So here are some of my daily challenges for the past few years. If I [eat, sleep, exercise, recreate, and socialise] carefully, then I worry that I am being irresponsible with regards to the quantity of my time spent at work. If instead I ignore [the listed items], then instead I worry that the quality of my time spent at work is suboptimal. If we ignore the inputs, and judge my work solely on its output, then the sum of my work is quite a turd. My shareholders have received no dividends in over four years, my customers are happy but not happy enough to send our business to effortless profitability, our staff is a mixed bag of extraordinary achievements and ordinary failings, we lost two thirds of our operating founders within a month of starting work, and have added none since, and we have never raised financing since inception, even though we spent most of our first round of financing within FY1. Operationally, I am just now catching up with bookkeeping from seven months ago, we have several broken machines taking up space on our production floor and limiting our topline, I have a ban on using social media so we spend exorbitant amounts on advertising instead, I have outstanding regulatory compliance concerns, and I have yet to completely write a web framework that I trust before I care to invest in web development for our digital product and content launches - subsequent priorities will be an update to the menu, lots of hardtalk on B2B offerings, more public cloud integration, some share sales, and an eventual resumption of HVACR manipulation. Ok that's it, I think I have a balanced portfolio. Just need to take stock of it from time to time.
2019-10-25 at 11:52 am
Comment: 'Nihilism' Considered Ambiguous
(I was discussing this note * with a pundit.)
I think you can say, we share a sentiment that people may or may not be valuable (a) simply for existing, (b) because they achieve a minimum level of (bi) intelligence or (bii) economic fungibility, (c) implicit or explicit participation in some form of social contract.
Now all (a, b, c) are debateable. So for example, I am strongly opposed to (a), amenable to (b), and I tend to l prefer (cii). So in practice I am a sort of nazi because I would encourage selective execution (or simply resource exclusion) for certain types of individuals based on their abilities (b: ablism) or willingness to engage in protocol (c: legalism).
You on the other hand, seem to have assumed position (a). Which is all well and good. I think you want to avoid terms like nihilism which lack a specific reference definition.
If we must talk about zero allocations of value, it is quite possible I would just press the button and nuke all of civilisation as we know it, if I had the opportunity. But that is quite fantastic as a hypothesis, can will be difficult to prove or disprove. If we must talk about provable participation in policy, I have a very basic approach to citizenship at this time: I have never voted in a government election, and I have never bought a special insurance policy for my health or disability (outside from some SMS driven thing my cellphone provider once sent me). On the other hand, I find it useful to kill time that I have left alive in building things.
So I don't think life as a whole is valuable. But I do think, that given a state of life, it is amusing to see what we can get done, just for shits. :)
* The note:
I think you can say, we share a sentiment that people may or may not be valuable (a) simply for existing, (b) because they achieve a minimum level of (bi) intelligence or (bii) economic fungibility, (c) implicit or explicit participation in some form of social contract.
Now all (a, b, c) are debateable. So for example, I am strongly opposed to (a), amenable to (b), and I tend to l prefer (cii). So in practice I am a sort of nazi because I would encourage selective execution (or simply resource exclusion) for certain types of individuals based on their abilities (b: ablism) or willingness to engage in protocol (c: legalism).
You on the other hand, seem to have assumed position (a). Which is all well and good. I think you want to avoid terms like nihilism which lack a specific reference definition.
If we must talk about zero allocations of value, it is quite possible I would just press the button and nuke all of civilisation as we know it, if I had the opportunity. But that is quite fantastic as a hypothesis, can will be difficult to prove or disprove. If we must talk about provable participation in policy, I have a very basic approach to citizenship at this time: I have never voted in a government election, and I have never bought a special insurance policy for my health or disability (outside from some SMS driven thing my cellphone provider once sent me). On the other hand, I find it useful to kill time that I have left alive in building things.
So I don't think life as a whole is valuable. But I do think, that given a state of life, it is amusing to see what we can get done, just for shits. :)
* The note:
/commented on empathy as a tool for retention/
On my end, I filter and counsel out the staff who are dependent on empathy for well-being. I really want to retain the more independent ones. It's more expensive, but the results are less disruptive to business continuity.
/further comment/
I agree it's a fact that every human will bring their own background to a conversation. I also think that a lot of business opportunities exist because some backgrounds lead to predictable behaviour. Take for example the notion that people are free to pursue happiness - it's illegal and generally discouraged to obtain happiness by suicide, but it's legal and generally encouraged to obtain happiness by candy. This sort of landscape produces very specific business opportunities. It is up to the entrepreneur to design an objective, and to pay the cost of engineering its outcome, despite certain risks. So different brands with different values exist, and there will be different types of employees which exemplify each brand accordingly. Not all brands want to celebrate empathy, some brands may have an outright derision for it, and so their employees will have to be aligned with that. Lol.
2019-10-22 at 7:43 am
Curiosity: Housing Economics - Buyers' or Sellers' Market?
/question on housing economics, from a group/
Co-living is a new word for an old thing. Go through synonyms such as loft housing, communes, etc.
Most residences are residences of convenience. If someone wants to make money off an industry of convenience as a seller, they'd better damn well know what conveniences are needed by the buyers.
Residential rent:
It's a seller's market if wages are rising across the economy, because there's always something 'more convenient' for a buyer to upgrade to.
In an economy where growth is near zero, therefore wage growth is near zero or negative, it seems that buyers (i.e. tenants, the personal finance bit) can always choose to reduce convenience to generate cash.
Curious.
Co-living is a new word for an old thing. Go through synonyms such as loft housing, communes, etc.
Most residences are residences of convenience. If someone wants to make money off an industry of convenience as a seller, they'd better damn well know what conveniences are needed by the buyers.
Residential rent:
It's a seller's market if wages are rising across the economy, because there's always something 'more convenient' for a buyer to upgrade to.
In an economy where growth is near zero, therefore wage growth is near zero or negative, it seems that buyers (i.e. tenants, the personal finance bit) can always choose to reduce convenience to generate cash.
Curious.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)