Pretty much what it sounds like, where people who listen to a certain type/sound of music tend to enjoy it at live events by just low key looking down and slowly shuffling or bobbing their head to show their appreciation (rather than headbanging, moshing, etc.) there is a genre called ‘shoegaze’ which pretty much encompasses this kinda scene.
Wow that’s a new one to me, never really noticed people doing that at a show. I guess I’m not really paying much attention to the crowd anyway though. Thanks for the explanation!
Shoegaze is actually called that because the bands all have a ton of effects pedals, and they’re constantly changing settings and moving from pedal to pedal. So it looks like they’re staring at their shoes. I’ve never heard of it referring to spectators, though in hindsight I’ve done that a couple of times at shows, so…maybe?
Remember kids: you can buy musicians ear-plugs that mean you can keep listening to it your whole life without crippling phantom noise all the time.
That’s nothing. Doom is an old game, even boomers realize it.
Now, realizing Pokemon is 26 years old, PlayStation 2 is 24 years old and old enough to be a retro console, stuff I considered to be the new hotness… now that makes me feel old.
Yea, Doom being that old kind of makes me feel better. Thinking about how old Playstation games are though… that makes me feel like time is spinning out of control.
Hmm. Self-organizing projects whose workers work on them entirely based on their need to be done, and the results freely distributed to anyone who wants a copy?
I think it is not. Certainly most projects aren’t solely personal utilities, but devs working for fun rather than profit will almost inevitably produce something skewed towards their own tastes and skills. See: the presentation of any FOSS graphical app vs a paid equivalent.
Things like FOSS stuff makes you think people can organize and work together freely to achieve a common goal, and maybe anarchy could work. But then, you see a busy intersection when the traffic lights go out and you realize the general public are idiots and everything devolves into selfish chaos as you’re stuck a half mile back, as cars shoot through in no particular order and you inch closer to the madness terrified to make your left turn. I have zero trust in society without some form of rule and order.
Decentralization doesn’t necessarily mean disorganization. You can create a Lemmy instance with no moderation and rely purely on the community itself to self moderate, much like someone can create an instance with rules, and if someone disagrees with the rules they can create their own. Both are part of a decentralized system, so no one is actually coerced into participating in any system by regulation, just social pressure.
Think about a roundabout though in comparison, no lights or specific order, and there is a learning curve, but overall they reduce traffic better then stoplights under many conditions.
I guess my point is sort of extrapolating that a structure/presentation also heavily influences how users perceive or use a product/idea
That’s a pretty weak definition. “Legitimate” especially is a vacuous term, and every form of democracy ever proposed is (theoretically) “accountable”.
Sure, but is that how we talk about our institutions? Things I hear that buck anarchism while supporting American democracy:
The Constitution should be interpreted with “originalism” or at the very least venerated
Police sacrifice X, therefore it’s okay if they do extralegal Y
I’m not saying there aren’t systems of accountability that legitimize various institutions. It’s that the stories we tell to legitimize an institution comes in many different flavors, and those based on authority from power/position (ie “our founding fathers were smart people”) are not accepted by anarchists. Edit: Imagine how different our legal framework would be if it reflected that mentality?
I think I almost understand what you’re getting at. If I do, it’s uncodifiable. You can’t draft an organisational system with a clause that no one is allowed to use logical fallacies to defend it.
I find it a bit ironic that cars and traffic lights are being used as a metaphor for why anarchy won’t work. Let’s put aside that the example is of poor collective planning to build urban environments. Go to Vietnam and see how people drive without traffic lights, it’s complete madness. But it works, and in some ways it works better than what we have because the accidents are fewer and less severe while also serving more diverse modes of traffic.
I was there, Gandalf. I was there when they released it on the internet and you could play the first few levels multiplayer for free. Installed on the university computers…
Playing our hidden games on the school’s network. Good times. Back then if you knew a few lines of code you could give your session administrator privileges. That was when internet security existed because so few people knew how to use a computer, let alone a local network or the internet. An entire computer lab playing against another entire computer lab in whatever those games were called. The most popular was light cycles, an open source Tron clone.
Same with flying cars. At least with regular ground cars you won’t have a car come crashing through your wall if you don’t live on the bottom floor – although I’m sure some bright spark has managed to do that with a regular car, it takes real dedication to stupidity to manage without a flying car. Or if someone cuts you off in traffic, they’re usually coming from either your left or right side, not from above or below too
Software exists in a world that kind of exists outside of property. Cynics like to think that Agile got big because as some kind of fad because the kids love it, but the reality is that fully hierarchical models just cannot keep up with self organising teams.
The old model - the model that most of the rest of the world of work still uses - simply cannot compete on a level playing field where the means of production (a cheap computer) are available to all. A landowner can stop you building your own house, but Microsoft can’t really stop you building your own software, so they still have to put in work to collect rent.
Imagine what we could accomplish as a species if the goals and distribution of resources were also decided democratically.
Thank you for everything you said in the back half! In regards to the first idea – do you think agile is half way to self-management because of its attributes, or because it is something to get people making software in a structured capacity? I live in a world of bad agiles and agile cynics, and so I wonder if I am missing some nuance you may have intended. I guess I ask because I agree with everything you have said but don’t see agile methodology as being important to spreading this message myself.
Agile is a limited form of workplace democracy that succeeded because the usual forms of disciplining workers couldn’t be enforced to stop it. It’s taken off in software because the outlay for software is so low that people can just quit their jobs and start a rival project with preferable working conditions. It’s stuck around because it’s significantly more effective than dictat.
I have problems with agile too. A lot of the “ceremonies” seem more like cult rituals and bad practices are often assumed to be self justifying when they should be interrogated. (I once had a bust up in the office because I insisted in creating a future proof test framework instead of writing just what’s needed at the time. I was overruled and I’m still mad about it).
So I guess my point isn’t even about the specific agile practices either.
The point is that workers are able to self manage when they’re allowed to, and agile has accidentally proven this to be the case. Other work places should adopt some of these ideas. And these ideas should be pushed further, into business decisions and HR and management. And physical communities etc. all the way up to actual government.
Interesting perspective, never really looked at it like that, I’ve always just interacted with the corporatized bullshit implementations of Agile.
It seems Agile really did have a kernel of worker self management in it but the original people behind it didn’t have the right ideological framework to realize that this is what they’re trying to achieve.
As I’ve been putting it: software is made of labor.
Unfortunately the actual reason Agile got big is that the cult of MBAs saw daily meetings putting scores on estimates and absolutely creamed their slacks.
What is impact engineering though? If it’s it’s just agile while being cognisant of technical debt over MVPs, I don’t know if it’s necessarily that different.
It seems the study was designed to sell a book and I can’t find anything about what that book says. I should probably read it but the bait way it’s being sold makes me resistant to paying to find out.
The goddamn article you yourself posted as the proof mentions how it’s an ad right at the top
Even though the researchcommissioned by consultancy Engprax could be seen as a thinly veiled plug for Impact Engineering methodology, it feeds into the suspicion that the Agile Manifesto might not be all it’s cracked up to be
Yeah haha it’s really weird and I tend to switch between the “normal” way and the “french” way without noticing. Basically in french the rule is that if your symbol is “tall” ( ! , ? , brackets, semicolon, I think dashes as well…) it needs to be preceded by a space
memes
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.