3 ms·

The dictatorship of the articulate? So the author is clearly saying, "people" should not be in the room, or if in the room, be unable to speak, or if able to sp

The dictatorship of the articulate? So the author is clearly saying, "people" should not be in the room, or if in the room, be unable to speak, or if able to speak, be ignorant of their rights-- unless they support whatever he values. And then where will these people be? In which room? And what ability to speak should they have? And what about their rights should they know? "In the old days, it was so cheap and easy and quick to steal indigenous lands. But now? What a fuss those guys make!" said the author, in my imagination as I hypothesize about how he thinks. I guess the most charitable thing I can say is that maybe the author truly believes that once it's too late to stop the destruction of a historical building, or neighborhood, or wetland habitat, people will just shrug and learn to enjoy their new... Amazon distribution center or whatever he is so passionate to build for the world.

concordDance 4y ago
Essentially the more people have veto power or require consultation the harder it is to get anything done. The more policies and rules there are (particularly once uncertainty about what the rules are creeps in), the harder it is to build. If you've worked in a large corporation and a 10 man startup this should be obvious. In the latter you can spin up a new service in a couple of hours. In the former a couple of months is a blistering pace.
- dane-pgp 4y ago
  > In the latter you can spin up a new service in a couple of hours. In the former a couple of months is a blistering pace. In the latter you can harm society in ways that take a couple of hours to fix. In the former, you can cause harms that take months or years to fix (and, with enough lobbying, you can make taxpayers foot the bill).
  - MichaelZuo 4y ago
    Very true. It's quite shocking how often supposedly 'very smart' folks suddenly stop thinking when considering second order, and higher, consequences. Maybe it's a symptom of some deeper underlying problem, motivated thinking, etc...
  - mikeholler 4y ago
    You're absolutely right. The "move fast and break things" position in society is just not good. It's fine if you're doing rapid prototyping on a product that can be easily discarded cheaply and at low cost to everyone involved. It's another thing entirely to move fast and break things without considering the people who will be affected, and asking what they think about it, especially for things that are not easily or cheaply reverted.
  - lordswork 4y ago
    >In the former, you can cause harms that take months or years to fix (and, with enough lobbying, you can make taxpayers foot the bill). I don't think "years" is enough to convey the potential damage unregulated businesses can cause. The time and resources to fix issues can scale well beyond human timescales. This is clearest when environmental damage is involved, whether it be CO2 emissions that will exist for O(100) years in the atmosphere or loss of biodiversity that took O(10,000) years to evolve. Here are a couple of concrete examples of companies inflicting eternal costs onto society that were covered well in Tom Scott videos: The Pumps That Must Run Forever, Or Part Of Germany Floods: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LseK5gp66u8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LseK5gp66u8 Freezing 200,000 Tons of Lethal Arsenic Dust: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4nZDSLdIiM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4nZDSLdIiM
  - concordDance 4y ago
    It doesn't matter whether or not your new big corp service is in the "takes a couple of hours to fix" category. It will still take months and will be even more unreliable than the startup service.
- juve1996 4y ago
  Look how many startups fail vs those large corporations. Move fast and break things doesn't work in meat space
- satisfice 4y ago
  I have worked in a large corporation (Apple, but back when it had only 12,000 employees). Yes, it is harder to build when there are more voices. The answer is not to demean or marginalize those voices. The answer is to create relationships so that you build legitimate trust. Then you can proceed with fewer people in the actual room, without abusing the people outside the room.

concordDance 4y ago

Essentially the more people have veto power or require consultation the harder it is to get anything done. The more policies and rules there are (particularly once uncertainty about what the rules are creeps in), the harder it is to build. If you've worked in a large corporation and a 10 man startup this should be obvious. In the latter you can spin up a new service in a couple of hours. In the former a couple of months is a blistering pace.

dane-pgp 4y ago
> In the latter you can spin up a new service in a couple of hours. In the former a couple of months is a blistering pace. In the latter you can harm society in ways that take a couple of hours to fix. In the former, you can cause harms that take months or years to fix (and, with enough lobbying, you can make taxpayers foot the bill).
- MichaelZuo 4y ago
  Very true. It's quite shocking how often supposedly 'very smart' folks suddenly stop thinking when considering second order, and higher, consequences. Maybe it's a symptom of some deeper underlying problem, motivated thinking, etc...
- mikeholler 4y ago
  You're absolutely right. The "move fast and break things" position in society is just not good. It's fine if you're doing rapid prototyping on a product that can be easily discarded cheaply and at low cost to everyone involved. It's another thing entirely to move fast and break things without considering the people who will be affected, and asking what they think about it, especially for things that are not easily or cheaply reverted.
- lordswork 4y ago
  >In the former, you can cause harms that take months or years to fix (and, with enough lobbying, you can make taxpayers foot the bill). I don't think "years" is enough to convey the potential damage unregulated businesses can cause. The time and resources to fix issues can scale well beyond human timescales. This is clearest when environmental damage is involved, whether it be CO2 emissions that will exist for O(100) years in the atmosphere or loss of biodiversity that took O(10,000) years to evolve. Here are a couple of concrete examples of companies inflicting eternal costs onto society that were covered well in Tom Scott videos: The Pumps That Must Run Forever, Or Part Of Germany Floods: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LseK5gp66u8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LseK5gp66u8 Freezing 200,000 Tons of Lethal Arsenic Dust: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4nZDSLdIiM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4nZDSLdIiM
- concordDance 4y ago
  It doesn't matter whether or not your new big corp service is in the "takes a couple of hours to fix" category. It will still take months and will be even more unreliable than the startup service.
juve1996 4y ago
Look how many startups fail vs those large corporations. Move fast and break things doesn't work in meat space
satisfice 4y ago
I have worked in a large corporation (Apple, but back when it had only 12,000 employees). Yes, it is harder to build when there are more voices. The answer is not to demean or marginalize those voices. The answer is to create relationships so that you build legitimate trust. Then you can proceed with fewer people in the actual room, without abusing the people outside the room.