Innovation

I thought I had said enough about the Titan submersible and hubris, and while technically this is a bit of a different topic, I guess I'm not done yet.

The New Yorker just published this article giving some background on the Titan, and I wanted to focus on some of the quotes.

Rush replied four days later, saying that he had “grown tired of industry players who try to use a safety argument to stop innovation and new entrants from entering their small existing market.” He understood that his approach “flies in the face of the submersible orthodoxy, but that is the nature of innovation,”

“If you’re not breaking things, you’re not innovating,” Rush said, at the GeekWire Summit last fall. “If you’re operating within a known environment, as most submersible manufacturers do—they don’t break things. To me, the more stuff you’ve broken, the more innovative you’ve been.”

 

in 2021, Stockton Rush told an interviewer that he would “like to be remembered as an innovator. I think it was General MacArthur who said, ‘You’re remembered for the rules you break.’ And I’ve broken some rules to make this.”

All of these quotes seem like something you'd hear from a 'tech bro'.

And here's the thing. The tech bro attitude (move fast and break things) came Silicon Valley and tech where lives are not at risk.

If your code doesn't work and the program crashes, you just lose time. Well, and depending on if you've pushed to production you might lose some customers and some money. 

It's not like civil engineering, where if your bridge is poorly designed it'll fall apart and people will die.

Maybe there's more serious consequences when we start talking about Industrial Control Systems and medical implants, but most of the time tech failures mean the loss of convenience, not life.

Furthermore, this guy seemed to have only superficial knowledge of the challenges involved.

It reminds me of what a character said, trying to teach etiquette and proper behavior to an unwilling student - 'if you're going to break the rules, you should at least understand which rules you're breaking.'

This guy seems to think simply breaking rules proves he's innovating, rather than knowing which rules his innovations allow him to break.

Overall he comes across as a boy pretending he's a man, which I suppose is part of the whole tech bro think. (That's why they're 'bros')

Finally, he reminds me of a terrible commander I worked under as a young lieutenant. The kind that has learned to basically pressure their underlings to get results...

And doesn't care about what sorts of shortcuts or illegal behavior their subordinates do to meet their goals.

Like... Some pressure is fine? But you don't want to create a team that goes too far, and how do you know when it's too far?

People perform at their peak when they're challenged, but if the challenge is too much (or impossible) it does more harm 5yan good. That's why there are so many studies on how to coach athletes to their peak potential.

You don't make someone start long distance running with a marathon, you build up to it.

These guys only seem to know half of the puzzle.

It's a shame their attitude is so pernicious. 

Current Events

I've thought about writing a bit... And wind up thinking 'why bother? '

I don't want to admit that, or give in to defeatism and cynicism, but it's hard to feel like anything I say will affect the people who I think need to hear it. 

Why would they care about my opinion anyway? 

Besides, I've written plenty on groupthink, decision making, etc.

I try not to assume the worst of the powers that be, but it does seem like too many of them are like that Titanic submarine guy - so arrogantly certain they know better, and so unwilling to hear anything that doesn't support what they want to hear.

Which, well... At least the submarine guy only hurt himself and the others who chose to join him. Unfortunately, for issues like the environment or economics or the threats to our democracy, we're all stuck dealing with the consequences of their hubris.

It's like we're all on a plane that's about to crash, and the pilots have locked the cabin door and shut out anyone who might be able to pilot the plane into a safe landing.

(Okay, I really hope it's not that bad. And it does seem like some people are still trying to steer us to safety... It's just that there's story after story of people with money who use that money to block any effort at changing course).

Speaking of misusing wealth... How on earth do the Mercers justify bankrolling Alex Jones?

Like, do they not realize funding a guy spreading lies about the death of children makes them... Kind of evil?

Or do they not care about morality?

Or are they so lost to sense and sensibility that they somehow think the ends justify the means? Like... They don't want gun control, but rather than admit they're okay with regular school shootings because they think gun rights are more important, they'd rather support lies that obfuscate the issue?

And it's not just them, either.

So many people with money and influence seem to have a really warped world view that prevents them from making sound decisions.

It's hard to feel like things will get better when there's that level of poor judgement. 

Suppressed Demand

I wonder how hard it was to convince rulers that maintaining large piles of gold actually limited the ability to grow 'real wealth'.

Okay, I assume it was actually rather hard even though they succeeded. Because I imagine they ran into similar challenges to current attempts to increase the minimum wage.

Perhaps if wages reached a certain level the old understanding that a minimum wage increases unemployment and inflation would hold true. And yet study after study shows that's not true, and when I think about my own experiences I think I understand why.

It's all about disposable income.

Or rather, it's about suppressed demand due to limits on disposable income.

I, for example, am a homeowner...

Which means I have was very long list of things I would like to do for my house, most of which cost enough money that I can't do it all at once.

That goes for other things I would probably buy, if I weren't determined to pay off some debts. (I do spend some on the little pleasures, but there are quite a few things I would consider buying if I didn't want to pay off various things first).

Yes, economists are rather familiar with stimulating an economy by giving people money. But face it, a one time boon is just not the same as knowing that every month you have an extra $100+ to spend. 

When housing, food, and transportation costs take up most of your monthly budget, every seller is now competing for the small slice of your budgetary pie. (I. E. If you only have $100 or so of disposable income, do you spend it on dinner and a movie? On a new video game? New shoes? A ticket to a show? You probably can only afford one or two.)

When that slice grows larger, that untapped demand is more likely to be met. (I. E.  Where before you could only pick one or two options, now you can choose three or four. That means more consumption --> stimulus --> economic growth. Not that this is unlimited, naturally. I'm sure economists can run some studies to try and find the sweet spot between when better wages lead to economic growth and when they lead to inflation and unemployment... Though given how some businesses seem to have deliberately caused inflation, I'm sure that relationship is not as objective as we sometimes pretend it is).

Anyways, given repeated studies on the benefits of increasing the minimum wage, you would think the powers that be would do something intelligent about it.

Instead, crickets.

Like so many other times when studies contradict what people want to believe. 

Good Points

https://www.raptitude.com/2018/06/getting-what-you-want/

Some Commentary

I mostly have been avoiding the news lately, for reasons remarkably similar to what's laid out here.

Trump has absolutely no chance of winning in 2024, and every headline taking him as a serious contender just makes me question their ability to do, IDK, any sort of analysis at all.

Even discussing it gives that oathbreaker more attention than he deserves though.

LitRPG

I've been mostly reading LitRPG these days, which is a subgenre of scifi/fantasy...

I realized I was reading a lot of translations of Korean, Japanese, Chinese stories with similar themes.. But many of those aren't fully translated so I was getting tired of only getting the beginning of the story. LitRPG seems like the western equivalent (and many of the authors seem quite familiar with the same material).

I've been enjoying them, I think partly because I like the 'for want of a nail' type fics. Or rather, I like a little bit of good chaos... You know, subverting tropes, jolting people out of their mental ruts. Seeing someone with an entirely different way of thinking come into a story and having an impact just because their background and experiences make them act differently from normal is fun. (also there's plain old escapism, and the fantasy of not being another cog in our modern capitalist machine. It's sad that so many people feel so disempowered that isekai stories and the like are so popular, but whatever. I won't get into that right now)

Of course, LitRPG isn't just isekai stories. There's also a lot of system ones (ie earth gets integrated into a multiverse system, with game like elements where you can level. Generally there's also magic, or tech indistinguishable from magic, so it's rather apocalyptic in that the economy is in shambles and everyone has to learn how to live in the new world).

Anyways, much though I do enjoy them, I realized there's... Sub themes? Ideas that actually are kind of concerning?

Generally for the same reasons the boogaloo boys are... Which is that generally the apocalyptic fantasy is about people who excel and thrive when a massive disaster strikes, mostly by becoming the biggest and baddest thing around when the thin veneer of civilization is torn and only strength matters. Really, it's like the debate over force theory, how governments have to maintain a monopoly on violence... Which, I've long had some thoughts about but... Maybe I haven't actually posted about? 

Okay, it's a tangent but I suppose it's important enough to discuss.

There is a point of view which says that basically might really does make right. 

That if you look past our norms and expected behavior, they're ultimately backed up by force. The police. The army. The FBI. 

Same for international relations... No matter what feel good ideals you hold, they aren't going to become reality unless someone with real power supports it. (this also gets into the transactional mindset, as well as why some countries don't believe our human rights interests are sincere and consider any such thing a ploy for something else. I think it's actually a rather depressing take for a lot of reasons, but I understand why they think it's true. And just like with optimists and pessimists, you'll find evidence to support that belief if you expect to find it). 

I see some of their points, but I think it's more complicated than that... 

Because it ignores two things. 

First, the power of cooperation, and second how our choices impact strength. 

Let me give a little story and then I'll try to explain. 

In the anime Samurai Champloo, one episode centers around a town controlled by the yakuza. The old school yakuza leader was a criminal ofc, but he had a sense of honor and honestly acted more like the government itself. But a rival gang came to town and was threatening his hold. I would say the rival gang represented the 'might makes right' point of view. They didn't care about silly things like 'honor'. 

I don't want to spend too much time on the plot, I just wanted to focus in a character that had seemed pretty minor at first - Ishimatsu. 

Ishimatsu had been a follower of the original yakuza boss, but left for the rival gang because he thought his old boss was weak. In the course of the story, it appeared as though the rival gang was going to win,especially after the original yakuza leader died - but it was going to happen in a very dishonorable way. So Ishimatsu changed his mind, and in doing so led to the defeat of the rival gang. 

Ishimatsu was a powerful character - and who he supported ultimately determined who led the town. 

When all he cared about was 'strength', it appeared as though the rival gang would win. 

But when he cared about honor, ultimately the son of his former boss won. 

Since our ability to cooperate can make one side stronger than another, who we choose to support can determine which side is 'strong'...

So who has the strength may determine who wins, but who we choose to support can determine who has that strength.

When enough people feel the same way. Especially the ones 'strong' enough to make a difference, though large numbers of people carry a strength all their own. 

To bring this back to LitRPG... When you have a world with a system in which people gain levels, and the people with the highest levels are basically powerful enough to take on armies, everything I said above becomes a little less true. 

Which is why so many of them seem to veer into authoritian types of governments (not that our protagonists actually care that much about ruling... But as the biggest, baddest around they pretty much determine what happens). 

Its great fantasy when you think you're the protagonist, but honestly it's pretty awful for those who aren't. 

Oh, also... Leveling systems seem to have a subtheme of 'people dedicated to leveling can and will, so the ones falling behind did it to themselves'. 

Which again is fine for a fantasy... Well, maybe not fine but not often something relevant to the plot. Since ofc our beloved characters are working hard (generally by killing monsters, because as much as they decry the system for being set that way, most of them do level you up the most for defeating monsters. And people, but killing people for xp just isn't cool in a protagonist so generally that only happens in self defense).

Its like... They're fun stories as fantasy? But there are undertones of themes that are actually pretty awful in the real world. 

Background Thoughts

I've been escaping into fiction because all of this is pretty obvious...

But it's hard to figure out what someone like me can actually do about it.

I refuse to believe it's hopeless, but damn is it hard to see a path forward.