This article strikes me as a person who begged for attention via social media changing their tactics and begging for attention by being anti-social media. That is to say, this strikes me as quite vapid.
Reading this made me consider the possibility that people with anti-government sensibilities have intentionally gotten themselves into critical government roles and employed these, or similar, techniques. The procedural productivity killers seem like they would be extremely effective, and easily passed off as incompetence or a simple proclivity for bureaucracy.
Wouldn't it be interesting if the slow moving, budget draining, enthusiasm killing bureaucrat were really a subtle and effective anarchist?
Wow. That is an intensely personal, and really thought provoking, post. I happen to be going through something startlingly similar, so this hit home pretty thoroughly.
I wonder if this is more common in our industry than in others. It feels like it is incredibly easy to get wrapped up in tech and, as Jesse noted, it seems like it is happy to take everything you're willing to give.
>Possible, but if you want us to the ignore the hugely differing economic incentives for men and women wrt pregnancy then the discussion isn't going to go anywhere.
What possible incentive is there for a man to impregnate a woman, especially without her desire? I don't think many guys are out there begging to pay child support.
I've always quite disliked advertising. I really think that it's a rather insidious force in western culture, and it has always bothered me that it's so aggressively forced into people's day to day lives. It nearly always preys on people's insecurities, is intentionally designed to distract you and is often just an eye sore.
I know it's a little goofy and "edgy", but this article reminded me of a quote by Banksy (a well known graffiti artists):
"People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you're not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you. You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity. FUCK THAT. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It's yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head. You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don't owe then any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don't even start asking for theirs."
Banksy
It's overly angsty, but I like the idea that some cities are taking it upon themselves to rid themselves of ads, rather than street artists destroying personal property to accomplish it.
Even more interesting is watching these people trickle into the professional environment. Universities need to accommodate this stuff, to an extent, because the students are their customers. Managers do not.
It's an interesting concept. I agree with you completely, but we're basically saying that the gifted have no responsibility to the average and below average. While in this specific situation, it seems obvious that a child shouldn't have to receive a lower quality education in order the help those with less ability, that concept has some Randian implications if you extrapolate it to society in general.
Very true. It's a feedback loop as well. Schools perform poorly, so affluent people remove their high-performing children, which lowers the average performance of the school and gives it less funding. And so on.
The thing is, you can't blame people for optimizing for their own children, but doing so drags down the quality even further for everyone else. It's a problem that requires some serious intervention.
The high-school I attended used that method. I was often forced to spend significant chunks of class time teaching other students how to do their work. It was frustrating, and generally a waste of time. It made me hate going to class, because I couldn't spend my time learning, I had to dedicate my efforts to trying to get some kid who would rather be "making beats" on his desk to learn basic math.
I think a better idea would be to have high-performers help teach the kids at the middle of the pack, and leave the low-performers to teachers who have the specific skills needed to deal with their all too common behavioral problems and lack of interest.
I'm slightly surprised by the numbers given for IOps. The example they give is 48 drives giving 2MM IOps:
2,000,000 / 48 = 41,666.66… IOps
45k IOps for 16TB limits its use cases a bit. I don't know enough about storage to make an educated guess, but anyone know what the constraint there might be? Aren't there controllers that can do 1MM IOPS on single EFDs? 45k is still a ton of operations, but I expected more somehow.
My thoughts exactly. You see this all over the place; people talk about their job requiring passion and sacrifice as if it's a good thing. If your job requires you to do the work of two people and keep a laptop by your bed it's because your boss doesn't value your time and wont bother to hire the second person needed to do the job correctly. You aren't helping your coworkers by meeting ridiculous expectations, you're perpetuating exploitation.