Re: The end of America

Having listened to Naomi Wolf as she speaks about "10 steps to fascism" here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc

and here is a supporting story in Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2064157,00.html

I was applying the principles she suggests to current situation in Russia one by one, and surprisingly, they hardly applied:

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy.

Pass. None of those exist in modern Russia. Chechnen terrorists looked like a mixed ex/internal threat once, but then quickly diminished. No external power is considered a threat. There are "me too" kind of reactions to the America-declared global war of terrorism, such as the absurd requirement to take off one's shoes in the airports, but that looks like a totally random acts of power rather than a iron fist lead.

2. Create a gulag.

Well, I wouldn't know. In a country whose leader has invented gulag, I'm sure as hell there are secret prisons, but then they don't have to be secret, any would do. So, I'd say no, there is no gulag in modern Russia in the meaning of the word Naomi Wolf puts in it.

3. Develop a thug caste.

No such thing. Or, multiple such things, depending on what you mean. There is no single dedicated paramilitary force and none are emerging. There is army, state police, corporate security guards, and all sorts of criminal organisations, I'd presume. They all may apply force pursuing their arbitrary goals, but I don't think they orchestrate. This is not to obscure the fact that the police or army could at any point be given any orders.

4. Set up an internal surveillance system.

There easily could be files on anyone, just as with the mentioned Stasi, but I don't think there is a global network of surveillance and the percentage of informants has hopefully decreased since KGB time.

5. Harass citizens' groups.

Citizen groups ? What citizen groups ? None of active opposition to the power, that's for sure. Groups of political hobbyists and minorities of all sorts may be present, but noone worth mentioning with real power or a threat to power. Therefore there is no reason to persuasively harrass anyone. At any rate, they don't make a show out of it.

6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release.

It's not comforting, but I'd guess, yes, it's just like that. The stories of people being detained, kept in prisons, beaten and tortured appear every now and then. And the purpose could very well be the same - to terrorize and intimidate the entire population, even if in subtle way.

7. Target key individuals.

Check. Except, there is no key individuals. There are occassional public executions of someone who is sort of in opposition, but the truth is - there is no opposition. Oh, and nevermind the reporters murders.

8. Control the press.

Check. I mean, absolutely.

9. Dissent equals treason.

I'd answer this question if anyone could tell me what the today's Russia consent is ? Anything sacred ? Take Americans, they worship their democracy and freedom (ahem, given the steps to fascism title, this sounds awkward), but in Russia - what is the true way ? The way I see it, right now Russia is happily doing nothing, basically selling oil for food.

Actually, it's funny how I can't come up with anything that would sound plausible and treasonous at the same time. Brainwashed with no access to the facts - the most likely cause.

10. Suspend the rule of law.

Well, there is no martial law in Russia right now and I hope not to ever see it. We have laws and justice, right ? Although Russians are traditionally very sceptical to the laws and justice, but you can't argue that codices exist and trials work.

So, it sounded not so bad, right ? But wait until it comes to about minute 41 of the speech, and the answer should have been obvious in the context - the closed society doesn't look like one.

To quote Naomi Wolf:

We have this, like, wrong notion of what a closed society looks like. ... A closed society, even a violent military dictatorship, [looks a lot like] civil society, there are still elections, they are just corrupted. ... There is still a judiciary in a closed society, they are just not free to adjudicate freely. ... There's still academics, they're just watching what they're saying. There is still newspapers, you just know how far to push the enquiry.

Duh ! What can I say, welcome to the closed society. We'll have to see how it works out in America. Anyway, the speech was very thought-provocative.

Re: Backpack

Having listened to Jason Fried as he speaks about the process they use at 37signals:

http://itc.conversationsnetwork.org/shows/detail471.html

I couldn't agree more to nearly all of his points. Also while listening to it, I had this associaction of the process with nothing but Brownian motion.

See, Jason essentially suggests that you have a small team of positive people in a small and lightweight cart and then allow every single individual product user push it in whichever direction he or she feels appropriate. A single user's push may not matter much, but if many of them push in the same direction, the cart moves. Then, this ease of feedback will also encourage the users to push more.

There are many other fine points in his speech and so I would definetely recommend to listen to it. Anyhow, here is a few other thoughts.

For one, the word "architecture" doesn't come up, but I do believe in architectures. Although architecture wouldn't emerge from the process outlined above, I thought that it would still present at the end, as one of the artifacts Jason calls "embraced constraints". These are restrictions that you enforce on your project in pursuit for optimal solutions. And architecture is just that.

For two, the described process is perfect for exactly this particular niche - web-based collaboration-like projects open for mass public access. It wouldn't work in many other cases, for example, if you build a project which you target towards big companies. Or, if the audience is too few, so that there is not enough user mass to push the cart.

For three, it seems logical to me that such brownian motion wouldn't last forever, the project trajectory would converge to some ideal point. And having such ideal point in mind from day one may be beneficial.

Otherwise, there was may be one thing that I don't agree with, and even that was minor and taken out of the context, it's when Jason says "get rid of boxes and arrows". While he probably meant functional diagrams in the context of the speech, getting rid of my favourite boxes and arrows feels scary. I would never give up such powerful mental instruments as boxes and arrows.

Overall, a great speech.

Re: To mistake is human

By programming we delegate the right to failure to the computer.

But the responsibility is still with us.

Re: Tono Bungay

I've recently had a chance to read some Herbert Wells. It's been my opinion before that he was one of the greatest science fiction writers, a great visionary if you like. But it turns out that most of his novels are non-fiction. The ones that I've read are deeply inspirational and more interesting to read since they still have a strong connection to the real life, no matter that a hundred years have passed.

Quote from his Tono Bungay:

Always before these times the bulk of the people did not over-eat themselves, because they couldn't, whether they wanted to do so or not, and all but a very few were kept "fit" by unavoidable exercise and personal danger. Now, if only he pitch his standard low enough and keep free from pride, almost any one can achieve a sort of excess. You can go through contemporary life fudging and evading, indulging and slacking, never really hungry nor frightened nor passionately stirred, your highest moment a mere sentimental orgasm, and your first real contact with primary and elemental necessities, the sweat of your death-bed.

And this, mind you, is written in 1909.

Re: The Illusion of Certainty

Found this article on Design Observer:

The illusion of certainty

An interesting observation on how illusionary a structure imposed by form (or anything really) can be.

Quote:

... the rational side of our brains leads us to such solutions because they gesture to an odd kind of certainty. That tension — between structure and freedom, between form and its variation — is an essential characteristic of design thinking.

Experience is the name ...

About this quote by Oscar Wilde:

Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes

I thought it had an interesting language twist to it. Although the apparent interpretation suggests that everyone is hiding their mistakes behind the word "experience", there is another way of looking at it:

Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes

so that it means that everyone finds a name for their mistakes, and that name becomes the experience. Thus by picking good or bad word for referring to their mistakes, everyone can totally change the way they perceive their experience.

Re: The "Snakes on a Plane" Problem

Found an interesting article on Reddit:
The "Snakes on a Plane" Problem

Quote:

I worked in newspapers for eight years, right when that industry was starting to disintegrate. As such, we spent a lot of time talking with focus groups, forever trying to figure out what readers wanted. And here is what they wanted: everything. [...] When it comes to mass media, it's useless to ask people what they want; nobody knows what they want until they have it.

Why this sounds all so familiar ?