It was an online serial. Any new plotline or character is a live experiment that might publicly fail to work out. That kind of thing does indeed need a lot of work to become a conventionally structured novel. That said I actually thought the ending was pretty alright. Well, most of it.
I read it as saying that even if you solved the incentive misalignments, you would still have very similar annoying symptoms to what people complain about today. So you have to be careful in looking at any particular annoyance to disentangle which aspects of it are inherent complexity to a large company and which are BS. But I already believed that, so I may be steelmanning the article too much.
> Nearly all employees have studied at a university, so the people are very used to writing texts (papers, seminar papers, lecture notes, thesis, ...).
I wish. Most people I've known in universities seem to read and write the absolute minimum to get by.
But I tend to agree that writing is preferable to meetings in most cases. I want to try out a policy that all meetings of more than two people must produce a written artifact, or clarifying edits to an existing document, that explains whatever ambiguity required a meeting to clear up. But you also need people to read. People don't read.
Someone who says there are too many meetings is probably actually saying they are having bad meetings. If they got value from those meetings, they wouldn't be complaining. So there is likely still a problem to address.
Also, as a somewhat trivial side note, an instinctive reaction to not getting the clarity you need from a meeting is to ask for another meeting. So even if the optimal level of meetings is annoyingly high, bad meetings will probably push the level of (bad) meetings even higher. So you'll still actually have "too many" meetings.
> bad meetings will probably push the level of (bad) meetings even higher
bad meetings beget bad meetings
> If they got value from those meetings, they wouldn't be complaining.
This part actually felt quite relevant. Several years in the govt, and there was definitely a difference. Many meetings that felt inane, or meaningless to even attend, where you constantly questioned why you're even there, or bothered to show. Much phone swiping, and social media browsing. Often 10x+ attendance to people that ever participated. I often felt weird even asking anything, cause nobody was participating, and it felt wrong to even try to understand the endless charts on-screen.
However, a rare few that honestly felt quite worthwhile. We arrived, discussed what needed to said, and left with a better comprehension of the situation and the tasks necessary.
Don't assume that. Why would you assume that? The entire thesis of the article is that you do in fact get penalized for that. Even if you don't care about anything else, you're penalized by loss of ability to make people to take you seriously on other problems.
There you go trying use logic on racism. Of course it's not going to work.
The question isn't whether the ancient aliens framework logically supports racism, since it's false anyway and racists don't care about logic (otherwise etc etc). The question for racists is which frameworks most conveniently provide tidbits for them to distort for their own purposes. No logic, pure association and confirmation bias.
Are you sure just switching up the colors and background image wouldn't do it for you?
I just looked at the homepage to see if it was anything different than I see on my machine, and if anything it looks nicer there. It's certainly nothing fancy, but I feel like there's hardly enough there to really count as "ugly". It all fades into the background quickly when you're doing actual work on it. But YMMV I guess.
reply