Pepsi helps social bonding too. Marketing depts these days have hundred different ways of filling people's heads with garbage.

I go to meet specific people, get specific questions answered, plan how to get specific things done over the next n months or whatever. Pull them into a room for a few hours for brain dumps. Very valuable compared to email/chat etc

:) You will find Airbus managers who agree with you BUT they compete for reaources with Airbus managers who don't.

This is an old debate and it's more or less a settled one in large orgs with large requirements whether in US or EU - the managers who don't care how they meet their goals win. You don't have to believe me, you just need to spend time talking to people who have run large teams in the EU and ask them how they survive.

The world is not getting any less competitive and mgmt in large orgs spend most of their day reacting rather than proactively doing anything. Smaller orgs it's easier but again they too are under pressure in different ways.

During this phase where many things are in flux and unstable it's a safer bet to move to where the jobs are then expecting the govt or corp s to do anything radical. They are too trapped even if they have competent ppl...anyway that's just my experience and opinion and I hope I am wrong.

If Airbus wants to hire 300 software engineers, good luck finding them in reasonable time periods in Germany or France. Local small niche firms can survive. The larger you get the longer it takes to hit hiring goal.

You will understand that only after you spend time actually hiring people. Telling the boss well I can't do this locally in 3 months, I need 6 plus a budget to relocate people from other EU locations will just get you laughed out of the room for the simple reason someone else in the org has already done it through outsourcing and importing people.

> Companies stay in the west because of the ecosystem comprised of stable government, financing and skilled workforce

This is probably 10-15 year old rhetoric that isnt true anymore. There are now dozens of hubs worldwide that make it simple to hire large number of people fast. Just make a trip and look at the scale at which they function.

The EU is doing the right thing by trying to pull more people in.

Companies will outsource, move development centers elsewhere etc etc. Visa restrictions alone aren't going to save anyones job. The world is too competitive.

I see. Have you heard of Gandhi? Any idea what he did in South Africa?

This is a weird future though. Its not about the issues, its about who has better targeting. That's it.

And if both sides have equally good targeting, the result is an even split of the populations attention. No one wins.

So how does this cycle break. Where is Daenerys?

They did act. Muilenburg was Chairman & CEO and they removed him as Chairman in October. It probably took the new Chairman a month or two to work out what shit Muilenburg was feeding the board prior to that.

Agree. I was just adding some context about these narratives. And I really have no issues with anything you have said.

Well it teaches us a couple things.

The same narrative replays with many successful people - Bruce Lee (Jiddu Krishnamurthi), John Lennon, Brian Josephson (Mahesh Yogi), Steve Jobs etc etc. And from there it becomes myth for the rest of the population.

Taking drugs/performing a ritual/chanting a prayer/meeting yoda (authority figure) etc - is people trying to cope with something that has happened in their life.

Therapy options weren't great back then, and people had to work out by themselves, what we take for granted in a modern psychology textbook today, all while going through some traumatic life event.

Even today it's not straight forward to do and it becomes easy to poke holes in the path people took and even currently take. Which then leads to defensiveness and reactions, which further misguide and mislead everyone.

It also points at the need of some smart people for an Authority Figure to validate whatever new narrative they are trying to rebuild about themselves and the world after they go through some trauma and their existing narratives break down.

Cost of distribution maybe free but attracting qualified and useful reviews is definitely not.

People who think open access is the solution to that are dealing with a focusing illusion - https://www.edge.org/response-detail/11984

Whether they publish the review or not misses the point completely of how they attract qualified reviewers. If you are capable of consistently attracting qualified reviewers and filtering out the masses and doing it for free by all means do it.

But anyone who has tried knows its very hard to do for free. Just ask the mods of HN whether they want to work for free and the costs to them to maintain a standard.