I’m guessing these responses really reflect people’s weighted averages (age*current average effort fraction) though I kept it simple and asked for just averages.

following a discussion at @yak_collective this morning, I came up with this chart to capture a hypothesis I have that the difficulty of creating communities scales exponentially with the the "depth" of what you're trying to do

thanks @grigorimilov for leading the discussion that sparked this.

The way to read the graph is: each line is a time history of difficulty. It starts dotted, goes through a criticality inflection point, and then crests in difficulty before coming down to a stable plateau.

The inflection points have different names depending on context, but are all topologically similar. They are the make or break moment when a network-effect either kicks in, or fails to. "Product-market fit" in the case of market is the best known such point.

Level 1 is a basic social community, such as a FB group, meetup etc. There are millions of successful ones, and 100s of millions of failures. The "fit point" is what I call a meme-mind fit, when some social object catalyzes a sustainable long-term conversation of growing richness

Almost everything I've helped instigate is Level 1. My contributions to the social-object soup have been things like the vocabulary around sociopaths/clueless/losers, legibility, 2x2s etc.

stacks are eating the world

business used to be easiest to comprehend via a) market-based logic of horizontal vs. vertical STRUCTURE, b) professionalization/specialization based FUNCTION c) core competencies based BEHAVIORS

this has pretty much collapsed in the last decade

Structure = sclerosis
Functional specialization = bureaucracy
competencies = inertial habits

"Stack" thinking instead lets technology structure (rather than market structure) drive business org logic

Companies seem to do well when they identify an entire stack of technologies they are good at (not just point bits) and organize to conform to its logic. There is a "full-stack" dimension of technical specialization that is the spine of the org

It feels buzzwordy, but it really is getting to be that way. AI stack, decarbonization stack, mobility stack, electrification stack... some end-to-end pathway of turning physics into economics via layers of tech artistically baked together like a cake

There are only 3 real challenges to free speech at the tech level a) the need for CDNs at scale b) distortions of net neutrality c) nation-state firewalls.

All other claims are about social governance on private sites, where applying free speech doctrine is a stretch at best

Baseline free speech has expanded modestly since 1776 or whatever your reference point is.

About 20% beyond core case of government-critical speech in formally public spaces and media I'd say.

You can (for example) have more kinds of conversations in a bar without getting punched or kicked out by other patrons or management. You can teach more things in colleges than 100 years ago.

That's a genuine de facto increase in practical, informal free speech/expression.

But online free "speech" is, as @reneed has pointed out, not an expansion of free speech at all, but an expansion of reach. It is like the secondary freedom of the press to print as many copies as they can afford, not primary freedom to say what they want

If a newspaper wants to print more copies it has buy more printing equipment and front more upfront costs. Reach for a paper publication is not "free", but a function of desired circulation, which in turn is a function of demand prediction etc. But that logic is obscured online.

8 rules the top play by that those at the bottom should adopt.

— Thread
(requested by followers)

1. Leverage

Most poor people don't leverage. Trying to get everything done yourself will limit you to only how much you can do.

Get more hands working for you, and find a way to pay or show them what's in it for them.

2. Trust

When doing business, poor people would require collateral from strangers, but excuse those close to them because they *trust* them.

That's how you get scammed.

The unspoken rule is to know your safety net whenever you're not taking collateral.

Never need to trust.

3. Morality

Never seen a very successful businessman say "This is not a good thing, it's evil."

It's either good for business or bad for business. Its either effective or ineffective.

Morality will only limit you.

4. Reciprocity

Expecting someone to help you because you helped them in the past is ludicrous.

If you're no longer useful to them, people have no reason to help you.

"Whenever you see water flowing upstream it means someone it repaying a kindness."

— 48 Laws Of Power

X : Do you think cloud will decentralise?
Me : Already has - started with regions and AZs and is now rapidly expanding into outpost, greengrass, EKS anwhere.
X : No, I mean many providers.
Me : There are two forms of decentralisation - provision and control (i.e. authorities) ...

... what is happening is decentralisation of provision (i.e. cloud everywhere, at the edge) but under centralised authorities (Amazon, Alibaba, MSFT, Google etc).
X : What about decentralisation of control?
Me : Many companies working to a common standard ...

... that was the dream of OpenStack but they blew that on day one creating a collective prisoner dilemma. They are trying to recorrect this with K8s but the cloud has moved on, higher up the stack ...

... so, the idea of a marketplace of many different companies each having authority is ... wishful thinking by past vendors and clients they've hoodwinked. Maybe in 15-20 years we will get another go ... open source is a long game ...

... more likely is many points of provision i.e. companies offering EKS anywhere on a utility basis but under centralised authority e.g. AWS.

So, yes, the cloud is going to edge, has been for sometime but it'll be AWS / Alibaba / MSFT cloud that is everywhere.

LEEDS LEADS CLIMATE BREAKDOWN

8 hours and 1000 flawed arguments and biased procedures later, Leeds City Plans Panel voted 9-5 for airport expansion and the false promises of economic growth.
For “what Leeds needs is a premier-league football club and a premier-league airport”
🧵

1/ There was a lot of "I do care about climate change, BUT" – followed by a lot of blah blah. Blah blah economic growth. Blah blah connectivity. Blah blah competitiveness. Blah blah Manchester. Blah blah Westminster. Blah blah offsetting. Blah blah electric planes. Blah blah blah

2/ Also a lot of "I do have sympathy for residents suffering from planes flying over their roofs at night, BUT” - followed by more blah blah.
One councillor kindly offered his advice: “the way to less noise is more planes”. Right, Sherlock. Want to try that in your backyard?🤦‍♂️

3/ The true sympathies were revealed at the end. The Panel's priority was not the well-being of those living under the flight path, nor the lives and livelihoods of threatened by climate breakdown. Their priority was a bigger, noisier airport, with a terminal in bronze-champagne.

4/ First declaring your sympathy for people’s suffering and then supporting a development that directly aggravates their suffering, is a proper kick in the face for those suffering the consequences. Like first declaring a climate emergency and then aggravating climate breakdown.

🧵 @DianeLangberg wrote about NDAs in Christian environments, noting “An NDA is an agreement to hide something. In the cases I have encountered it has always been an agreement to exercise power over and hide sin.... [it is] unlike our Lord.”
1/

NDAs are traditionally “non-disclosure” - don’t talk about specific X. Often in church/ministry cases - they’re overly broad - don’t talk abt *anything* re: your employment

but also may include

“non-disparagement” - don’t say anything negative about us EVEN IF IT IS TRUE
2/

Numerous articles have described the use of NDAs in Christian environments and the conflict with principles described in the very faith supposedly being promoted. I’m linking them here then I’ll offer my 20-year lawyer and victim of silencing (gag order) take on the practice.
3/

“Silence of the sheep” (2018) from @emlybelz described how the conference of catholic bishops has now banned NDAs in abuse cases but how some churches and Christian orgs still use them without

Later in 2018, @scotmcknight discussed NDAs after the Bill Hybels sex abuse scandal, noting that often the stronger party is implicated in sin because the whole reason for the NDA is bc they know that something is wrong and they don’t want it