> Branding is centrifugal; design is centripetal.
Functional design is centripetal. "Good" design is one which achieves the designer's goals, which are often much more complicated than that.
299 karma · joined February 2, 2014
Twitter: https://twitter.com/s_hasdemir
> Branding is centrifugal; design is centripetal.
Functional design is centripetal. "Good" design is one which achieves the designer's goals, which are often much more complicated than that.
>My stance on this has probably shifted in a negative direction over time, primarily because of my growing awareness of how often technology is used for wealth accumulation. I don’t think capitalism will solve the problems that capitalism creates, so I’d be much more optimistic about technological development if we could prevent it from making a few people extremely rich.
What's wrong with people getting rich by producing goods and services, and selling these to willing buyers? People laundering wealth into undue political power, regulatory capture, erecting barriers to market entry ("pulling up the ladder behind them") are different problems than people creating wealth. Efforts on creating a just society should focus on the former - preventing wealth creation is not the solution to injustice. In fact, since people have vastly different abilities and inclinations for creating wealth, a just society is also one with vast wealth disparities.
Relevant PG essay: https://paulgraham.com/ineq.html
If you were comparing salaries, either your company was compensating you with extra prestige, job security, etc. or you were underpaid.
There are other issues with slow-growing or not-growing companies. When the company is not growing, people are incentivized to take a zero-sum approach to their work relationships. If the pie is not growing, you need to guard your own slice and take from others. This creates a toxic environment. If the company is growing, then collaborating on growing the pie can become the shared attitude.
Most big companies are not good if you want to solve problems and build stuff. Especially "the enterprise", where software is seen as a cost center so the less of it the better. The effort of managing up eats a creative person's soul.
I want the clarity of being able to talk to "the boss/the customer" and solve their problems and get paid the market rate for my skills. Not prepare endless PowerPoints for my skip-level, who has no ownership but has to act in their own best interests in a swamp of principal-agent problems.
This is why I am very happy at a fast-growing small tech company where one can have honest conversations about the customer and the product. How do other people deal with this?
> David Cowan’s college friend rented her garage to Sergey and Larry for their first year. In 1999 and 2000 she tried to introduce Cowan to “these two really smart Stanford students writing a search engine.” Students? A new search engine? In the most important moment ever for Bessemer’s anti-portfolio, Cowan asked her, “How can I get out of this house without going anywhere near your garage?”
Oh! I'd forgotten how big a productivity boost over manpages/offical docsites SO was.
That hit hard. I've seen so many companies that defined themselves as something else, despite employing more than 1000 programmers. In denial of being a software company - a bad one. Limping along due to strong brands or regulatory barriers to market entry.
Every day I'm getting more and more convinced that this attitude will get their lunch eaten by a company that can software.
Companies like Stripe and Rippling have so much potential displacing "enterprise", it's disgusting.
I am genuinely curious how my learning about the constitution of the Roman Republic while procrastinating will help me.
Learning specific API's are over. Mostly.
This wouldn't be a huge problem if it was a mistake by freely operating private creditors, who theoretically, would realise their error and try not to issue long term loans fixed at a rate lower than inflation. One could see this as a "bet" by the creditors that the inflation rate will decrease in the future and they'd make a profit. The problem is when state-backed creditors are forced to issue low-rate loans as a government policy of homeownership. There, a country's tax base ends up funding people who can access these loans, while everyone else ends up further from owning a home. This is what happened in Turkey in 2020.
GPT-4's context size is much larger, and when it starts to misbehave, you can just remind it how the game works and it's good to go again.
I'm sorry or you're welcome.
A dog will never understand how a credit card works. Are there concepts that our human brains are biologically incapable of understanding? Maybe some of the current philosophical questions like consciousness or the illusive appearance of free will are beyond our limits.
I wish I knew more about computability, decidability, the Incompleteness Theorem etc to think further about this.
This is an example of why tech companies in emerging markets have to battle against prejudice. People have seen just too much of this kind of dishonesty and assume the worst. Thank you CloudBoost for making the world a worse place.