throwaway93982

"As anarchists, we must defend ourselves against police and intelligence agencies that conduct targeted digital surveillance for the purposes of incrimination and network mapping." (https://www.anarsec.guide/recommendations/)

I wonder who the anarchists are that are afraid of "incrimination and network mapping" and what it is they're doing them that makes them afraid of that

Well, no... the summary is, you have to think hard in order to use your constraints as effectively as possible or the outcome will suck.

When it comes to building things, the outcome is dictated by the constraints. But not the way most people realize.

Constraints affect outcomes in (at least) three ways:

  - by absolute limitation (you cannot violate these)
  - by path of least resistance (the constraint makes X easier)
  - by strategy (creative use of knowledge & skills leads to novel solutions)

---

There is an injured person on top of a mountain, and they need medical attention. You need to go up the mountain, get them, and bring them down.

You only have so much strength/endurance, so nothing you do will ever be faster than what your body is capable of. You need to get up and down in less than two hours. You need to carry an injured person. The mountain has two slopes: a long gradual one, and a short steep one.

Most people would climb the long gradual slope, because it's the path of least resistance. But it will take 4x as long to climb up and down it. Climbing straight up the steep slope would be incredibly tiring, and unsafe to bring someone down.

You can, however, zig-zag up and down the steep hill. It will take more time than going straight up, but faster than the long way, you will be less tired, and it's safer to bring someone down hill.

---

Constraints can be good and bad. Good use of constraints can allow you to get something done effectively. Bad use of constraints leads to failure. So it's important to have someone who can utilize those constraints effectively.

Vision, leadership, and wisdom is more important than the people, skills, materials, or time involved. The former determines the quality of the outcome more than the latter.

Every very large company stops growing quickly, as there is a global ceiling on trade. That's why investment managers recommend a good amount of a portfolio be in small companies; they have a lot more room for growth.

Service-oriented would be when they make themselves available as a service to "customers" (direct reports, other teams). Think of helpdesk/customer service, where there's docs on how to communicate/collaborate/find needed info, times to schedule meetings/office hours, etc. Focusing more on the experience and needs of the people who might need the manager for something.

Up-managing is basically supporting your boss. Help them with their goals, find ways to unblock them, ask them how they're doing/let them vent, make them look good to others.

Personally I disagree with the whole "making someone else look good" management philosophy (including "only complain up"). I think it's dishonest and counter-productive. Sure it reduces friction, but it doesn't help crappy things be less crappy. It does prevent people from having hard conversations which might change things for the better. We need to take the ego and resistance to change out of work/management.

Yep, hierarchy comes from religion (hierarkhia, "rule of a high preist"). Traditional capitalist hierarchical organization is just one of many potential hierarchies, so definitely it could be improved. But hierarchy is ingrained in culture, and culture is probably the third hardest thing in the universe to change, after genetics and cancelling your gym membership.

Really there are just too many managers doing too little work. They seem busy because they're in meetings 40 hours a week. 40 emails would be about as productive, and free up half their week (so they could do twice as much, hence we would need half as many).