The Elon Musk BS about indentured servitude on Mars, this was bothering me the other day before I read that quote and I didn’t tweet about it, but yeah I have thoughts about capitalists planning to “save humanity” by leaving earth...
It’s not about saving humanity, it’s about being acknowledged as a “saviour”
More from Tech
On Wednesday, The New York Times published a blockbuster report on the failures of Facebook’s management team during the past three years. It's.... not flattering, to say the least. Here are six follow-up questions that merit more investigation. 1/
1) During the past year, most of the anger at Facebook has been directed at Mark Zuckerberg. The question now is whether Sheryl Sandberg, the executive charged with solving Facebook’s hardest problems, has caused a few too many of her own. 2/ https://t.co/DTsc3g0hQf
2) One of the juiciest sentences in @nytimes’ piece involves a research group called Definers Public Affairs, which Facebook hired to look into the funding of the company’s opposition. What other tech company was paying Definers to smear Apple? 3/ https://t.co/DTsc3g0hQf
3) The leadership of the Democratic Party has, generally, supported Facebook over the years. But as public opinion turns against the company, prominent Democrats have started to turn, too. What will that relationship look like now? 4/
4) According to the @nytimes, Facebook worked to paint its critics as anti-Semitic, while simultaneously working to spread the idea that George Soros was supporting its critics—a classic tactic of anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists. What exactly were they trying to do there? 5/
1) During the past year, most of the anger at Facebook has been directed at Mark Zuckerberg. The question now is whether Sheryl Sandberg, the executive charged with solving Facebook’s hardest problems, has caused a few too many of her own. 2/ https://t.co/DTsc3g0hQf
2) One of the juiciest sentences in @nytimes’ piece involves a research group called Definers Public Affairs, which Facebook hired to look into the funding of the company’s opposition. What other tech company was paying Definers to smear Apple? 3/ https://t.co/DTsc3g0hQf
3) The leadership of the Democratic Party has, generally, supported Facebook over the years. But as public opinion turns against the company, prominent Democrats have started to turn, too. What will that relationship look like now? 4/
4) According to the @nytimes, Facebook worked to paint its critics as anti-Semitic, while simultaneously working to spread the idea that George Soros was supporting its critics—a classic tactic of anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists. What exactly were they trying to do there? 5/
A common misunderstanding about Agile and “Big Design Up Front”:
There’s nothing in the Agile Manifesto or Principles that states you should never have any idea what you’re trying to build.
You’re allowed to think about a desired outcome from the beginning.
It’s not Big Design Up Front if you do in-depth research to understand the user’s problem.
It’s not BDUF if you spend detailed time learning who needs this thing and why they need it.
It’s not BDUF if you help every team member know what success looks like.
Agile is about reducing risk.
It’s not Agile if you increase risk by starting your sprints with complete ignorance.
It’s not Agile if you don’t research.
Don’t make the mistake of shutting down critical understanding by labeling it Bg Design Up Front.
It would be a mistake to assume this research should only be done by designers and researchers.
Product management and developers also need to be out with the team, conducting the research.
Shared Understanding is the key objective
Big Design Up Front is a thing to avoid.
Defining all the functionality before coding is BDUF.
Drawing every screen and every pixel is BDUF.
Promising functionality (or delivery dates) to customers before development starts is BDUF.
These things shouldn’t happen in Agile.
There’s nothing in the Agile Manifesto or Principles that states you should never have any idea what you’re trying to build.
You’re allowed to think about a desired outcome from the beginning.
It’s not Big Design Up Front if you do in-depth research to understand the user’s problem.
It’s not BDUF if you spend detailed time learning who needs this thing and why they need it.
It’s not BDUF if you help every team member know what success looks like.
Agile is about reducing risk.
It’s not Agile if you increase risk by starting your sprints with complete ignorance.
It’s not Agile if you don’t research.
Don’t make the mistake of shutting down critical understanding by labeling it Bg Design Up Front.
It would be a mistake to assume this research should only be done by designers and researchers.
Product management and developers also need to be out with the team, conducting the research.
Shared Understanding is the key objective
I\u2019d recommend that the devs participate directly in the research.
— Jared Spool (@jmspool) November 18, 2018
If the devs go into the first sprint with a thorough understanding of the user\u2019s problems, they are far more likely to solve it well.
Big Design Up Front is a thing to avoid.
Defining all the functionality before coding is BDUF.
Drawing every screen and every pixel is BDUF.
Promising functionality (or delivery dates) to customers before development starts is BDUF.
These things shouldn’t happen in Agile.
There has been a lot of discussion about negative emissions technologies (NETs) lately. While we need to be skeptical of assumed planetary-scale engineering and wary of moral hazard, we also need much greater RD&D funding to keep our options open. A quick thread: 1/10
Energy system models love NETs, particularly for very rapid mitigation scenarios like 1.5C (where the alternative is zero global emissions by 2040)! More problematically, they also like tons of NETs in 2C scenarios where NETs are less essential. https://t.co/M3ACyD4cv7 2/10
In model world the math is simple: very rapid mitigation is expensive today, particularly once you get outside the power sector, and technological advancement may make later NETs cheaper than near-term mitigation after a point. 3/10
This is, of course, problematic if the aim is to ensure that particular targets (such as well-below 2C) are met; betting that a "backstop" technology that does not exist today at any meaningful scale will save the day is a hell of a moral hazard. 4/10
Many models go completely overboard with CCS, seeing a future resurgence of coal and a large part of global primary energy occurring with carbon capture. For example, here is what the MESSAGE SSP2-1.9 scenario shows: 5/10
Energy system models love NETs, particularly for very rapid mitigation scenarios like 1.5C (where the alternative is zero global emissions by 2040)! More problematically, they also like tons of NETs in 2C scenarios where NETs are less essential. https://t.co/M3ACyD4cv7 2/10
There is a lot of confusion about carbon budgets and how quickly emissions need to fall to zero to meet various warming targets. To cut through some of this morass, we can use some very simple emission pathways to explore what various targets would entail. 1/11 pic.twitter.com/Kriedtf0Ec
— Zeke Hausfather (@hausfath) September 24, 2020
In model world the math is simple: very rapid mitigation is expensive today, particularly once you get outside the power sector, and technological advancement may make later NETs cheaper than near-term mitigation after a point. 3/10
This is, of course, problematic if the aim is to ensure that particular targets (such as well-below 2C) are met; betting that a "backstop" technology that does not exist today at any meaningful scale will save the day is a hell of a moral hazard. 4/10
Many models go completely overboard with CCS, seeing a future resurgence of coal and a large part of global primary energy occurring with carbon capture. For example, here is what the MESSAGE SSP2-1.9 scenario shows: 5/10
