Reading your posts has been quite enlightening and makes me very grateful that I recognized my personal strengths and shortcomings very early on. I notice in purely social settings, I am very good at empathizing with others, but in a work setting, I could become rather obstinate especially if I felt a customer was being unreasonable or idiotic. I realized I was falling prey to my own solipsism and understood that my opinion simply doesn't matter if I'm not the one paying bills. There's nothing people hate more (alphas & women especially) than a delta/gamma that bitches and moans constantly without being useful whatsoever or taking their own risk (ie starting their own business since theyre allegedly so wise and competent).
Only mid 20s so I imagine theres still a fair bit left to learn, but I like to think Im on the right track
I remember those days - true computer geeks detested the use of icons and thought the Apple was silly. They even poked fun at the ad Apple had showing the monkey using the computer as if it were derisive - "See? That's who uses a Macintosh!" failing to see the broader appeal. Another thing that helped Apple was getting into the schools early to get the kids (like me) used to using them. None of the PC manufactures saw the value in that.
Not only does the Isaacson bio on Jobs contain examples of the SSH in action, but it is entertaining in its own right. In addition, it gives an example of nature vs nurture as Jobs was an adoptee. He was never close to his adopted sister, but the first time he met his biological sister there was an immediate kinship that lasted until the day he died. This is probably common knowledge at this point, but Jobs' biological sister is the novelist Mona Simpson, and their father is a Syrian political scientist; their cousin is pianist/composer Malek Jandali.
The comments here reminded me of an episode of the Simpsons were the the CEO of a car company decided to let the 'average' man decide what they wanted in a car and then the company bring it to market. Homer was the 'average' man, of course, and he ended up bankrupting the company.
If memory serves, the vehicle was called the Canyonero and was billed as a deer smackin', squirrel squashin' driving machine.
This singular focus on what people SHOULD want as opposed to what they actually do want is a huge stumbling block for cryptocurrency as a currency, rather than just another financial plaything.
Microsoft learned the wrong lesson from this and thinks changing the UI conatantly is a good idea. It would bankrupt them if it weren't for PCs having to ship with Windows. Even those who ultimately install Linux have to buy a Windows laptop. If that matriage was ever broken then their Raskinism trying to emulate Jobs wrongly would kill them off.
You don't have to look too hard at Microsoft to see how they've set up an effective monopoly that they use to fix prices. The UI change is there to create plausible deniability - "Sure, we're forcing you to switch to the new version with the enhanced spyware and lack of compatibility with fundamental software, but we have to. You can't just offer AI and a new UI without a full suite upgrade!"
Had he chosen to work with Job's instead of beimg a retard he would have helped build then what is common today, gui for the masses and cli for the experts. Probably would have saved us all a decad or more and may have actually stalled the need/want for linux.
I wonder if Linux would be such a prevalent work horse had Windows or Mac had a suitabke headless system?
Unlikely. Read the folklore mac site where they detail the history. There wasn't time or space for anything but what they did. They couldn't do that and CLI too.
SSH has become invaluable at work. I work for a government agency (uk) that involves checking business records for companies. You can tell the SSH status usually by the email reply.
Alpha/sigma director will be like "This is what we do, this is where we are going in 6 months to a year, this is why. No I don't have that but my accounts guy will."
Delta accounts guy is like "This is what I did, this is why I did it, here's the guidance I followed."
Then there's the gammas. Oh lawdy the gammas. "Why do you want this? Explain why you want those documents? You are being aggressive in your requests."
Every reply is passive-agressive and full of snark.
Being able to quickly determine the SSH status enables me to determine how to frame my response, what questions to ask, and guess the likely reply. Invaluable when dealing with gammas as they love to file complaints, and I just await the inevitable rage bomb. Forewarned is forearmed, etc.
Delta designers just are not strategic-minded individuals. They miss the game-changing implications of the products they are developing. The gadget is literally right under their noses, and that's the problem. They just cannot see the true potential of their creations.
Rare individuals like Steve Jobs have wider apertures, see what others cannot, intuit the possibilities at a glance, make decisive moves, and gain first-mover advantage like lightning. Steve Jobs wasn't just a Sigma. He was an Apex Sigma -- a man imbued with strategic empathy of the highest caliber.
My grandmother gave me a set of four Isaacson biographies, and the Jobs one was easily the most interesting.
While his later career is that of a Sigma, what do you do with his younger years when his strict vegan diet and conviction that because of it he didn't need to shower had them invent a night shift for him at IBM because he smelled so bad? I can't imagine he made an omega to sigma transition. Different hierarchies?
It's fascinating to observe that this whole saga basically echoed two decades later with the smartphone revolution. If you watch 'Blackberry', the savant Delta CEO totally dismisses the iPhone as inferior to the market leader because "nobody would want an IM device without a physical keyboard" and the full HTML web-browsing couldn't work in the low-data mobile environment of the time. Not anticipating that Jobs had already made the deal with Verizon that would shift the telecom economy from minutes-based to data-based. That film does a really great job illustrating the hugely successful, highly skilled Delta's total lack of grasp of anything behind his own horizon of competence or vision.
RIM definitely had its collective head up its ass over keyboards. And, they kept pushing keyboards to the bitter end. However, they had many deeper problems, including co-CEO's during the critical 2005-2011 period of time.
Perhaps more significantly, although less appreciated, is how the Blackberry communication network was set up. RIM was/is a Canadian company. The central node of the Blackberry Network was: (a) located in Canada; and, (b) heavily encrypted and very secure. Every message sent on a Blackberry passed through this central node, in Canada. Later, RIM developed technology that would allow Blackberries to talk to each other (strong encryption of course) and bypass traditional exchange-style servers.
I'm sure that many can see the issue that is presented by this arrangement. While the Bush administration was a fan of Blackberry for its security, the Obama administration was very much less a fan.
The physical buttons on the black berry was superior to the touchscreens. You could pound through emails without looking. Ios was way a better interface and it didn't help that physical keyboards were significantly less profitable than touch screens.
That's two failures of "know your enemy," right there. He failed to anticipate that Jobs was aware of the roadblocks that needed removing, and he failed to anticipate the willingness of the consumer to exchange physical keys for additional screen space.
Delta narcissism on full display here.
https://x.com/LuxFella/status/1888697405257699701?t=m4w6wbRgPSTqI1Ek8EXb1w&s=19
Everything in this article and the comments is 100% correct. I recently made a list of "rules" for my team of developers which included:
- You are not the end user of the application; it is not being made for you.
- Software is created to enable people to do things, not machines.
I was fortunate to learn these lessons very early in my career when I was still in my college "know it all" phase.
Reading your posts has been quite enlightening and makes me very grateful that I recognized my personal strengths and shortcomings very early on. I notice in purely social settings, I am very good at empathizing with others, but in a work setting, I could become rather obstinate especially if I felt a customer was being unreasonable or idiotic. I realized I was falling prey to my own solipsism and understood that my opinion simply doesn't matter if I'm not the one paying bills. There's nothing people hate more (alphas & women especially) than a delta/gamma that bitches and moans constantly without being useful whatsoever or taking their own risk (ie starting their own business since theyre allegedly so wise and competent).
Only mid 20s so I imagine theres still a fair bit left to learn, but I like to think Im on the right track
I remember those days - true computer geeks detested the use of icons and thought the Apple was silly. They even poked fun at the ad Apple had showing the monkey using the computer as if it were derisive - "See? That's who uses a Macintosh!" failing to see the broader appeal. Another thing that helped Apple was getting into the schools early to get the kids (like me) used to using them. None of the PC manufactures saw the value in that.
Not only does the Isaacson bio on Jobs contain examples of the SSH in action, but it is entertaining in its own right. In addition, it gives an example of nature vs nurture as Jobs was an adoptee. He was never close to his adopted sister, but the first time he met his biological sister there was an immediate kinship that lasted until the day he died. This is probably common knowledge at this point, but Jobs' biological sister is the novelist Mona Simpson, and their father is a Syrian political scientist; their cousin is pianist/composer Malek Jandali.
Can "sunk cost fallacy" come out of Delta narcissism?
I enjoyed the Isaacson book immensely - I recommend it highly.
The comments here reminded me of an episode of the Simpsons were the the CEO of a car company decided to let the 'average' man decide what they wanted in a car and then the company bring it to market. Homer was the 'average' man, of course, and he ended up bankrupting the company.
If memory serves, the vehicle was called the Canyonero and was billed as a deer smackin', squirrel squashin' driving machine.
This singular focus on what people SHOULD want as opposed to what they actually do want is a huge stumbling block for cryptocurrency as a currency, rather than just another financial plaything.
Microsoft learned the wrong lesson from this and thinks changing the UI conatantly is a good idea. It would bankrupt them if it weren't for PCs having to ship with Windows. Even those who ultimately install Linux have to buy a Windows laptop. If that matriage was ever broken then their Raskinism trying to emulate Jobs wrongly would kill them off.
You don't have to look too hard at Microsoft to see how they've set up an effective monopoly that they use to fix prices. The UI change is there to create plausible deniability - "Sure, we're forcing you to switch to the new version with the enhanced spyware and lack of compatibility with fundamental software, but we have to. You can't just offer AI and a new UI without a full suite upgrade!"
Had he chosen to work with Job's instead of beimg a retard he would have helped build then what is common today, gui for the masses and cli for the experts. Probably would have saved us all a decad or more and may have actually stalled the need/want for linux.
I wonder if Linux would be such a prevalent work horse had Windows or Mac had a suitabke headless system?
Unlikely. Read the folklore mac site where they detail the history. There wasn't time or space for anything but what they did. They couldn't do that and CLI too.
https://www.folklore.org/0-index.html
SSH has become invaluable at work. I work for a government agency (uk) that involves checking business records for companies. You can tell the SSH status usually by the email reply.
Alpha/sigma director will be like "This is what we do, this is where we are going in 6 months to a year, this is why. No I don't have that but my accounts guy will."
Delta accounts guy is like "This is what I did, this is why I did it, here's the guidance I followed."
Then there's the gammas. Oh lawdy the gammas. "Why do you want this? Explain why you want those documents? You are being aggressive in your requests."
Every reply is passive-agressive and full of snark.
Being able to quickly determine the SSH status enables me to determine how to frame my response, what questions to ask, and guess the likely reply. Invaluable when dealing with gammas as they love to file complaints, and I just await the inevitable rage bomb. Forewarned is forearmed, etc.
So, in essence, a delta is competent but boring and lacks vision. Makes a nice bureaucrat.
Deltas are soley focused on their task and how they want to so it, with no concern of any scope beyond that. It has it'a place, but not in leadership.
I think Raskin's problem is not lack of vision, but that he was a visionary GEEK.
Delta designers just are not strategic-minded individuals. They miss the game-changing implications of the products they are developing. The gadget is literally right under their noses, and that's the problem. They just cannot see the true potential of their creations.
Rare individuals like Steve Jobs have wider apertures, see what others cannot, intuit the possibilities at a glance, make decisive moves, and gain first-mover advantage like lightning. Steve Jobs wasn't just a Sigma. He was an Apex Sigma -- a man imbued with strategic empathy of the highest caliber.
My grandmother gave me a set of four Isaacson biographies, and the Jobs one was easily the most interesting.
While his later career is that of a Sigma, what do you do with his younger years when his strict vegan diet and conviction that because of it he didn't need to shower had them invent a night shift for him at IBM because he smelled so bad? I can't imagine he made an omega to sigma transition. Different hierarchies?
The fact that they created a night shift just for him, to accommodate his quirks, is textbook Sigma stuff.
You don't do anything. He was dating attractive women at the time. He just had a very different mission.
It's fascinating to observe that this whole saga basically echoed two decades later with the smartphone revolution. If you watch 'Blackberry', the savant Delta CEO totally dismisses the iPhone as inferior to the market leader because "nobody would want an IM device without a physical keyboard" and the full HTML web-browsing couldn't work in the low-data mobile environment of the time. Not anticipating that Jobs had already made the deal with Verizon that would shift the telecom economy from minutes-based to data-based. That film does a really great job illustrating the hugely successful, highly skilled Delta's total lack of grasp of anything behind his own horizon of competence or vision.
RIM definitely had its collective head up its ass over keyboards. And, they kept pushing keyboards to the bitter end. However, they had many deeper problems, including co-CEO's during the critical 2005-2011 period of time.
Perhaps more significantly, although less appreciated, is how the Blackberry communication network was set up. RIM was/is a Canadian company. The central node of the Blackberry Network was: (a) located in Canada; and, (b) heavily encrypted and very secure. Every message sent on a Blackberry passed through this central node, in Canada. Later, RIM developed technology that would allow Blackberries to talk to each other (strong encryption of course) and bypass traditional exchange-style servers.
I'm sure that many can see the issue that is presented by this arrangement. While the Bush administration was a fan of Blackberry for its security, the Obama administration was very much less a fan.
The physical buttons on the black berry was superior to the touchscreens. You could pound through emails without looking. Ios was way a better interface and it didn't help that physical keyboards were significantly less profitable than touch screens.
That's two failures of "know your enemy," right there. He failed to anticipate that Jobs was aware of the roadblocks that needed removing, and he failed to anticipate the willingness of the consumer to exchange physical keys for additional screen space.
Sounds like my boss, he knows finance and we know everything else