I love no code! Wait. Wait. Hear me out... Building software is easy. Changing people's minds is damned near impossible.
As an engineer:
- I'm constantly handed shitty (or a complete lack thereof) requirements from non-technical people. No code lets people figure out that they haven't thought something out nearly as much as they think they have. I no longer am the bearer of bad news.
- I constantly see business people undervalue the design process or skip it all together. No code is making non-technical people realize that they have to plan out before they just throw engineers at a problem.
No code is changing the dialog around this. I see that as a net positive. Of course us software engineers know the problems around no-code - we'll deal with them as we deal with all problems.
Salesforce is essentially a database as a service with some fancy admin panels and prebuilt web interfaces.
The tech is proprietary, and not that fun to work with. [0]
As someone who has worked extensively with Salesforce, the cult like fanbase is annoying. I'll be the first to admit the tech is underwhelming and in many cases nowhere near other modern technology.[1][2][3]
But, I still 100% recommend Salesforce to companies when they ask about it. Why? Data liability. Yes Salesforce is expensive - but you are outsourcing the responsibility of dealing with sensitive data to Salesforce. This is something that they should market more heavily in imo. (at least to sw engineers and CTOs) Realistically many companies are not properly equipped to deal with data, let alone sensitive data. Salesforce may have started out as a CRM, but now it is a solution to that problem. CTO's now have someone to point the finger at if shit hits the fan on an Equifax level. This alone is worth big $$$.
Interesting, I didn't get that sense at all from the book. It did not strike me as 'neo-primitivist' at all. Much more as a critique from the structural perspective [0].
And I'm not so sure saying that it wasn't anthropology is fair. It is definitely different. One historical, the other modern - both valid anthropological pursuits.
I would agree with you on efficiency though. Though I think the bullshit jobs described in the book are more akin to turning the rocket upside down and expecting it to leave orbit. Certain non-profits and industries are not even pointed in the right direction. Graeber asserts that this is intentional as a way to siphon funds.
At the risk of sounding pompous. I really like my portfolio site: [link redacted]
Why? I built it for myself. Not for what I thought recruiters/employers wanted to see. I simply wanted a place to collect some of the projects I work on. And more importantly one that captured my personality a bit. It's not perfect, I look at it and see a ton things I'd refactor. But it get's people to laugh or start a conversation about something I've done. That to me makes it all worth it.
My $0.02: Don't build a portfolio site because you think you need one, build one if it serves a purpose for you. i.e. learning a new skill, organizing your work, or just having fun. I think the results are much more interesting that way. (Also, don't be afraid to iterate. I think this is the 5th one I've attempted to make)
And the whole ebook thing is quite frankly off-putting. There is a ton of hive mind/group think in this field which I find very off putting as well... I was at a Native Plant nursery and asked if they had any apple trees. Now as a computer programmer, permaculture is a hobby to me, I don't have the time to study it full time. But if I'm interested in something, I do read as much as I can about the subject. I had just read "Beyond the War on Invasive Species: A Permaculture Approach to Ecosystem Restoration" [0] which explores who defines native plants (pesticide industry) and why (to sell more pesticides).
So rather than having a friendly dialog, my request was met with a snarky and dismissive "Apple trees aren't native." I replied, "Define native." knowing this is actually a quite controversial subject.
But honestly permaculture is like any other field. There are some people who identify with their tightly held beliefs and don't question them. It bugs me but it doesn't take away from some of the great things are doing in this field. I've found that the best thing to do is to focus on people not topics.
For example, if someone asks me to learn Javascript. I tell them to focus on people like Eric Elliot, Douglass Crockford, Dan Abramov, etc. You will learn more doing guided learning from what they think is important than some random blog post on arrow functions. In the permaculture world, I recommend reading as much as you can from these people:
- Bill Mollison
- Elliot Coleman
- Mark Shepard
These people are great, and reading from them will produce more of a knowledge than any course. (Still recommend doing a course to meet other people interested in this stuff)... but some of the best recommended reading to me from permies wasn't about permaculture at all:
- Thinking in Systems by Donella Meadows - It is dry but well worth it. Permaculture in a way is systems thinking applied to environment. Understanding the underlying science is the difference between knowing Javascript programming and just knowing one Javascript Framework.
- Hard Rain by Tim Egan - Beautiful anthropological history of the PNW.
I've found that people willing to dive into the science and areas that influence permaculture is the difference between someone who actually cares and someone who is an instagram farmer. And speaking of which, beware of biodynamics, it's a total pseudoscience [2] that people are starting to conflate that with permaculture. Biodynamic farmers will often tell you stuff like "oh it's like organic farming" or "You can do both permaculture and biodynamics". Maybe. But to me, new age mysticism isn't going to fix the environmental problems we have.
At the end of the day, the best way to learn permaculture is to get your hands dirty and start caring for plants. Even if you live in a city apartment with hardly any sun, treat it as a environment and find plants like peace lily's and devil's ivy that will grow just fine.
As an engineer:
- I'm constantly handed shitty (or a complete lack thereof) requirements from non-technical people. No code lets people figure out that they haven't thought something out nearly as much as they think they have. I no longer am the bearer of bad news.
- I constantly see business people undervalue the design process or skip it all together. No code is making non-technical people realize that they have to plan out before they just throw engineers at a problem.
No code is changing the dialog around this. I see that as a net positive. Of course us software engineers know the problems around no-code - we'll deal with them as we deal with all problems.