I personally tried withdrawing cash at three financial institutions in different weight classes, as was told it was absolutely impossible (in size) at all of them, owing to the Falcon issue.
At one, I was told that I couldnāt use the tellers but could use the ATM. Unfortunately, like many customers, I was attempting to take out more cash from the ATM than I ever had before. Fortunately, their system that flags potentially fraudulent behavior will let a customer unflag themselves by responding to an instant communication from the bank. Unfortunately, the subdomain that communication directs them to runs on a server apparently protected by CrowdStrike Falcon.
I have some knowledge of the history of comprehensive failures of financial infrastructure, and so I considered doing the traditional thing when convertibility of deposits is suspended by industry-wide issues: head to the bar.
Iāve ignored the CrowdStrike news primarily because it didnāt directly impact me, and secondarily because I made an assumption that this was yet another example of the joys of late stage capitalism.
Iām glad I read this article, though, because it helped put the crisis in perspective.
While it didnāt impact me, it certainly caused issues for those in my real life. Software truly has reached a point where it can cause massive headaches for large swaths of society.
When a big part of society gets bumped by an outage like this, the ripples of its consequences will surely be felt by everyone at some point down the road.
Second, I gotta stop being so cynical about capitalism. I should stop pretending Iām above it or better than it. Like it or not, itās the system I have to play in.
It would probably be less stressful for me to accept the game and use it to accomplish my own set of goals.
One of my main goals in life is to build technology that helps make peopleās lives better.1 Say what you will about CrowdStrike, but this article reminded me that itās because of tools like Falcon that we are provided a society in which we all can live better lives.
So instead of sitting here and (a) ignoring the news and (b) complaining about the existence of bad actors in our system, maybe I should instead do my best to help make our system as stable as I can.
Continue to the full article
→
LEE: The president now takes comedic license for the most serious shit imaginable. This attitude of "Hey, who gives a shit? We're going to say what we want but not be held accountable whatsoever because we're just using comedic license,ā Itās kind of mind blowing that those tools were taken and now comics are left sitting there like with their dicks and their lady parts hanging out.
We're the ones that are supposed to have a who-gives-a-fuck attitude because what I say doesn't matter! And now the comics are like, "Well, Jesus, if they have no reverence whatsoever, to humanity or ethics or morals or decency or democracy, then yeah, then how interesting is irreverence? I feel like comedy is seems pretty impotent right now. At best it can describe the nightmare, but it certainly canāt influence it.
This article is seven years old, and Wonder Showzen is more than twenty years old. So reading this article helps me put our current times into a different perspective.
When George W. Bush was elected in his second term, I remember feeling a general sense of victory. Thatās because my parents were both big Bush supporters, and the muted din of Fox News constantly reverberated through our house.
Now that Iām a little older, itās useful to have a piece like this which paints that period in a much different hue.
And any excuse to rewatch Wonder Showzen is a good one for me.
But as far as the pull quote I used: I think this is one of the trickiest lines to walk in a democracy and in a society writ large.
We seem to really care about our sacred cows, but when youāre balancing the needs of billions of sacred cows, are any of them really sacred? How do you determine which sacred cows are worth holding onto?
How do you find that right balance which keeps our species moving forward together?
Continue to the full article
→
I donāt doubt that Taylor Swift fans sometimes feel marginalized or attacked. Especially the ones who are extremely online and see every bozo on Twitter who says Taylor Swift isnāt a real musician or erroneously claims she doesnāt write her own songs. Misogyny exists. No one (except those bozos) disputes this. And itās undeniable that Swift communicates something extra special and relatable to her core fans that more casual listeners miss. And that is worth writing about. But at some point, the compulsion to hush or shout down anyone with a dissenting opinion starts to feel wearying and ungenerous. In 2023, it felt like a classic case of being a sore winner, to borrow a phrase used by the writer B.D. McClay in 2019 to describe thin-skinned cultural figures who want āacclaim, but not responsibility; respect without disagreement; wealth without scrutiny; power without anyone noticing itās there.ā
The first example McClay wrote about, naturally, was Taylor Swift. And that was before she got really big over the pandemic and beyond. But for all her winning, she hasnāt got any better about sportsmanship. She remains obsessed with score settling. (When you have a billion-dollar tour and still feel the need to drag Kim Kardashian for something that happened in the mid-2010s you have unlocked a new level of pettiness.) As for the Swifties, Iām sorry, but you donāt get to say 'This just isnāt for you' when your idol has achieved the ubiquity of Taylor Swift. Because Taylor Swift isnāt just for you. Sheās for all of us. Everyone on the planet has Taylor Swift being shot into their ears and up their nostrils. Sheās inescapable. Whether you like her or not.
So, some of us are sort of sick to death of hearing about Taylor Swift. And thatās an understandable reaction that has no bearing on your personal enjoyment of her music if youāre a fan. Some of us being sort of sick to death of Taylor Swift will not stop the content machine from servicing you. Fear and capitalism will no doubt roll on in 2024. But maybe we can all be a little more normal about it.
I admit that I'm a bit late to this one considering we're more than halfway through 2024 already.1
Maybe it's a consequence of me being intentionally not online this year, but I haven't seen a whole lot of Taylor this year, which is odd considering she released a new album.
Anyway, while I was reading this article, I thought of a recent Daily Show segment where Jon Stewart quips: "Why does everything have to be so fucking weird?"
Go watch the clip (relevant segment is from 2:32 to 3:45) to understand the context and the delivery of that line.
My wife and I have been saying that nonstop this past month, and it's the perfect question to ask ourselves in what could be perhaps the most bizarre year of our lives to date.
Continue to the full article
→
I swear my blog isnāt going to just be links to think pieces about why the internet sucks these days.
It just so happens that there was a wave of these pieces published last year and Iām finally getting around to them in my Instapaper queue.
Two pull quotes stood out to me:
āHumans were never meant to exist in a society that contains 2 billion individuals,ā says Yoel Roth, a technology policy fellow at UC Berkeley and former head of trust and safety for Twitter. āAnd if you consider that Instagram is a society in some twisted definition, we have tasked a company with governing a society bigger than any that has ever existed in the course of human history. Of course theyāre going to fail.ā
Iāve seen a few good posts about the difficulties of content moderation at scale.
On the one hand, most of the abundance and privilege weāve built for ourselves wouldnāt be possible without the massive scale that large conglomerates can achieve.
On the other hand, if something gets so large that we are unable to keep your head wrapped around it, maybe thatās the point where itās okay to let it collapse in on itself.
The destruction and collapse of large entities is awful, with very real consequences for people.
But itās out of the ashes of these organizations when we're presented with an opportunity to take the lessons we learned and build something new. We get to try again.
The fix for the internet isnāt to shut down Facebook or log off or go outside and touch grass. The solution to the internet is more internet: more apps, more spaces to go, more money sloshing around to fund more good things in more variety, more people engaging thoughtfully in places they like. More utility, more voices, more joy.Ā
My toxic trait is I canāt shake that naĆÆve optimism of the early internet. Mistakes were made, a lot of things went sideways, and there have undeniably been a lot of pain and misery and bad things that came from the social era. The mistake now would be not to learn from them.Ā
Keep the internet small and weird, my friends. ā¤ļø
Continue to the full article
→
Politics isnāt a per se bad. Itās a process. Making politics more productive and substantial make society better. Having people ānopeā out of society whenever they get uncomfortable doesnāt help with any of the hard work politics does for things like allocating scarce resources, justice, or equity.
Poignant. I love this web comic.
Continue to the full article
→
For example, I had avoided working for big companies. But if you'd asked why, I'd have said it was because they were bogus, or bureaucratic. Or just yuck. I never understood how much of my dislike of big companies was due to the fact that you win by hacking bad tests.
I've always considered curiosity to be my biggest asset, using it to really understand how things worked.
I never put two-and-two together, though, that the reason I wanted to understand how things worked was to "win" at it.
Paul Graham's theory here is just one revelation after another for me.
Here is another juicy nugget:
Instead of looking at all the different kinds of work people do and thinking of them vaguely as more or less appealing, you can now ask a very specific question that will sort them in an interesting way: to what extent do you win at this kind of work by hacking bad tests?
Continue to the full article
→
Powering through is often passive.
What you're doing is avoiding the harder thing, which is confronting the uncertainty of change. You're protecting yourself from the fear of regret.
Worse, by continuing to barrel through towards an inevitable dead end, you're cheating yourself out of all the opportunities quitting might bring.
Continue to the full article
→
Perhaps one of the paradoxical benefits of the internet, in the long term, is shifting the way we think about peer relationships from āopt-outā, which itās been since pretty much forever, towards āopt-in.ā
In an opt-out peer set relationship, we default towards needing to look good in front of people; towards caring what people think, towards being embarrassed about aspects of ourselves, almost automatically ā regardless of who the other person is. Not caring about what other people think has to be this deliberate act of bravery thatās hard to do.
But in an opt-in peer set relationship, we only people in as peers and role models selectively and deliberately; not caring about what most people think comes naturally, because itās on by default.
Iāve personally been struggling with this concept for the last few weeks, and this article really helped set some things in perspective for me.
Continue to the full article
→
Weāve been led into a culture that has been engineered to leave us tired, hungry for indulgence, willing to pay a lot for convenience and entertainment, and most importantly, vaguely dissatisfied with our lives so that we continue wanting things we donāt have. We buy so much because it always seems like something is still missing.
Continue to the full article
→
Carl Sagan:
If we teach everybody, letās say high school students, the habit of being skeptical, perhaps they will not restrict their skepticism to aspirin commercials and 35,000-year-old channelers (or channelees). Maybe theyāll start asking awkward questions about economic, or social, or political, or religious institutions. Then where will we be?
Skepticism is dangerous. Thatās exactly its function, in my view. It is the business of skepticism to be dangerous. And thatās why there is a great reluctance to teach it in the schools. Thatās why you donāt find a general fluency in skepticism in the media. On the other hand, how will we negotiate a very perilous future if we donāt have the elementary intellectual tools to ask searching questions of those nominally in charge, especially in a democracy?
Continue to the full article
→