dood

Multiple trends combining to reach a tipping point, mainly decreased appetite for capital investment by the west, inflation expectations becoming increasingly embedded and pandemic destabilization constraining supply/strengthening opec.

It's hard to see the era of cheap oil making a sudden comeback in this environment so this speculation doesn't seem unreasonable, though may be a tad overeager since winter is coming.

Some interesting parallels between the 1970's and the 2020's, both seeing global economic growth stagnating after a protracted boom period ending in major economic crises, inducing a kind of awkward period of digestive realignment.

It is remarkable how overlooked that era is today, despite it being a highly transformational time and economically very distinct, yet it's remembered mostly just by disco and unusually gritty movies.

Perhaps because compared to the revolutionary 60's (and later rebuilding of the 80's) it's a more confusingly anarchic time with no clear narrative to grasp a hold of to make sense of it.

More like a messy organic reorganisation as both the counter-culture and traditional culture lost coherence in the face of high unemployment & high inflation, and with society's rule book torn up but no clear path to a better one.

Maybe being a time of social fragmentation and escalating ambient mayhem from crime, hijackings, bombings etc, the best way to make sense of it is actually to watch those great auteur movies unique to the era dripping with atmosphere and mood. Less of a narrative, more a vibe.

"The map is not the territory" is so widely known as to be almost a truism, but the post's conclusion is an excellent, pithy summary of the practical implications of this idea:

> you do not understand a model, map, or reduction unless you understand and respect its limitations

This simple but powerful corollary is easily and widely overlooked, perhaps because the mind's use of maps and models as stand-ins for reality runs so deep that the full import of this statement about the profound unknowability of the world around us is too terrifying to permit contemplation.

SEEKING WORK | London | Onsite or Remote | 6 month+ contract preferred

Primarily a Python dev, great at understanding business needs and rapidly delivering agile, effective solutions. Long and broad experience including backend, frontend, Javascript, business operations, data engineering, devops & AWS, across multiple industries.

Please contact via email in my profile for inquiries.

I think there is a simpler explanation, that has nothing to do with technology, productivity, or society: big companies are naturally inefficient internally (due to complexity) but as a whole are best optimized for capturing and retaining markets/regulators.

Another example: if somebody asks you to do a random task (which is essential, very important, top priority), then a tiny amount of push back - e.g. sending an email asking for clarification of what is needed and why - often makes the task suddenly become unnecessary.

The broader principle is that if a request for expenditure of time/effort/money has minimal cost or risk to the requester, they are incentivized to request unlimited expenditure if it has any potential to benefit to them.

Could you give an example of this please?

I almost reflexively closed the tab just from reading this comment.

Probably too late to this thread, but anyway - the key to understanding agile tomfoolery is that processes are most effective if they evolve to meet the needs of the people in the team.

A process will always feel like a burden (and be less effective for it) unless it is co-created by the people right in the middle of it. Most people like doing a good job if they're permitted to, and like supporting their colleagues if it doesn't prevent them doing a good job. Few people want to make their colleagues' job harder or get in fights - much of this is friction caused by bad processes.

Given a chance to talk over problems faced by each team-member and to discover fair solutions, a team that dislikes agile may themselves choose to adopt parts of agile if it is obvious that it solves real problems and makes the team more effective.

The difference between a pointless, painful, morale-destroying standup and a fun, useful, team-building standup is that one is imposed from outside and the other naturally arises from a team allowed to figure out for themselves how best to work together.

One of HN's favourite quotes applies here too:

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

Ironically, the incentives for economists to understand booms and busts are much weaker than the incentives not to understand.

The term refers to people who don't try to get into the art world in-group but still create interesting things, so "outsider" is an accurate and literal description of their status. However the in-group is uncomfortable with consciously engaging with this dynamic and the dysfunction it points to, so engages in a little double-think and invents more palatable justifications for using the term "outsider".

The idea of ignoring in-group games of meaning and status, instead creating works entirely from playful self-expression, is so alien it is best left outside.