afriend4lyfe

It makes me sad that I can't read these books for the first time again. I reread them often. Surprisingly enough, my favorite book of the series was The Redemption of Time, a fourth book written by a fan with the blessing of Liu Cixin. If you haven't read it yet and you enjoyed TBP then you're one lucky sumbitch.

So in hindsight what is being suggested? That Tivo should have established its own content network and then add the dvr to it? That TrialPay should have created Stripe and then added the trial pay feature?

I think I'm misinterpreting this advice because it sounds to me like the chicken and the egg problem.

"In the later years of his life, Mr Kamprad had faced questions over his past links to the Nazis."

It's crazy how he ran Ikea for over 70 years but a quarter of the article deals with his ties to Nazis. Granted, he admits it was the "greatest mistake" of his life, so I suppose the attention to it may not be unwarranted. But I think it would have been prudent to touch on what caused him to shift his perspective. "Youthful stupidity" doesn't convey much.

Still, I can't help but feel like the information age is ushering in a modern-day version of the Akashic records. A double-edged sword anyone with an internet connection can consult. We laud past failures as learning experiences when it comes to startups, almost as if it's a badge of honor. But it's a very different story when someone violates a social contract, even in retrospect. (Albeit there are plenty of cases where people are embraced because of the drastic changes they made in their life, e.g. gang members that become speakers for at-risk youth.)

I think there's both a wisdom, and ignorance, of crowds/culture. And these crowds are constantly redrawing the line of who deserves redemption. Lately, the line seems to be inching in the wrong direction in my opinion.

With the advent of the internet it's scary to think about how efficiently the arbiters of information control the narrative. "We do not judge men by what they are in themselves, but by what they are relatively to us." -Madame Swetchine.

"Despite Mr. Fink’s insistence that companies benefit society, it’s worth noting he’s not playing down the importance of profits and, while it’s a subtle point, he believes that having social purpose is inextricably linked to a company’s ability to maintain its profits."

Perhaps capitalism is realizing what thinking long term actually means then? The future for humanity is bleak if we continue down the path of unsustainable business practices. At this point we really do know better. We can't allow our only natural habitat to be exhausted for the sake a few luxurious generations.

At the current rate our businesses are exploiting the environment and people, it's honestly hard to say what's bound to happen first, the planet reaching its limit or the poor eating the rich. Either way, change gon' come. Hopefully we avoid all of that and start thinking about more than just our own immediate futures.

In this way, I think the real long term strategy is to inject some compassion and empathy into business.

>It's actually these anti-government, anti-establishment people usually spreading completely irrational fear.

Those groups don't have access to the mainstream channels and platforms to spread their influence like the establishment does. More often than not, that same establishment will paint those groups as the perpetrators of everything that is wrong.

Can you elaborate in your comment? What do you mean local coffee shop? And why is an echo chamber insinuated in that statement?

Sounds interesting! Any links you can provide to the project?

Conway's law has been popping up a lot lately for me. Can you share some typical examples of "communication structures of these organizations" and the systems they inevitably result in?

Ah, forgive me. I totally took it out of context.

"don't use technology to solve a social problem"

Where does this axiom stem from? A quick google search shows many instances of proclaiming the opposite.

Body cameras on police address a social problem.. If you're talking in absolute terms, such as something being the perfect solution that vanquishes an issue (i.e. a silver bullet) then I think it's a disingenuous stance to take. Social problems aren't solved overnight, and the greatest ones have always required incremental approaches.

This feels akin to saying, "I need code that's 100% bug-free", but in reality, writing bugless code isn't the goal.

If the big ISPs started throttling data and putting up walled gardens, what would stop competitors from entering the market to offer the "net neutral" flavor of internet we're used to?

Some communities are already banding together to start their own ISPs. I'm not familiar with how they deal with the "last mile" infrastructure challenge. But if it only took a big investment up front then that begs the question why did Google Fiber fail? Lack of community support?

If net neutrality was as valuable to us as we make it out to be, then what would stop local grassroots efforts from installing their own community-based ISPs in response to losing it?