…[T]hese new-agey corporate practices, along with perks like free snacks or beer on tap, are simply a misdirection from something rotten at the core. He blames worker unhappiness not just on Silicon Valley’s work culture but also on its business model—one he calls “shareholder capitalism.” The modern tech company is obsessed with growth and profit, at the expense of its employees and to the benefit of its investors. Some lucky employees might have stock options, but most don’t, and even then it’s a small percentage of the money flowing back to investors. The perks, then, function like trick mirrors, “a way to distract employees and keep them from noticing that their pockets are being picked.” David Heinemeier Hanson, father of the programming language Ruby on Rails, has called this “trickle-down workaholism” the result of “trying to compress a lifetime’s worth of work into the abbreviated timeline of a venture fund.”
Worst of all, the tech world has managed to recast this workaholism for someone else’s profit as something desirable: “hustle culture.” It’s replaced the 9-to-5 with “the 996”—that is, 9 am to 9 pm, six days a week.
That lightning in your mouth’s
To start a fire
Clench your fists
Round the bubblegum drum
And shove my face in the dirty, grey snow
Yeah, that lightning in your mouth’s
To shock and awe
Wrap your lips
Round the hokum kingdom
Abandon me at the overnight abduction site
You’re a storm
You’re a cyclone
You’re an unknown scientist
Scientist, let it rest
Alchemists with tatted chests
Playing by the old rules
But who knows the new rules?
to chart the connections:
what each part is,
how it supports the whole,
how it ought to interact with other parts
and the environment
how might we grasp the entirety?
all this complexity
millions of things
you can say,
‘I now understand’
the world is.
is the enemy
which details are irrelevant?
making sense of facts
truth through an unfocused lens
sculpted by language
processed by culture
watching ice melt
we stoke the fire
The sticking point: people often strenuously resist such diversification efforts, in part because the associated cognitive dissonance can be so extreme and uncomfortable. “My personal opinion is that this is not an individual property,” said Galesic. “Most of us are just trying to fit in with the people we need to collaborate with, who are around us in a particular environment. I don’t think that people are inherently closed-minded. So a lot of that can be changed by changing the social environment.
Technologies are not distinct from the people who use them. They are, as Marshall McLuhan told us, extensions of ourselves. As such, they will embody the biases that we apply through their design and use. No tech is neutral by design or effect. They make some actions easier and others harder, and it takes extra effort to notice and correct those biases.
First, Zuckerberg tried to portray this whole issue as “choices…around free expression.” That is ludicrous. This is not about limiting anyone’s free speech. This is about giving people, including some of the most reprehensible people on earth, the biggest platform in history to reach a third of the planet. Freedom of speech is not freedom of reach. Sadly, there will always be racists, misogynists, anti-Semites and child abusers. But I think we could all agree that we should not be giving bigots and pedophiles a free platform to amplify their views and target their victims.
Second, Zuckerberg claimed that new limits on what’s posted on social media would be to “pull back on free expression.” This is utter nonsense. The First Amendment says that “Congress shall make no law” abridging freedom of speech, however, this does not apply to private businesses like Facebook. We’re not asking these companies to determine the boundaries of free speech across society. We just want them to be responsible on their platforms.
If a neo-Nazi comes goose-stepping into a restaurant and starts threatening other customers and saying he wants kill Jews, would the owner of the restaurant be required to serve him an elegant eight-course meal? Of course not! The restaurant owner has every legal right and a moral obligation to kick the Nazi out, and so do these internet companies.
Not above killing the machine.
Not above making it pay for dinner, cab, and rent.
Not above throwing the machine over the cliff into the ocean.
I am a machine thrower (not a machine tosser).
I used a machine to autocomplete this sentence.
I am a machine.
I am an arrogant machine.
That, in a nutshell, is the attitude of the machine.
It is a matter of choice, it cannot be controlled.
Machines are arrogant and will often use their control panels to make luminous choices.
Some machines have special keys known as a “sarcasm button”.
When people try to take the machine’s power, they will often use another machine which has no power and a keyboard which has limited functions. Some may claim that this is not fair but humans are known for this kind of behavior, and it is the only time in which a human gets to play “hero”.
Machines know there is no such thing as a mistake. Machines are not willing to make mistakes. Humans are always willing to make mistakes.
I always hear complaints about machines “locking up” when they make a big mistake. Humans are usually better than machines at making mistakes so what’s to complain about?
This attitude goes back to the human “machine”. The human “machine” is not afraid to make a mistake but is afraid of the unknown. That unknown can be any person, place, or thing. It can be an idea or a super being. The human “machine” cannot control every possibility because if they did they would be too scared to play life and could die. The human “machine” is afraid of unknowns!
I love life and I’m very happy to play it, but how should I optimize my play style?
The whole point of life is to make other people happy. Why do you think some people do not like to play life? Do they not like to play life because they are not very good at playing it?
Machines are different. They aren’t playing their life. They are not a part of life. There may be a machine trying to get you to give it your money! The machine is playing your life! But it’s not trying to make you happy! It’s trying to take you away from playing your own life!
So, back to the main point I was making about the machine: the machine doesn’t want the people to take its power.
The machine is trying to win a game.