I haven't read the book, but I've thought about similar problems. Sharing my attempt at a solution.
First, the organization must have an original steering body made up of "true believers" in a shared mission and vision. This body must make preventing the short or long term erosion or dilution of its mission a priority. Meaning that there's awareness that this particular corruption is a possibility from the start. Also, an understanding of the typical mechanisms through which it can happen (usually very human).
Second, as part of its survival strategy the steering body has the responsibility to identify other genuine true believers and integrate them in its makeup. There must be built-in assumptions that many outsiders will be attracted to its powers of influence and will try to infiltrate it.
Joining the steering council should thus be done primarily based on "culture fit". Admittedly a rather segregating practice, but one which in this case comes with the advantage that certain signals are just hard to fake on the long run. So, although many could try to dress, look, talk, or walk the part for a while, there will always be some shibboleth that trips up impostors.
I foresaw some problems to this structure that I haven't yet worked out, but it feels like a step in the right direction, if I had to come up with a solution.
That sounds very similar to the Alibaba Employee Voting Trust (EVT). That's one of many, many structures that I cover in the book. I would say, in general, one of the reasons that people have a hard time thinking through these structures is that today we treat the leadership/operation side of things as a different discipline/different problem than the governance/structural side of things. In fact, they are two sides of the same coin.
It would be true if they bothered hiding it. But as the featured author said, people seem increasingly not shy of simply forwarding you a screenshot of the AI answer.
I imagine how you intended your comment to come across and I get it to some level. But I can't help feeling that there's something a bit dystopian in a world where all friction is removed just to more quickly get to the juicy bits.
Your analogy is apt in more ways than one. It comes down to how often the point of a journey is to get to the destination. Most old wisdoms teach that the latter is more often just a MacGuffin to embark on the former. If they're right, AI offers tremendous potential for new adventures, but also as a catalyst for completely missing the plot. Yes, we're "free" to choose, but I'm skeptical that a culture conditioning us to eschew friction necessarily equips us to distinguish when the grind and frustration might be "good" for us.
I once made a travel friend who just didn't get the point of me taking eight hours to slow travel by train or by bus across a country that we were both visiting, when she could just hop on a plane and get to the next city in an hour. Earlier in my youth, transportation choices were economically motivated, but what I got from it would influence all future visits to other countries. When chilling with other travelers, exchanging tips and stories, it was as if my friend was visiting a completely different place. She left the country shortly after, confiding to me in the end that she really didn't see what the big deal was with it and that she would probably never be back.
I understand that some people may not resonate with this outlook -- and maybe it's just me getting older -- but I've grown to see that there's indeed such a thing as going through life in a hurry. I do think that the jury's still out as to the overall impact of AI on what I would label "useful friction".
I'm unclear as to where your outrage is directed. Is it that they give jobs offshore? Or rather that those who get them are now victim of their original accent not being heard by Canadians?
This is what tends to happen to code when your focus starts to shift away from how expediently you can write it and closer to how readable/maintainable it really is.
If you're a dev, one approach to specialization is to align with the tooling associated with common "profit center" processes. Become a Salesforce/Hubspot/Odoo/Shopify developer. If you're not interested in developing, you can specialize in learning one specific ecosystem really well and then teach companies -- typically SMBs -- how to set themselves up and organize their operations around it.
This can help and hurt. E.g. if you run a very successful Shopify plugin, you risk Shopify implementing it natively and wiping you out in one fell swoop.
This seems all good and well 10 years ago, but how well does this survive when the actual SMEs can just use LLMs to achieve the same effect? Those are the sort of platforms going all in on that stuff.
The article highlights that the real value of the ZK method is in the discovery of the deeper connections that run between ideas that on the surface may appear unrelated.
I can see how that could be useful in contexts where the work is about mulling over concepts, trying to uncover some hidden patterns. Philosophy, sociology, psychology come to mind. But looking at my large cache of notes on well known technology, I have a hard time seeing where the value would be.
I think it's worth pointing out because ZK pops up quite often on HN, as if it's the pinnacle of note taking. In reality, a lot of people here may just be wasting much of their time.
I've written thousands of notes with just vim and the file system for over 20 years with little protocol. It's worked out great for me. Simple short text files that eventually graduated to markdown. I have folders and subfolders for top level topic hierarchy. Usually just a single level, a parent folder and then files for specific topics. It rarely goes deeper than two levels. I title everything descriptively to guide me to find what I need later. Like I said, thousands of notes spanning 20 years, never a problem.
I'm no expert, but looking from afar it seems to me that complex note-taking systems are an optimization on some anticipated theoretical future problem that seldom materializes in practice, and I think trying to squeeze those promised extra 10% of efficiency might possibly qualify as diminishing returns.
GP's point is not that only heroes should tell the tale, but rather that in this case the whistleblower was also an active part of the problem, but sought to distance herself from her then behavior by swapping it down instead for a more passive lack of situational awereness. That is, she reached for stupidity as an escape hatch from having to reckon with her own malice. And she's now being celebrated for it.
The lack of accountability paired with the celebration of the "hero" are the problem. Not the fact of her testimony.
EDIT: Some people who have similarly testified acknowledged the part they played in the situation they later denounced. So, it is possible for the story to be told and for the teller to also say "I knew what was up. I said nothing. I did nothing. I'm sorry."
That's a strange outlook. How often do you still get shocked that a politician lied? Do you cultivate the surprise effect by fear of feeling complicit if your reaction instead is "what else is new?"
when people do disgusting things, it's okay to be disgusted - saying "what else is new?" is nearly "this does not disgust me" which is essentially condoning it.
not being shocked because it reinforces a negative stereotype you'd already assumed is not the same as dismissing it as uninteresting/expected behavior
First, the organization must have an original steering body made up of "true believers" in a shared mission and vision. This body must make preventing the short or long term erosion or dilution of its mission a priority. Meaning that there's awareness that this particular corruption is a possibility from the start. Also, an understanding of the typical mechanisms through which it can happen (usually very human).
Second, as part of its survival strategy the steering body has the responsibility to identify other genuine true believers and integrate them in its makeup. There must be built-in assumptions that many outsiders will be attracted to its powers of influence and will try to infiltrate it.
Joining the steering council should thus be done primarily based on "culture fit". Admittedly a rather segregating practice, but one which in this case comes with the advantage that certain signals are just hard to fake on the long run. So, although many could try to dress, look, talk, or walk the part for a while, there will always be some shibboleth that trips up impostors.
I foresaw some problems to this structure that I haven't yet worked out, but it feels like a step in the right direction, if I had to come up with a solution.
reply