I was really hoping that he would have presented an argument for why we shouldn't be worried about massive unemployment, but he didn't. All he did was point to a prior era, at something that is very different from AI, and say "look, that didn't cause massive unemployment!"
Such apples-and-oranges comparisons are not reassuring.
I keep actively looking for why this concern shouldn't be concerning and coming up empty.
I think blogs are great but social media should not be ignored. It is a great source of traffic for your blog.
You CAN have it all. It's ok to have a facebook, twitter and instagram account.
You are just giving up too much potential exposure for not participating in social media. It's nice to get comments on your blog, but people need to find it first.
If you don't want/need/crave exposure, you could just use your blog as a personal space. One that you can look back to in 5-10 years, like a journal.
Personally I use my blog to bookmark things that I find interesting (like a personal archive). Sometimes I don't just save the link to the site I want to bookmark, I copy-paste the whole contents of the page into my site (because the site could disappear). If you are worried about copyright et all, just make your blog private.
I think Alexander's ideas and patterns are very lean processes instead. He see what's the terrain like, what's the use like, builds a bit, and reevaluates along the way. He even explicitly have drawings rendered 'for regulation' but changes it after it's built.
Context: I'm assuming Alexander here refers to Christopher Alexander. He has authored books related to identifying architecture patterns with 'liveness' in them, from the very small to the big scale. I think a lot of his ideas can be applied to software too and even really matches up with Extreme Programming. I recommend reading The Nature of Order for the fundamentals of his ideas and how it fits with the world. I'll refer to him as CA in this comment.
I think it's the overspecialisation of roles and the 'waterfall' aspect of the engineering that normalises this. The architect don't (or can't) verify whether their designs work along the way. CA once described a story where he needs a constant feedback with the soil engineer for the start of the project but his request is denied by the client. The client wants the engineer to start and finish his survey first and then for CA to receive the reports only. CA ended up declining to work with the client due to that. As with Software Engineering/Development, there are questions that only surfaces when we do a part of the building, and can't be predicted. This is why the continuous feedback is important. I'm not sure whether the architect in your case _can_ come back to the site and direct the constructors against the drawings, even if the later directions are more suitable to build.
It's a bit weird that now we're taking missed plans as the default, when the Empire State Building (and NYC skyscrapers of the time) ran ahead of their schedule, with Lean principles by focusing on constraints and workflow instead of planning the minute details: https://chrisgagne.com/1255/mary-poppendiecks-the-tyranny-of...
I'm afraid that a lot of churn in Software Development also comes from a similar overspecialisation, overplanning, and the wrong kind of feedback loops. 30% of costs wasted seems like the better end for software. The difference is that building physical buildings has happened for thousands of years and there is a lot of history to compare with the current day. Software has at most 100 years of history, and currently it's still very much the wild west and every team is trying to stumble upon a process that is sustainable. This doesn't even count that a lot of developers see themselves and the job differently, and the organization also sees the Tech/Engineering team differently.
This comment is more of a rambling than a coherent thought, but I thought I'd get it out there. I'm sure I'm not the only one feeling like the current Software Development process is a mess. There has been good efforts (Extreme Programming and agile, not branded Agile) and current good effort (Basecamp's evangelism of their work process and the Shape Up book) to carve a sane way, but it needs to be the normal practice instead of the contrarian view/practice.
I remember I discovered a page of just amazing project after amazing they released with most recently abandoned and the rest following shortly thereafter.
I don't think any of it was so groundbreaking it would be useful today but there were a number of wheels that would end up being reinvented between then and now.
Why was it too late? They were still number one when pagerank was published, all they needed to do was put more resources into it. Google’s algorithms weren’t magic. The biggest problem was lack of vision, and willingness to bet on that vision. Investors in Google were swinging for the fences, that mentality would never have been at home at DEC.
Because this is one of the (thousands of) features in Palantir's government product? And this one is manual, just dragging things around a canvas -- Palantir's software places them automatically and intelligently based on available data.
Of course. It's a necessary sacrifice. That money will go on to support the livelihoods of the most vulrenable and needy of the Mozilla team, namely the C-suite.
"She actually responded to my question about her salary in a q&a and said it was too much of a financial burden to ask of the c-suite to cut their salaries down to $500k“
Such apples-and-oranges comparisons are not reassuring.
I keep actively looking for why this concern shouldn't be concerning and coming up empty.