7 ms·

It's intentionally obscure, I believe the stated reason was that moldbug only wanted people to use Urbit who have buy-in in the form of having spent/wasted a si

by Lewton 6y ago

It's intentionally obscure, I believe the stated reason was that moldbug only wanted people to use Urbit who have buy-in in the form of having spent/wasted a significant amount of time and effort

scarmig 6y ago
Remember, the number one cause of software product failure is having barriers to entry that are too low.
- mcny 6y ago
  > Remember, the number one cause of software product failure is having barriers to entry that are too low. Is there any consensus for this? Or are you being sarcastic? I don't know anything about these things so I googled it: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=the+number+one+cause+of+software+product+failure+is https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=the+num... The top box says >> The No. 1 Cause of IT Failure: Complexity. ... According to software architect Roger Sessions, the primary cause of software project failures is complexity. Complexity can create delays, cost overruns and systems that don't meet business needs, according to Sessions, who is chief technology officer at ObjectWatch Inc.Dec 21, 2009 Another question below mentions these points: Software Management Common Software Failure Causes Lack of user participation. Changing requirements. Unrealistic or unarticulated project goals. Inaccurate estimates of needed resources. Badly defined system requirements. Poor reporting of the project's status. Lack of resources. Unmanaged risks. It doesn't make sense to me why barrier to entry being too low would be a problem. Am I missing something? The one thing that comes to mind is javascript but it isn't really a failure if the metric is user adoption.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - scarmig 6y ago
    Sarcastic.
pavlov 6y ago
In this aspect and many others, Urbit is reminiscent of Scientology.
- tptacek 6y ago
  You are not the first to draw this analogy!
- seemslegit 6y ago
  Not just Scientology, it's Cults 101
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- bitwize 6y ago
  Or the Gurdjieff movement, which (also like Urbit) is full of completely made up terms and concepts like "organ kundabuffer", "being-partkdolg-duty" and "the sacred Rascooarno", which the faithful just sort of accept and don't really explain except in their own terms, or with reference to other bits of Gurdjieff's impenetrable prose. When confronted, Gurdjieffites usually resort to the sort of tactics displayed upthread, if they're feeling charitable: "Have you considered that you are simply, in your somnambulent ignorance, criticizing that which you do not understand because your sleep prevents you from understanding? Come talk to me after you've spent 20 or 30 years in the Work and have something to criticize." In short, to criticize the system you must first embrace the system in its totality, only then will you understand it well enough to level legitimate criticism. If they're not feeling charitable, they might declare you an Eternal-Hasnamuss-Individual and tell you your destiny is to become food for the moon. But at least they won't sue you or send private investigators after you (I think), so that's nice.
  - carapace 6y ago
    I think you've been hanging out with the wrong "Gurdjieffites". At least some of those terms are pretty easy to figure out. "organ kundabuffer" was a specific organ that excreted some kind of drug (in Gurdjieff's pre-history.) "being-partkdolg-duty" is the task and operation of remembering oneself. "the sacred Rascooarno" is death of the physical body. ...and so on.
tlrobinson 6y ago
Having been part of relatively niche communities that went "mainstream" I can see the appeal, but it is interesting they received investments from A16Z and others.

by Lewton 6y ago

It's intentionally obscure, I believe the stated reason was that moldbug only wanted people to use Urbit who have buy-in in the form of having spent/wasted a significant amount of time and effort

scarmig 6y ago

Remember, the number one cause of software product failure is having barriers to entry that are too low.

mcny 6y ago
> Remember, the number one cause of software product failure is having barriers to entry that are too low. Is there any consensus for this? Or are you being sarcastic? I don't know anything about these things so I googled it: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=the+number+one+cause+of+software+product+failure+is https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=the+num... The top box says >> The No. 1 Cause of IT Failure: Complexity. ... According to software architect Roger Sessions, the primary cause of software project failures is complexity. Complexity can create delays, cost overruns and systems that don't meet business needs, according to Sessions, who is chief technology officer at ObjectWatch Inc.Dec 21, 2009 Another question below mentions these points: Software Management Common Software Failure Causes Lack of user participation. Changing requirements. Unrealistic or unarticulated project goals. Inaccurate estimates of needed resources. Badly defined system requirements. Poor reporting of the project's status. Lack of resources. Unmanaged risks. It doesn't make sense to me why barrier to entry being too low would be a problem. Am I missing something? The one thing that comes to mind is javascript but it isn't really a failure if the metric is user adoption.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- scarmig 6y ago
  Sarcastic.

pavlov 6y ago

In this aspect and many others, Urbit is reminiscent of Scientology.

tptacek 6y ago
You are not the first to draw this analogy!
seemslegit 6y ago
Not just Scientology, it's Cults 101
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
bitwize 6y ago
Or the Gurdjieff movement, which (also like Urbit) is full of completely made up terms and concepts like "organ kundabuffer", "being-partkdolg-duty" and "the sacred Rascooarno", which the faithful just sort of accept and don't really explain except in their own terms, or with reference to other bits of Gurdjieff's impenetrable prose. When confronted, Gurdjieffites usually resort to the sort of tactics displayed upthread, if they're feeling charitable: "Have you considered that you are simply, in your somnambulent ignorance, criticizing that which you do not understand because your sleep prevents you from understanding? Come talk to me after you've spent 20 or 30 years in the Work and have something to criticize." In short, to criticize the system you must first embrace the system in its totality, only then will you understand it well enough to level legitimate criticism. If they're not feeling charitable, they might declare you an Eternal-Hasnamuss-Individual and tell you your destiny is to become food for the moon. But at least they won't sue you or send private investigators after you (I think), so that's nice.
- carapace 6y ago
  I think you've been hanging out with the wrong "Gurdjieffites". At least some of those terms are pretty easy to figure out. "organ kundabuffer" was a specific organ that excreted some kind of drug (in Gurdjieff's pre-history.) "being-partkdolg-duty" is the task and operation of remembering oneself. "the sacred Rascooarno" is death of the physical body. ...and so on.

tlrobinson 6y ago

Having been part of relatively niche communities that went "mainstream" I can see the appeal, but it is interesting they received investments from A16Z and others.