A public service announcement with an expiration date: if you've loved my writing and science, I have a book proposal+sample chapter out on submission right now. The pitch is "The Psychology of Software Teams": a general audience, warmly human, accessible book for teams, leaders, and curious minds, filled to the brim with practitioner stories AND the new empirical social science of technology innovation. 🙌❤️
Let me know if you know editors who might be interested in this uniquely cool project.
@grimalkina You are welcome but my comment is not motivated by kindness. You are writing about an area where mistakes can be costly and disastrous. Unlike most human factor where the challenge is reducing risk of folk getting things wrong despite their best efforts, IT faces the additional challenge of bad actors actively trying to undermine their products and steal their IP. Please do write this book.
@mt@bynkii@grimalkina I work in an industry where if we get things profoundly wrong thousands could die. Probably wouldn’t happen but worst case scenario. Take down multiple energy and logistics networks and my business pales into insignificance. But this is the endgame. It begins with the team and the individual’s role and attitudes. With leadership, that sets the culture. Often the short term company interest is to promote unsafe behaviour.
Today my party launched a campaign in support of assisted dying. I do not support this.
My first concern is that it will be open to abuse. Sure, it is outlined that two medical decisions will be required to allow for an individual to be supported in the termination of their own life. This is not enough. Owing the previous abuse of such systems, especially in the Netherlands in the 1990s, external legal overview should be determined upon for each petition.
A vulnerable person can easily be pressured into such a request. We are all vulnerable when faced the with reality of our own mortality.
Secondly, I am against the death penalty for many reasons. One of my reasons is that it gives the state the final say of life and death over the individual citizen. Here, we are enabling the state to take our own life through its agency of licensed medical practitioners. Even if own request is made in sound mind, this is not a power readily granted to the law.
Finally, doctors don't sign up for this. It alters the relationship between the medical profession and patient. It is one thing to allow nature to take its course by the withdrawal of treatment and another the determination to preserve life at all cost.
Palliative care is designed to preserve the dignity of the person in the final time of one's life. By all means let this be the route forward; but not the wilful destruction of life, even if the choice is from the person. No matter how thoughtful, how certain, that is not a choice that supports others when it comes to their own turn. Instead the choice will be a baleful influence, especially in economic hard times.
@Wen yes, one’s life is one’s own. It is the protection of others and the cost to the fabric of society when my objections lie. What is good about raising of such matters is that it allows us to talk openly about death and how in society it is approached. We don’t do that often enough.
Driving home from work yesterday, I had to turn off the radio news. Terrible listening to the report of slaughter as starving, desperate people tried to get flour from the convoy, only to be fired upon and then crushed in the resulting panic.
It was the cry of a starving baby that really got to me.
I don’t understand those who call such things a military necessity. War is cruel enough without the infliction of horrors upon the weak and innocent.
The closer politicians come to power, the more hawkish they become. The SNP switched to supporting NATO membership in the run up to Indyref. After leading the protests against the invasion of Iraq, the Lib Dems backed the UK bombing of Syria (why for God’s sake?) and now Labour cannot act like decent human beings and call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. What gets into leaders that they feel they have to be seen to act tough? Most would respect more leaders that act tough for peace.
@Wen@MartinVeart There was nothing wrong at that time with the SNP’s stance on neutrality, in the vein of Ireland and Sweden. Even a Finnish solution, accommodating some existing military bases, would have been pragmatic. Joining NATO, a nuclear-based alliance, directly contradicts the stance on Trident and sparked some very honourable resignations. Franklin’s phrase in this context is misapplied: there was no one out to hang anyone, which was literally the threat to American revolutionaries.
honestly ban SUVs and the fuck off big trucks. unless you're a god damned business you don't need something like that, get a van if you need the space or a normal fuckin flatbed truck if they even still make those
@starwall when I lived in Norway 25 years ago, personal vehicles were taxed thus: tax on kerb weight, tax on engine capacity and tax on power output. Then VAT on top. A Toyota Yaris would attract minimal tax. A Jeep Grand Cherokee was $100,000. EVs were then rare and attracted no vehicle tax. Now Norway is the largest per capita users of EVs. I digress: from the Norwegian example, kerb weight is potentially a taxable aspect of car ownership.
Yesterday I used some foul-mouthed terms to describe the Conservative Government and their far-right rebels holding out for these so called Rwanda flights. Make no mistake: refugees, the small boats are mere tools to what the real aim is. Namely, to put ministers above the law.
@RejoinEU it is more in my view. It will set the precedent that a government can pass a law that states a minister’s decision is above the courts, above the rule of law. Once this is passed about refugees, it can be passed again for anything, over anyone.