My kid goes to a very liberal California school. The main difference between it and my school growing up is that it is no longer acceptable to ostracize or beat up lgbtq kids or kids who are different in other ways. Part of that is because, gasp, the school builds acceptance into the curriculum. I wish I grew up now, it’s such a nicer time to be a weird nerd.

I know nothing about Tesco beyond that quick google search, but I’ve been at several companies where I would read online comments claiming we could reduce our workload to a few servers, and I would think of our tens of thousands of fully loaded machines and roll my eyes.

I like your comment btw. I’d add Observability to CAP to incorporate what you’re saying.

Pretty much every view the user sees of data should include an understanding as to how consistent that data is with the source of truth. Issues with caching (besides basic bugs) often come up when a performance issue comes up and people slap in a cache without renegotiating how the end user would expect the data to look relative to its upstream state.

Tone is something that can be adopted intentionally or unintentionally. If you hear a pilot on a radio dryly say something in a calm and detached tone, it could be in the context of an emergency. Pilots are enculturated to adopt that tone (for various reasons). Meanwhile particular cultures have different levels of acceptability when it comes to tone: some cultures perceive other cultures as more angry, or detached, because of the norms of communication within those cultures.

In short, I think the tone of “calm, scientific detachment” is often weaponized to lend undeserved credibility to an argument, because people tend to believe people more when they adopt that tone.

Furthermore, tone does have a purpose if used alongside a well done argument. For example, in the article the OP linked to, there is a rather exhaustive refutation of the book in question. The tone of the author previews that their entire opinion on the book is negative, given all the arguments they put forth in their review. If the author of the review had adopted a calm and thoughtful tone, perhaps it would indeed have been more effective because the reader would decide. On the other hand, most people won’t read the entire review, so the tone of the author makes it clear what their opinion is.

That said I am not wholly disagreeing with you: would be interesting to do a study using some varying markers to identify tone, and identify, I don’t know, argumentative complexity, and see if snarkiness is associated with a lack of complexity. Assuming you can find markers with predictive power.

I’m not doubting your claim but I’m wondering how that very weird paper you’re citing bubbles up to the top, when there’s some very middle of the road meta analyses that don’t make outsized claims like access to objective truth.

When it comes to incompetence, people can hide that behind kindness, or behind bluster and bullying. Both are certainly unhealthy. I wouldn’t say one leads to issues over the other.

Look at Conway’s Law: “any organization that designs a system (defined broadly) will produce a design whose structure is a copy of the organization's communication structure.”

The “kind” people are the people who optimize an organization’s communication structure by helping competent people to have a voice and not be impeded by political wrangling.

In short, I think it’s the ‘kind’ people who can help an organization realize an architecture that is less warped by political considerations and more true to the customer’s needs.

Of course an organization needs both kindness and competence. In my decades in tech, competence was over-valued in my early years (the worship of the trope of the rockstar-but-asshole programmer), so if there is an overindication towards kindness right now, it is probably a counterbalance.

I would also question your conclusion about the government. While I have not worked in the government myself, I come from a sort of “federal government family”, in that I have multiple close family who have spent decades in federal government roles, and they are full of stories of incompetent managers undermining their employees, politically fighting one another, etc. To your point, they also have plenty of stories of crass incompetence, Nepotism, etc. But I think it’s an easy and incorrect answer to say it’s simply due to “HR-values” as opposed to “engineering-values”: it’s multi-faceted in both directions.

Often times books turn abuse into the catalyst for a noble struggle and cathartic improvement, when in fact that often isn't the case. There's large swathes of human history where oppressive regimes were powerful enough to quickly and brutually suppress rebellions. When violence and abuse are normalized in a culture, it can take a long time and a lot of failed struggles to truly unwind the violence.

I think Jemisin is actively trying to explore that mentality, which is pretty brave because it does make the characters off putting. As the reader you want so badly for them to rise out of the muck and take on a noble struggle, but they're caught up in the cycle of violence.

I say this with respect for your viewpoint, I think you're being very fair about expressing your response, and I completely see where you're coming from.

On your second point: The Nebula Awards specifically target "science fiction" and "fantasy" genres. I'm quite widely read in science fiction. I took a look at the list of novels that have won or been finalists for the Nebula Awards. It turns out I've read quite a few of them, scattered over the decades the Nebulas have existed. The Fifth Season is far from the only set of books with fantastical elements to have won, and the ones I've read that have won have plenty of world building elements that would be incorrect by a fourth grade textbook (FTL? Reincarnation? Fire breathing dragons?). Yes, the Game of Thrones novels (a Song of Ice and Fire), though quite excellent, are quite firmly in the realm of fantasy, and they were often Nebula finalists! By your criteria, the Nebula Awards were "destroyed" a long time ago. Several books, including some from the very early years of the Nebula Awards, are now called "science fantasy", i.e. science fiction that leans into fantastical elements. The Fifth Season is actually typically labeled as "science fantasy".

If the Fifth Season "destroyed" the Nebula Awards, then you would see more recent winners being almost exclusively science fantasy. I haven't read as many of the newer winners as I have older winners, but two of my favorite novels of recent years won or were finalists: Network Effect by Martha Wells, which is pretty much a core science fiction novel, and Piranesi, by Susanna Clarke, which is even more fantastical than the Broken Earth.

One of my favorite recent-years science fiction novels, Children of Time, surprisingly didn't get a Nebula, but it did get a Hugo. Looking at its publishing year though, 2015, I see why! Three Body Problem was nominated, and Annihilation, which I absolutely adore (but can't spell), won that year.

Meanwhile Octavia Butler is absolutely one of my favorite authors regardless of genre. Her work stuck with me for quite a while, as has le Guin's (specifically, Left Hand of Darkness, I've actually had trouble getting into some of her other works, though I mean to try again). Butler to me is a visionary alongside my other favorites in the sci fi canon.

It may be that it hit me at a particular time in my life: I read it in my early teens and the way gender was expressed in the novel, the sort of tidal shift between masculine and feminine based on circumstance, really spoke to me at a time I was figuring all that out in my own psyche. I wonder if a lot of the gender exploration in the book may seem more trite and typical now.

Having understood that question, and built an understanding of what predicts fraud, you would then graduate to build models to understand the extent to which features predict fraudulence.

My point in context of the conversation is that it's useful in a business context to explore and understand that data.

- identify latent features of customers via their behavioral data, to be used for profiling customers or recommending products to them

- within a large amount of customer behavioral data, identify potentially fraudulent behavior

- identify causes of seasonality (e.g. temporal patterns) in the data in order to improve forecasting (sales, traffic, whatever)

In those cases part of the investigation is to initially take a hands-off (unsupervised) approach, so that we can compare our initial top-down hypotheses with actual patterns in the data.

In both of those cases there's considerable (and sometimes adversarial) noise in the data.

Maybe for people who use it negatively, "refactoring" or "unplanned improving" isn't "yak shaving" until you've gone beyond what's reasonable. E.g. if you're doing some recursive refactoring, and improving the code base, great, but yak shaving is when you've truly gone off course.

Either way, I think this is where healthy team dynamics are so useful, because it's hard for the yak shaver to know if they've gone off course or are doing something unplanned but useful. If I think I'm deep in a yak shaving exercise, but I think the results will be beneficial, I announce that I'm yak shaving and explain why. If the rest of the team thinks it isn't truly a useful exercise, they can guide me out of it.