https://contraptions.venkateshrao.com/p/as-above-so-garage I kind of liked this Venkatesh Rao essay. the “garage project” sort of hackerish engineering is a “hobby” project that has potential to connect to the “big story” of advanced technology (unlike, say, woodworking, which may be personally or artistically fulfilling but is clearly opting out of the race towards the cutting edge) but also is a sort of “pure” personal project that has no obligation to deliver a result or make a profit or please anyone but oneself. it’s that intersection of “probably nothing” but “could be something”, limitless potential at the far horizon but tiny in the here-and-now/
“tinkering in your garage” is the tech equivalent of “starting a band” in the days where rock bands had a shot at stardom
there’s a Fun Theory thing here. it’s not Fun to do things that you know are trivial/meaningless and will definitely never “matter” in a big or deep sense; it’s also not Fun to be burdened with expectations and obligations. Fun thrives in the zone of “playing around that could someday grow into Something”
https://substack.com/home/post/p-154556883 Dan Davies on the problem of governments that outsource everything to contractors and NGOs, which then fail to do the job and can’t be held accountable or monitored because the government no longer has the staff or the expertise to oversee the project in detail.
outsourcing was, itself, a response to the high cost (and overspending and overstaffing) of governments running programs directly through civil service departments. the hope was that outsourcing would impose market discipline through competition.
from this point of view i’m not sure what one can do.
if the government refuses to provide public services at all, people might overthrow it?
or at least vote it out in elections
if the government provides public services itself, it will predictably overcharge, underdeliver, and engage in direct abuses of power
if the government hires third parties to provide public services, those parties will predictably overcharge and underdeliver, except more opaquely and in ways that are less amenable to being changed when voters get disgruntled.
http://okayfail.com/2025/i-met-pg-once.html heartfelt and says something I’ve been concerned about myself. when you say you’re “anti-woke”, how can we tell whether that means you’re against specific, recent types of administrative overreach or whether e.g. you actually want to drive gender-nonconforming people out of public life? I’m sure there’s some of both going on, but there’s also a lot of uncomfortable (or strategic) ambiguity, which is a much more pressing concern for those with personal reason to worry whether they’re going to experience a huge rise in discrimination.
the problem of governments that outsource everything to contractors and NGOs, which then fail to do the job and can’t be held accountable or monitored because the government no longer has the staff or the expertise to oversee the project in detail.
I have seen this happen, both in government and in private companies. It’s like people don’t realize the full extent of the principal-agent problem. The solution seems easy “just outsource the task to someone else, and if you are not happy about the outcome, fire them and hire someone else”. Here is what sometimes happens instead:
you have actually no idea whether the outcome is good or bad; different people give you contradictory strong opinions, and of course the contractor says that it’s good and that the people who say it’s bad are merely trying to deceive you into taking their services instead;
it turns out that firing the contractor is impossible, because they have built a large and complex project no one else understands, and if they stop maintaining it for a moment, it will all fall apart, with all responsibility being yours;
it turns out that the outcome kinda sucks but you can live with it, and trying to replace the contractors and rebuild the solution would be possible but too expensive (also in terms of political capital: some important guy has approved of the project, now he would look like an idiot);
the outcome sucks and you could fire the contractor and hire a new one, but you realize that you actually have no way to make sure that the next contractor is any better, so maybe you should stick with the devil you know, and hope that they will get more competent as they keep working for you.
There are even contractors out there who create such situations on purpose; that is their actual business model. Like, they will provide you excellent customer service first, so you switch to their system, then they make sure that switching back would be too expensive for you, and then the customer service becomes crappy. (That’s basically how SAP works. You pay for their system and e.g. 5 developers to help you. The first year, they will give your their best 5 developers, and the system does everything you want. So you switch your entire company to SAP. From then on, they will give you 5 junior developers—for the same price—and every little change you want now requires buying a new module and expensive customization.
With government, another problem is that the election cycle means no one is interested in making things work long-term. Switch to contractors can be done overnight (and someone can collect a bribe for that), growing your own team of experts from zero is difficult and takes years, so it almost never happens. And even if it happens by a miracle, again with a proper bribe the system can revert back overnight.
when you say you’re “anti-woke”, how can we tell whether that means you’re against specific, recent types of administrative overreach or whether e.g. you actually want to drive gender-nonconforming people out of public life?
This feels like a false dilemma, are there no options in between? For example, I would be against specific administrative overreaches or whatever, but I am also against the general atmosphere of hate aimed at white men. I don’t want to drive anyone out of anything, but I want the same courtesy to be extended to myself. What happened to the idea of fucking equality? I didn’t choose my race or gender any more than any other person, so if you are going to hold that against me, expect some pushback.
It sucks that politics often becomes a battle of wide coalitions, where your choices are limited to choosing a group that includes those who hate X, or choosing a group that includes those who hate Y. Not sure what can be done about it.
links 1/21/2025: https://roamresearch.com/#/app/srcpublic/page/01-21-2025
https://sammatey.substack.com/p/the-weekly-anthropocene-interviews-84c news is about entertainment rather than information...yeah i guess, but i’m not sure what to do about that, i probably don’t actually need to know most of what’s going on!
https://contraptions.venkateshrao.com/p/as-above-so-garage I kind of liked this Venkatesh Rao essay. the “garage project” sort of hackerish engineering is a “hobby” project that has potential to connect to the “big story” of advanced technology (unlike, say, woodworking, which may be personally or artistically fulfilling but is clearly opting out of the race towards the cutting edge) but also is a sort of “pure” personal project that has no obligation to deliver a result or make a profit or please anyone but oneself. it’s that intersection of “probably nothing” but “could be something”, limitless potential at the far horizon but tiny in the here-and-now/
“tinkering in your garage” is the tech equivalent of “starting a band” in the days where rock bands had a shot at stardom
there’s a Fun Theory thing here. it’s not Fun to do things that you know are trivial/meaningless and will definitely never “matter” in a big or deep sense; it’s also not Fun to be burdened with expectations and obligations. Fun thrives in the zone of “playing around that could someday grow into Something”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_cities
NYC is only ranked 35, behind Moscow??
things I looked up while reading about Venice
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombard_(weapon)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cr%C3%A9cy
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Zeno
Venetian admiral
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hawkwood
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Company
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Dandolo
doge
https://it.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagano_Doria
Genoese admiral
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%C3%B2_Pisani
Venetian admiral
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetian_Gothic_architecture
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Polo
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ashraf_Khalil
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saladin
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamluk_Sultanate
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/books/NBK559170/
https://www.thepopverse.com/movies-nosferatu-count-orlok-bill-skarsgard-voice-robert-eggers yep, Count Orlok in Robert Eggers’ Nosferatu is speaking Dacian
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/28/trump-zuckerberg-election-book-00176639 is this a serious threat? who can tell any more. i suppose if people respond to it, it’s an effective threat.
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-mark-zuckerberg-threats-meta-political-content-changes-2025-1
https://substack.com/home/post/p-154556883 Dan Davies on the problem of governments that outsource everything to contractors and NGOs, which then fail to do the job and can’t be held accountable or monitored because the government no longer has the staff or the expertise to oversee the project in detail.
outsourcing was, itself, a response to the high cost (and overspending and overstaffing) of governments running programs directly through civil service departments. the hope was that outsourcing would impose market discipline through competition.
from this point of view i’m not sure what one can do.
if the government refuses to provide public services at all, people might overthrow it?
or at least vote it out in elections
if the government provides public services itself, it will predictably overcharge, underdeliver, and engage in direct abuses of power
if the government hires third parties to provide public services, those parties will predictably overcharge and underdeliver, except more opaquely and in ways that are less amenable to being changed when voters get disgruntled.
http://okayfail.com/2025/i-met-pg-once.html heartfelt and says something I’ve been concerned about myself. when you say you’re “anti-woke”, how can we tell whether that means you’re against specific, recent types of administrative overreach or whether e.g. you actually want to drive gender-nonconforming people out of public life? I’m sure there’s some of both going on, but there’s also a lot of uncomfortable (or strategic) ambiguity, which is a much more pressing concern for those with personal reason to worry whether they’re going to experience a huge rise in discrimination.
I have seen this happen, both in government and in private companies. It’s like people don’t realize the full extent of the principal-agent problem. The solution seems easy “just outsource the task to someone else, and if you are not happy about the outcome, fire them and hire someone else”. Here is what sometimes happens instead:
you have actually no idea whether the outcome is good or bad; different people give you contradictory strong opinions, and of course the contractor says that it’s good and that the people who say it’s bad are merely trying to deceive you into taking their services instead;
it turns out that firing the contractor is impossible, because they have built a large and complex project no one else understands, and if they stop maintaining it for a moment, it will all fall apart, with all responsibility being yours;
it turns out that the outcome kinda sucks but you can live with it, and trying to replace the contractors and rebuild the solution would be possible but too expensive (also in terms of political capital: some important guy has approved of the project, now he would look like an idiot);
the outcome sucks and you could fire the contractor and hire a new one, but you realize that you actually have no way to make sure that the next contractor is any better, so maybe you should stick with the devil you know, and hope that they will get more competent as they keep working for you.
There are even contractors out there who create such situations on purpose; that is their actual business model. Like, they will provide you excellent customer service first, so you switch to their system, then they make sure that switching back would be too expensive for you, and then the customer service becomes crappy. (That’s basically how SAP works. You pay for their system and e.g. 5 developers to help you. The first year, they will give your their best 5 developers, and the system does everything you want. So you switch your entire company to SAP. From then on, they will give you 5 junior developers—for the same price—and every little change you want now requires buying a new module and expensive customization.
With government, another problem is that the election cycle means no one is interested in making things work long-term. Switch to contractors can be done overnight (and someone can collect a bribe for that), growing your own team of experts from zero is difficult and takes years, so it almost never happens. And even if it happens by a miracle, again with a proper bribe the system can revert back overnight.
This feels like a false dilemma, are there no options in between? For example, I would be against specific administrative overreaches or whatever, but I am also against the general atmosphere of hate aimed at white men. I don’t want to drive anyone out of anything, but I want the same courtesy to be extended to myself. What happened to the idea of fucking equality? I didn’t choose my race or gender any more than any other person, so if you are going to hold that against me, expect some pushback.
It sucks that politics often becomes a battle of wide coalitions, where your choices are limited to choosing a group that includes those who hate X, or choosing a group that includes those who hate Y. Not sure what can be done about it.