Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #24633 > unrolled thread

The Continuous Amnesia Issue

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  The Continuous Amnesia Issue Ben Collver <bencollver@tilde.pink> - 2024-04-15 22:34 +0000
    Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-04-16 10:51 +0200
      Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2024-04-16 21:34 +0100
        Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-18 01:43 +0000
          Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-04-18 11:03 +0200
    Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue Javier <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-04-16 22:25 +0000
      Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-18 01:42 +0000
        Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-04-18 11:03 +0200
          Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-18 22:17 +0000
            Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-04-19 10:42 +0200
              Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-19 09:28 +0000
                Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-04-19 22:22 +0200
              Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2024-04-20 21:15 +0000
                Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-04-21 12:24 +0200
            Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) - 2024-04-19 17:21 +0000
              Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-19 22:02 +0000
              Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue Dave Yeo <dave.r.yeo@gmail.com> - 2024-04-19 22:05 -0700
                Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-20 22:42 +0000
                  Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue Dave Yeo <dave.r.yeo@gmail.com> - 2024-04-20 16:50 -0700
                    Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-21 02:13 +0000
    Code Reuse (was Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-17 03:21 +0000
      Re: Code Reuse (was Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue) Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-04-17 09:04 +0100
        Re: Code Reuse (was Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue) Ben Collver <bencollver@tilde.pink> - 2024-04-17 15:19 +0000
          Re: Code Reuse (was Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue) Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-04-17 17:40 +0100
          Re: Code Reuse (was Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue) Johanne Fairchild <jfairchild@tudado.org> - 2024-05-11 21:42 -0300
            Re: Code Reuse (was Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-05-12 07:39 +0000
        Re: Code Reuse (was Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-17 22:04 +0000
      Re: Code Reuse (was Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue) kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2024-04-21 15:29 +0000
    Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue Eric Pozharski <apple.universe@posteo.net> - 2024-04-20 16:19 +0000
    Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue Eric Pozharski <apple.universe@posteo.net> - 2024-04-23 06:24 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#24633 — The Continuous Amnesia Issue

The Continuous Amnesia Issue
============================
by Uwe Friedrichsen
October 2, 2020

As an industry we continuously forget what we have learned

The continuous amnesia issue
============================
In this post I want to discuss an issue that I, being for a longer
time in IT meanwhile, observe over and over again. It is the
observation that as an industry we continuously forget what we have
learned.

What do I mean with that claim?

The very first discussion--again and again and ...
==================================================
Probably I best illustrate this by sharing an experience I had. About
two years ago I attended an unconference. It was not the first time I
attended it. I liked it a lot. It always had a very energetic
atmosphere. The participants were very active, loved to share and
discuss. But unlike the previous times, I decided to do something
different that year.

As an experiment, I decided not to share myself, not to offer
sessions myself where I drive the topic of discussion, but to listen
only. I know that this is not the idea of an unconference, but I was
curious. As I wrote: It was a little experiment, I wanted to conduct.

I knew that always a very active group of people gathered at this
unconference and I wanted to use that as an unbiased opportunity to
learn about the state of IT, how people think about topics, what
moves them, and so on. So, I looked forward to what I would learn.

To be frank, it was a devastating experience for me.

The session that really killed it was a session about reusability. A
group of people came together to discuss reusability. I was really
curious as I dealt with the topic for many years already. A great
community. A topic I am particularly interested in. I was looking
forward to learning something new. I did not expect a lot of new
ideas, but maybe one or two.

So, I listened ... and could not believe what I heard.

The discussion moved at a level as if nobody ever had said or written
a single word about reusability in the past 50 years. I felt set back
to a pre-1968 discussion, set back to a time before the NATO Software
Engineering Conferences were held. Where had all the ideas about
reusability from the 1970s, the 1980s, the 1990s and all the years
after gone?

Obviously, nobody in the room ever had heard anything about what we
as an industry already had figured out about reusability. They
discussed the topic completely from scratch, and due to that in a
totally naive way, not touching any of the important learning of the
last 50 years. I sat there listening and did not understand what
happened. I felt the urge to jump up and scream: "Shut up, all of
you! You do not know sh*t about reusability!"

Of course, I did not. Besides the fact that it would have been very
rude, it also would have been unfair.

As I wrote before: It was a very active community that gathered
there, all of them adding with their best intentions to a vibrant
discussion. So, I eventually decided to leave. Not all sessions felt
as devastating as this one but I had similar experiences in most of
the sessions I attended.

I was quite confused and had a lot to ponder. I went to the
conference to learn something new and ... well, I learned something
new. But it was definitely not what I expected to learn. I learned
that the people in the sessions I attended did not seem to have any
knowledge about the discussions that we had before in our industry
about the very topics.

Continuous collective amnesia
=============================
What happened? It kept me a while thinking. Eventually, I realized
that I had observed a disease of our whole industry in its purest
form: We continuously forget what we have learned. We always reinvent
everything from scratch. My personal observation is that discussions
in the IT community start over about every 5 years [1]. That is how
long we remember as a community. After that we need to rediscover
your insights from scratch.

Or how I like to phrase it in a bit provocative way:

> In IT, we suffer from continuous collective amnesia and we are even
> proud of it! [2]

Again, this is not about the people who discussed in that room. All
of them did their best, they eagerly discussed hoping to gather new
insights. They were simply victims of a widespread disease in IT:

> We do not value the wisdom of the past.

We suffer from extreme youth obsession, not only regarding the age of
people but also regarding how we value knowledge. Old knowledge is
considered "worthless", while new knowledge is considered "great".

A tweet that Mark, founder of Bitmen Studios sent me in a little
conversion we had via Twitter IMO really nicely describes the
effect:

> My point here is rather not searching for a unique "best" solution
> but everywhere software devs across the globe are solving the
> "same" problem again and again (and fall into the same pitfalls).
> The increase in tech needed and the associated complexity amplifies
> that problem.

We reinvent the wheel over and over again, making the same mistakes
again and again, not learning as a community. And as Mark correctly
pointed out, the growing technology complexity amplifies the
problem--and, as I would like to add, vice versa: Our continuous
collective amnesia amplifies our growing complexity problem.

Why is it this way? Why do we loose our collective memory every
5 years?

I am not sure about the causes. My current attempt of an explanation
consists of 5 factors:

1. We consider ourselves a dynamic, fast moving industry. New
   concepts, tools and technologies emerge every day. How can
   knowledge of yesterday still be applicable to problems of today?
   That is what we keep telling ourselves. We wallow in our perceived
   vigor and speed of innovation, neglecting that we keep solving the
   same problems over and over again, just with different tools and
   technologies. Yes, some things change, but usually 80%+ of the
   problems stay the same. But we refuse to see that. We prefer
   considering ourselves the "masters of new".

2. We are technology believers. We are convinced that we can solve
   any problem by simply applying the right tool or technology. E.g.,
   if people have a collaboration problem, the typical reflex is to
   look for a tool that solves the problem, neglecting that it almost
   certainly is not a tool problem. The same is true for all other
   kinds of problems. Whenever we face a non-trivial problem, we try
   to solve it by applying a tool or technology to it instead of
   solving the actual problem. This has become such a natural pattern
   that we do not realize it anymore. And as past tools and
   technologies did not solve the problem, we look for new ones.

3. Insights grow slower than knowledge. Our knowledge continuously
   grows, the longer we work in IT. Of course, not everything we
   learn is valuable. Quite often we learn that some of our knowledge
   is plain crap. If I, e.g., think back to SOA: Wow, what a crap!
   Would never do it again this way! But not everything was bad. I
   also took some great insights from the SOA times. It takes times
   to separate the wheat from the chaff. In the beginning of our
   careers we basically learn new stuff all the time. It takes some
   years until we start to see the recurring patterns, to separate
   real insights from plain knowledge.

4. We face a continuous stream of new developers. I feel as if I face
   a new generation of developers every 5 years [3]. Maybe that is a
   very subjective experience. But for me, people just coming from
   their IT education, being 5 years in business, 10 years or 15
   years and more feel very different, like different generations.
   All those new people in IT have to build their own insights from
   scratch. They have nothing to build on as in IT we created a
   cult(ure) of new, celebrating the new and despising the old.

5. If you combine the "cult of new" with what I call "the arrogance
   of the youth", you get an explosive mixture. Before you think that
   I want to talk bad about younger people: I just talk from personal
   experience. I was a graduate myself years ago and believe me: I
   was arrogant! I knew better! I had to learn humbleness the hard
   way, and I am still not sure if I arrived (it is a lot easier to
   judge an old self than to judge the current self). So, I do not
   want to reproach any young person for being somewhat arrogant. I
   guess that is natural and also healthy to a certain degree because
   it helps against persisting in outdated ideas as an industry. But
   in a culture of new, this habit works as an unhealthy accelerant.

If we put these factors together, we end up with an environment where
we only value new things and despise old things. If we face a
problem, we never look if someone solved the same problem before [4].
We only look for a shiny new solution, ideally a new tool or
technology. If we learn a good solution for a problem, we forget it
after a few years and start again from scratch.

It is not that individuals do not learn and do not grow insights.
They do.

But as a community, we do not.

Unlike other engineering disciplines, we do not create our body of
knowledge, foster our timeless insights, work to extract the essence
from the solutions we found yesterday and make it available to the
community of today. We do not only not create a body of knowledge, we
despise it. We always look to the horizon hoping to spot a silver
bullet (which does not exist as we know) instead of looking back once
in a while and trying to learn from the wisdom of our ancestors.

Moving on
=========
This is what I observe all the time. Again, this does not mean that I
do not meet individuals who act differently. But in general, I see
the same discussions recurring again and again about every 5 years.

To be honest, I do not have an actual idea how to change this. This
cult of new is so deeply embedded in our culture and self-perception
that it would take a long time and effort to change it.

Personally, I try to share some of the old wisdom, e.g., with my talk
"Excavating the knowledge of the ancestors". There is also the
"Papers We Love" movement that tries to share such knowledge.

But overall this is just a drop in the ocean. It would require a
radical rethinking to stop our continuous collective amnesia. We
would need to accept that most of our problems are not new, but that
most of the times we solve the same problems again and again, just
with different technology.

But until we learn this, I am afraid we are not yet an engineering
discipline, but rather a bunch of people obsessed with "new", not
learning.

As so often, there would be a lot more to write. But I leave it here.
I hope I gave you something to ponder.

And maybe you will come up with a great idea how to change it. If you
have one, please share it! We need it--more desperately than most
people are aware of ...

[1]
Maybe it is 7 years, maybe just 4 years, depending on the topic. But
if you are long enough in this industry, you start to get these
deja-vu feelings more and more often.

[2]
I explain the "we are even proud of it" part a bit further down the
post. Basically it means that we celebrate ourselves for being so
"innovative" and "fast moving", using it as a welcome excuse to
ignore everything we could learn from the past.

[3]
I have seen charts that claim the number of software engineers
doubles every 5 years. As I do not know the source of these charts, I
cannot tell if they are right or wrong. Yet, any level of growth
would leave us with more inexperienced engineers than experienced
engineers at any point in time which would amplify the "lack of
actual insights" effect.

[4]
I do not talk about coding tips shared on platforms like Stack
Overflow. I talk about more fundamental problems like, e.g., the
aforementioned reusability, its benefits and risks, when to use it,
when to avoid it, what you need to consider, etc. I talk about the
insights that outlast technology waves.

From: <https://www.ufried.com/blog/continuous_amnesia_issue/>

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#24636

I agree. Many have been the tims when the tiniest company with the tiniest 
application has insisted on moving it over to k8s, when a regular VM with 
a classic LAMP-stack (or equivalent) would have done a better and more 
reliable job, for a vastly lower price.

But oh no, everything has to be k8s these days, even if the service only 
has 10 local users that just use a web frontend to enter data in a 
database.

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024, Ben Collver wrote:

> The Continuous Amnesia Issue
> ============================
> by Uwe Friedrichsen
> October 2, 2020
>
> As an industry we continuously forget what we have learned
>
> The continuous amnesia issue
> ============================
> In this post I want to discuss an issue that I, being for a longer
> time in IT meanwhile, observe over and over again. It is the
> observation that as an industry we continuously forget what we have
> learned.
>
> What do I mean with that claim?
>
> The very first discussion--again and again and ...
> ==================================================
> Probably I best illustrate this by sharing an experience I had. About
> two years ago I attended an unconference. It was not the first time I
> attended it. I liked it a lot. It always had a very energetic
> atmosphere. The participants were very active, loved to share and
> discuss. But unlike the previous times, I decided to do something
> different that year.
>
> As an experiment, I decided not to share myself, not to offer
> sessions myself where I drive the topic of discussion, but to listen
> only. I know that this is not the idea of an unconference, but I was
> curious. As I wrote: It was a little experiment, I wanted to conduct.
>
> I knew that always a very active group of people gathered at this
> unconference and I wanted to use that as an unbiased opportunity to
> learn about the state of IT, how people think about topics, what
> moves them, and so on. So, I looked forward to what I would learn.
>
> To be frank, it was a devastating experience for me.
>
> The session that really killed it was a session about reusability. A
> group of people came together to discuss reusability. I was really
> curious as I dealt with the topic for many years already. A great
> community. A topic I am particularly interested in. I was looking
> forward to learning something new. I did not expect a lot of new
> ideas, but maybe one or two.
>
> So, I listened ... and could not believe what I heard.
>
> The discussion moved at a level as if nobody ever had said or written
> a single word about reusability in the past 50 years. I felt set back
> to a pre-1968 discussion, set back to a time before the NATO Software
> Engineering Conferences were held. Where had all the ideas about
> reusability from the 1970s, the 1980s, the 1990s and all the years
> after gone?
>
> Obviously, nobody in the room ever had heard anything about what we
> as an industry already had figured out about reusability. They
> discussed the topic completely from scratch, and due to that in a
> totally naive way, not touching any of the important learning of the
> last 50 years. I sat there listening and did not understand what
> happened. I felt the urge to jump up and scream: "Shut up, all of
> you! You do not know sh*t about reusability!"
>
> Of course, I did not. Besides the fact that it would have been very
> rude, it also would have been unfair.
>
> As I wrote before: It was a very active community that gathered
> there, all of them adding with their best intentions to a vibrant
> discussion. So, I eventually decided to leave. Not all sessions felt
> as devastating as this one but I had similar experiences in most of
> the sessions I attended.
>
> I was quite confused and had a lot to ponder. I went to the
> conference to learn something new and ... well, I learned something
> new. But it was definitely not what I expected to learn. I learned
> that the people in the sessions I attended did not seem to have any
> knowledge about the discussions that we had before in our industry
> about the very topics.
>
> Continuous collective amnesia
> =============================
> What happened? It kept me a while thinking. Eventually, I realized
> that I had observed a disease of our whole industry in its purest
> form: We continuously forget what we have learned. We always reinvent
> everything from scratch. My personal observation is that discussions
> in the IT community start over about every 5 years [1]. That is how
> long we remember as a community. After that we need to rediscover
> your insights from scratch.
>
> Or how I like to phrase it in a bit provocative way:
>
>> In IT, we suffer from continuous collective amnesia and we are even
>> proud of it! [2]
>
> Again, this is not about the people who discussed in that room. All
> of them did their best, they eagerly discussed hoping to gather new
> insights. They were simply victims of a widespread disease in IT:
>
>> We do not value the wisdom of the past.
>
> We suffer from extreme youth obsession, not only regarding the age of
> people but also regarding how we value knowledge. Old knowledge is
> considered "worthless", while new knowledge is considered "great".
>
> A tweet that Mark, founder of Bitmen Studios sent me in a little
> conversion we had via Twitter IMO really nicely describes the
> effect:
>
>> My point here is rather not searching for a unique "best" solution
>> but everywhere software devs across the globe are solving the
>> "same" problem again and again (and fall into the same pitfalls).
>> The increase in tech needed and the associated complexity amplifies
>> that problem.
>
> We reinvent the wheel over and over again, making the same mistakes
> again and again, not learning as a community. And as Mark correctly
> pointed out, the growing technology complexity amplifies the
> problem--and, as I would like to add, vice versa: Our continuous
> collective amnesia amplifies our growing complexity problem.
>
> Why is it this way? Why do we loose our collective memory every
> 5 years?
>
> I am not sure about the causes. My current attempt of an explanation
> consists of 5 factors:
>
> 1. We consider ourselves a dynamic, fast moving industry. New
>   concepts, tools and technologies emerge every day. How can
>   knowledge of yesterday still be applicable to problems of today?
>   That is what we keep telling ourselves. We wallow in our perceived
>   vigor and speed of innovation, neglecting that we keep solving the
>   same problems over and over again, just with different tools and
>   technologies. Yes, some things change, but usually 80%+ of the
>   problems stay the same. But we refuse to see that. We prefer
>   considering ourselves the "masters of new".
>
> 2. We are technology believers. We are convinced that we can solve
>   any problem by simply applying the right tool or technology. E.g.,
>   if people have a collaboration problem, the typical reflex is to
>   look for a tool that solves the problem, neglecting that it almost
>   certainly is not a tool problem. The same is true for all other
>   kinds of problems. Whenever we face a non-trivial problem, we try
>   to solve it by applying a tool or technology to it instead of
>   solving the actual problem. This has become such a natural pattern
>   that we do not realize it anymore. And as past tools and
>   technologies did not solve the problem, we look for new ones.
>
> 3. Insights grow slower than knowledge. Our knowledge continuously
>   grows, the longer we work in IT. Of course, not everything we
>   learn is valuable. Quite often we learn that some of our knowledge
>   is plain crap. If I, e.g., think back to SOA: Wow, what a crap!
>   Would never do it again this way! But not everything was bad. I
>   also took some great insights from the SOA times. It takes times
>   to separate the wheat from the chaff. In the beginning of our
>   careers we basically learn new stuff all the time. It takes some
>   years until we start to see the recurring patterns, to separate
>   real insights from plain knowledge.
>
> 4. We face a continuous stream of new developers. I feel as if I face
>   a new generation of developers every 5 years [3]. Maybe that is a
>   very subjective experience. But for me, people just coming from
>   their IT education, being 5 years in business, 10 years or 15
>   years and more feel very different, like different generations.
>   All those new people in IT have to build their own insights from
>   scratch. They have nothing to build on as in IT we created a
>   cult(ure) of new, celebrating the new and despising the old.
>
> 5. If you combine the "cult of new" with what I call "the arrogance
>   of the youth", you get an explosive mixture. Before you think that
>   I want to talk bad about younger people: I just talk from personal
>   experience. I was a graduate myself years ago and believe me: I
>   was arrogant! I knew better! I had to learn humbleness the hard
>   way, and I am still not sure if I arrived (it is a lot easier to
>   judge an old self than to judge the current self). So, I do not
>   want to reproach any young person for being somewhat arrogant. I
>   guess that is natural and also healthy to a certain degree because
>   it helps against persisting in outdated ideas as an industry. But
>   in a culture of new, this habit works as an unhealthy accelerant.
>
> If we put these factors together, we end up with an environment where
> we only value new things and despise old things. If we face a
> problem, we never look if someone solved the same problem before [4].
> We only look for a shiny new solution, ideally a new tool or
> technology. If we learn a good solution for a problem, we forget it
> after a few years and start again from scratch.
>
> It is not that individuals do not learn and do not grow insights.
> They do.
>
> But as a community, we do not.
>
> Unlike other engineering disciplines, we do not create our body of
> knowledge, foster our timeless insights, work to extract the essence
> from the solutions we found yesterday and make it available to the
> community of today. We do not only not create a body of knowledge, we
> despise it. We always look to the horizon hoping to spot a silver
> bullet (which does not exist as we know) instead of looking back once
> in a while and trying to learn from the wisdom of our ancestors.
>
> Moving on
> =========
> This is what I observe all the time. Again, this does not mean that I
> do not meet individuals who act differently. But in general, I see
> the same discussions recurring again and again about every 5 years.
>
> To be honest, I do not have an actual idea how to change this. This
> cult of new is so deeply embedded in our culture and self-perception
> that it would take a long time and effort to change it.
>
> Personally, I try to share some of the old wisdom, e.g., with my talk
> "Excavating the knowledge of the ancestors". There is also the
> "Papers We Love" movement that tries to share such knowledge.
>
> But overall this is just a drop in the ocean. It would require a
> radical rethinking to stop our continuous collective amnesia. We
> would need to accept that most of our problems are not new, but that
> most of the times we solve the same problems again and again, just
> with different technology.
>
> But until we learn this, I am afraid we are not yet an engineering
> discipline, but rather a bunch of people obsessed with "new", not
> learning.
>
> As so often, there would be a lot more to write. But I leave it here.
> I hope I gave you something to ponder.
>
> And maybe you will come up with a great idea how to change it. If you
> have one, please share it! We need it--more desperately than most
> people are aware of ...
>
> [1]
> Maybe it is 7 years, maybe just 4 years, depending on the topic. But
> if you are long enough in this industry, you start to get these
> deja-vu feelings more and more often.
>
> [2]
> I explain the "we are even proud of it" part a bit further down the
> post. Basically it means that we celebrate ourselves for being so
> "innovative" and "fast moving", using it as a welcome excuse to
> ignore everything we could learn from the past.
>
> [3]
> I have seen charts that claim the number of software engineers
> doubles every 5 years. As I do not know the source of these charts, I
> cannot tell if they are right or wrong. Yet, any level of growth
> would leave us with more inexperienced engineers than experienced
> engineers at any point in time which would amplify the "lack of
> actual insights" effect.
>
> [4]
> I do not talk about coding tips shared on platforms like Stack
> Overflow. I talk about more fundamental problems like, e.g., the
> aforementioned reusability, its benefits and risks, when to use it,
> when to avoid it, what you need to consider, etc. I talk about the
> insights that outlast technology waves.
>
> From: <https://www.ufried.com/blog/continuous_amnesia_issue/>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24644

On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 10:51:21 +0200
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

> I agree. Many have been the tims when the tiniest company with the tiniest 
> application has insisted on moving it over to k8s, when a regular VM with 
> a classic LAMP-stack (or equivalent) would have done a better and more 
> reliable job, for a vastly lower price.
> 
> But oh no, everything has to be k8s these days, even if the service only 
> has 10 local users that just use a web frontend to enter data in a 
> database.
> 
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024, Ben Collver wrote:
> 
> > The Continuous Amnesia Issue
> > ============================
> > by Uwe Friedrichsen
> > October 2, 2020
[Massive Snip]
> >
> > From: <https://www.ufried.com/blog/continuous_amnesia_issue/>
> >


We haven't even learned how top-posting is bad.



-- 
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24659

On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 21:34:09 +0100, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

> We haven't even learned how top-posting is bad.

I like to repurpose lawyer jokes to make the point. E.g.

A: A Rolls seats six.
Q: What’s the saddest thing about seeing a Rolls with five top posters go  
off a cliff?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24662

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Brilliant!

On Thu, 18 Apr 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 21:34:09 +0100, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>
>> We haven't even learned how top-posting is bad.
>
> I like to repurpose lawyer jokes to make the point. E.g.
>
> A: A Rolls seats six.
> Q: What’s the saddest thing about seeing a Rolls with five top posters go
> off a cliff?
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24645

> 5. If you combine the "cult of new" with what I call "the arrogance
>    of the youth", you get an explosive mixture. Before you think that
>    I want to talk bad about younger people: I just talk from personal
>    experience. I was a graduate myself years ago and believe me: I
>    was arrogant! I knew better! I had to learn humbleness the hard
>    way, and I am still not sure if I arrived (it is a lot easier to
>    judge an old self than to judge the current self). So, I do not
>    want to reproach any young person for being somewhat arrogant. I
>    guess that is natural and also healthy to a certain degree because
>    it helps against persisting in outdated ideas as an industry. But
>    in a culture of new, this habit works as an unhealthy accelerant.

We actually live in gerontocratic societies and the power of young people
is just an illusion.  Age of US congressists[*] is a good evidence of that.
Young people are just being used by soft power to agressively market
new technologies.  What it is truth however, is that they enjoy playing
their part at the stage, and they are even convinced of it themselves.
Lennart is a paradigmatic example.

[*] https://blog.datawrapper.de/age-of-us-senators-charts/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24658

On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 22:25:48 +0000, Javier wrote:

> We actually live in gerontocratic societies and the power of young
> people is just an illusion.  Age of US congressists[*] is a good
> evidence of that.

That’s a US-centric thing, symptomatic of your dysfunctional democracy. 
Most of the world is not like that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24661

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Thu, 18 Apr 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 22:25:48 +0000, Javier wrote:
>
>> We actually live in gerontocratic societies and the power of young
>> people is just an illusion.  Age of US congressists[*] is a good
>> evidence of that.
>
> That’s a US-centric thing, symptomatic of your dysfunctional democracy.
> Most of the world is not like that.
>

Do note that in europe the fashion du jour is to appoint children to 
senior political office, so not any better than the us. Just extremism in 
the other direction.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24664

On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 11:03:26 +0200, D wrote:

> Do note that in europe the fashion du jour is to appoint children to
> senior political office ...

They tend to score higher on measures of democracy than the US does, 
though.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24671

On Thu, 18 Apr 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 11:03:26 +0200, D wrote:
>
>> Do note that in europe the fashion du jour is to appoint children to
>> senior political office ...
>
> They tend to score higher on measures of democracy than the US does,
> though.
>

And lower on freedom.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24673

On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 10:42:23 +0200, D wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Apr 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 11:03:26 +0200, D wrote:
>>
>>> Do note that in europe the fashion du jour is to appoint children to
>>> senior political office ...
>>
>> They tend to score higher on measures of democracy than the US does,
>> though.
>>
> And lower on freedom.

Some countries which score higher on press freedom than the USA: Taiwan, 
Tonga, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, South Africa, Namibia, Timor-Leste.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24681

On Fri, 19 Apr 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 10:42:23 +0200, D wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 11:03:26 +0200, D wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do note that in europe the fashion du jour is to appoint children to
>>>> senior political office ...
>>>
>>> They tend to score higher on measures of democracy than the US does,
>>> though.
>>>
>> And lower on freedom.
>
> Some countries which score higher on press freedom than the USA: Taiwan,
> Tonga, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, South Africa, Namibia, Timor-Leste.
>

Who cares about press freedom? I say, bring on the fiscal freedom baby! 
Everything else is just a fig leaf for slavery.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24688

In article <7c490eda-e041-8cdd-5bcf-5b886a32f65f@example.net>,
D  <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>
>On Thu, 18 Apr 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 11:03:26 +0200, D wrote:
>>
>>> Do note that in europe the fashion du jour is to appoint children to
>>> senior political office ...
>>
>> They tend to score higher on measures of democracy than the US does,
>> though.
>
>And lower on freedom.

Depends.  If you look at the total percentage of population currently
incarcerated, the US is an order of magnitude higher than any European
country.

On the other hand, the US does have some interesting protections that 
most European countries don't have.  That's mostly not a problem there,
but situations can be imagined where it might become one.

It really is interesting seeing how much Americans are just plain afraid
of things in ways that Europeans aren't.
--scott

-- 
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24692

On Sat, 20 Apr 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> In article <7c490eda-e041-8cdd-5bcf-5b886a32f65f@example.net>,
> D  <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 11:03:26 +0200, D wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do note that in europe the fashion du jour is to appoint children to
>>>> senior political office ...
>>>
>>> They tend to score higher on measures of democracy than the US does,
>>> though.
>>
>> And lower on freedom.
>
> Depends.  If you look at the total percentage of population currently
> incarcerated, the US is an order of magnitude higher than any European
> country.

Oh how I would wish that europe in general, and sweden in particular, had 
more people incarcerated. Shootings and bombings by criminal immigrant 
gangs is sky rocketing in sweden and the police has lost control 
completely.

> On the other hand, the US does have some interesting protections that
> most European countries don't have.  That's mostly not a problem there,
> but situations can be imagined where it might become one.
>
> It really is interesting seeing how much Americans are just plain afraid
> of things in ways that Europeans aren't.

And the reverse I'd say. many europeans have trouble sleeping due to 
Donald Trump and americans being allowed to own guns.

> --scott
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24676

In article <uvs665$2g9b9$7@dont-email.me>,
Lawrence D'Oliveiro  <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 11:03:26 +0200, D wrote:
>
>> Do note that in europe the fashion du jour is to appoint children to
>> senior political office ...
>
>They tend to score higher on measures of democracy than the US does, 
>though.

Thing is, we're not actually a democracy...or, at least, we're not supposed
to be.  The founding fathers were rightly terrified at the prospect of
democracy, and set up a a republican form of government instead.

You could argue that we have devolved over the past 237 years into something
bearing a greater resemblance to democracy than to the republic that we were
promised.  I would be inclined to agree with such an assessment.

-- 
  _/_
 / v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( https://alfter.us/         Top-posting!
 \_^_/                            >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24683

On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 17:21:08 GMT, Scott Alfter wrote:

> In article <uvs665$2g9b9$7@dont-email.me>,
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro  <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 11:03:26 +0200, D wrote:
>>
>>> Do note that in europe the fashion du jour is to appoint children to
>>> senior political office ...
>>
>>They tend to score higher on measures of democracy than the US does,
>>though.
> 
> Thing is, we're not actually a democracy...or, at least, we're not
> supposed to be.

So much for being the “leader of the Free World”, eh ...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24686

Scott Alfter wrote:
> In article <uvs665$2g9b9$7@dont-email.me>,
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro  <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 11:03:26 +0200, D wrote:
>>
>>> Do note that in europe the fashion du jour is to appoint children to
>>> senior political office ...
>>
>> They tend to score higher on measures of democracy than the US does,
>> though.
>
> Thing is, we're not actually a democracy...or, at least, we're not supposed
> to be.  The founding fathers were rightly terrified at the prospect of
> democracy, and set up a a republican form of government instead.

Representative Democracy, rather then the direct democracy the founders 
considered as democracy, though I believe some States have some direct 
democracy, which sometimes works, often doesn't, when it comes to 
beneficial outcomes.
Of course we have many examples of republican forms of government, China 
for example.

>
> You could argue that we have devolved over the past 237 years into something
> bearing a greater resemblance to democracy than to the republic that we were
> promised.  I would be inclined to agree with such an assessment.
>

Didn't your declaration of independence start out with all men are 
equal? It is where America has been moving, even women are considered 
people now a days.
Dave

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24689

On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 22:05:31 -0700, Dave Yeo wrote:

> Didn't your declaration of independence start out with all men are
> equal?

Remember, the authors of that were mostly slave owners. By “men” they 
meant “white men”. They didn’t mean “nonwhites” and they didn’t mean 
“women”.

It was a “democracy” in the original, Athenian sense. Not the way it is 
understood in actual democracies these days.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24690

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 22:05:31 -0700, Dave Yeo wrote:
>
>> Didn't your declaration of independence start out with all men are
>> equal?
>
> Remember, the authors of that were mostly slave owners. By “men” they
> meant “white men”. They didn’t mean “nonwhites” and they didn’t mean
> “women”.
>
> It was a “democracy” in the original, Athenian sense. Not the way it is
> understood in actual democracies these days.
>

You mean where slaves had rights, a course to citizenship and could buy 
their freedom, as well being protected from violence by the State? Also 
not a racial thing.
Dave

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24691

On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 16:50:44 -0700, Dave Yeo wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 22:05:31 -0700, Dave Yeo wrote:
>>
>>> Didn't your declaration of independence start out with all men are
>>> equal?
>>
>> Remember, the authors of that were mostly slave owners. By “men” they
>> meant “white men”. They didn’t mean “nonwhites” and they didn’t mean
>> “women”.
>>
>> It was a “democracy” in the original, Athenian sense. Not the way it is
>> understood in actual democracies these days.
>>
> You mean where slaves had rights, a course to citizenship and could buy
> their freedom, as well being protected from violence by the State? Also
> not a racial thing.

OK, the Dumbfuckistani Founding Fathers missed that bit. ;)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web