Up to a point. E.g. in non-equilibrium thermodynamics systems can change from negative feedback and stability to positive feedback - finally they explode and reorganise themselves. Like society or the market. Nice model, as long as we are not in the middle of such an explosion.
I don't know the US constitution, this is why I asked. My assumption is that running for president is not compatible with certain things, e.g. owning and/or editing media. E.g. could somebody in theory buy most of the newspapers, TV and radio channels, get on their boards and run for president?
The distinction between suits and nerds/geeks is blurrier than ever. Think about Zuck, you can probably take a photo of him in a t-shirt, a hoody and a suit on the same day. However, I think there is a pretty big difference between people who feel it's worth learning things for the sake of understanding and those who only work on sellable things. OTOH, there is a little suit in all of us, possibly suppressed. And who knows, maybe there is a little hoody in the suits as well!
You are onto something. I think "the way things are developing", big tech and gov might fall into each others arms - what a beautiful couple. Imagine what a business _that_ would be! Also, I'm surprised this scenario is rarely if ever discussed, I mean that corporate government type of thing in the Continuum tv series.
I appreciate the post, and it would do good for most of us to understand how compounding works in so many things in our lives, also in relationships etc. But it isn't one thing vs. everything, there is also a balanced middle ground. A generalist might be interested in several things, and not care if as a specialist she could be "more successful", usually measured by an oversimplified metric, e.g. number of dollars or books sold. But this is a very good topic.
"unhelpfully pathologise the feeling that EVERYONE has"
You may just have stumbled upon a new definition of extrovert, i.e. a person who finds this distinction meaningless. I'm half joking, but most people I know have a pretty consistent level of extra-intraversion.
Amazon is too big, they can't afford to act otherwise. We should all build medium size, privately owned companies and at least try to have a spine. The background of the problem is nicely highlighted in DHH's blog post "Enough".
Good point, but still, consider how simple it would be for them to get Russian speaking help, and how small an effort it is in comparison to the gain in publicity - if they got something, of course.
Le Pen and Putin probably don't write emails and Trump is tweeting :) But I agree, it is hard to follow the ethics of this, to say the least. Also, if I were sent leaked documents, it would be incredibly hard to understand and consider the ethics.
I know very little about this topic, but let me shoot: isn't this method for improving competitiveness misguided and shortsighted? How about working on emotional intelligence, better education and talent management, better food in schools, better child care, more support for disadvantaged families - there is so much we can do... Or is it just not about improving society, but individuals (with deep pockets)?
I am amazed and wish them luck, but it's almost impossible to imagine the economics of this. Whatever equation you write up there are at least two impossible factors: indoor land vs. outdoor "land" price is like 4000-10000 times higher, and growth time / logistics time is like 1000? I can imagine this in a fine restaurant though, picking a tomato in front of your eyes and chopping it, not too shabby!
If they changed to a service model they would have an incentive. If they leased a dishwasher 5€/month suddenly it wouldn't break for 15 years. Ten years ago I talked to a person in aerospace, he said they would change to a service model similar to jet engines, but since customers don't push them, they will wait it out.
Google will stop reading my emails for Gmail ads because I will stop using Gmail. It's kind of a sad story, because they are the good guys, but once they built a huge company they started to focus on maintaining it, possibly at any cost. This is a cautionary tale: power corrupts. You, me, everyone. And yes, the web will produce dictators we never imagined possible, because the Internet is so powerful it will enable them.
Alan Kay should remember that evolution includes random mutations that get you out of local extrema, and "interesting" recombinations. The rate of these is maybe low, but there are examples where large organizations renew themselves this way. But I agree with the conclusion that this is slow and unreliable.
Good point! I thought about templating also when I read this article. I also like how a similar perspective inspired Tero to develop RiotJS, he is even quoting the Facebook team: "Templates separate technologies, not concerns" - http://riotjs.com
I'm not surprised that the general public is worried about AI but I would expect many others to worry about data. Exaggerating a bit: mathematics and AI skills is something any talented person can get individually, but gathering useful personal data on a large scale requires a huge infrastructure. So if we want to "democratize" then I'm wondering why not democratize access to data.
You said "like" SAP, not SAP only, so let me suggest Cobol. It's a language we rarely hear about but it is an exotic niche that could also pay well. Well, this is just an idea, I'm not an expert on Cobol.
This is a bit surprising to me. Based on my gut I assumed that if a group has a sufficient probability of producing individuals with "broken selfishness" then the group has a higher fitness to survive, especially if some evolutionary pressure requires these "different" individuals. But this is probably not this simple.