The chilling effect of Political Correctness

Or “Why NextDoor stinks”

My reaction upon my earlier post getting blocked on NextDoor. The “fully clothed person” in the original post, happened to be wearing a burka (or whatever the hell that outfit is called) and jumping into the community swimming pool in the full outfit. Mind you, the pool rules prohibit the swimming in a t-shirt. And that word, clearly, has triggered a whole bunch of snowflakes in my hood, so they decided to pick up proferbial pitchforks and run up the hill to my castle:

Misuse of forum rules for silencing the disagreement
I have found just yet, that my earlier post about a fully clothed person jumping into the pool has been blocked (temporarily) pending the investigation of someone’s claim that it violates “Public shaming” rule.

A fair warning to my fellow dwellers: next time you see something suspicious or dangerous happening in our community, don’t rush here to report on it. Instead, make sure your post does not hurt the perpetrator’s feelings. Or you’d face the outlash of our self-righteous neighbors.

Too bad, the virtue signaling in our community got to the point where an opinion that one doesn’t like got shut using inappropriate means of semantical miscategorization. Sad day…

And here comes a reply from a… person, for the lack of a more insulting word:

Here’s a suggestion for you: if you had replaced the word “burka” with “street clothes” in your original post, I guarantee your post would still be up. Even if you referred to said street clothes as “filthy rags.”

Let’s just all be nice neighbors, eh?

What I did next is this:

Here’s a suggestion for you: apply for a job in a censorship organization. There are plenty of them right now.

And you can replace the word “censorship” with something up to your liking.How about “content beautification”?

Which leads, much immediately, to this. A quote from the email:

A message you posted was reported by another Nextdoor member as violating Nextdoor’s Community Guideline: Don’t use Nextdoor as a soapbox: Over-posting.

Are we really going into this direction, where a group of SJW is going to suppress anything they disagree with?

My reaction? :Facepalm: and violent puking in disgust. That’s how PC and cultural Marxism is creeping into our communities and making it unsafe for anyone who doesn’t conform with SJW opinion (whatever it might be at the moment).


Will traceable Bitcoin last?

In any argument about “Bitcoins ain’t money”, its alleged anonymity was the most powerful comeback of apologists of crypto currencies.

However, with the recent confirmation of (at best) weak anonymity of Bitcoins, one (if not the only) benefit of owning electrons “mined” in someone else’s computers is going to disappear.

Here’s a couple of points to contemplate on:

  • The ledger is public. All related transactions are recorded and linked to each other by the block-chain design.
  • Most, if not all, endpoints where virtual currencies could be converted into something tangible or fiat papers, are controlled by the institutions, issuing said fiat currencies. All sorts of identification requirements are imposed on anyone opening an account. Very much like you’d expect walking in a bank to open a new checking account.

And with this, any dreams of being an anonymous, omnipotent alternative system of high-tech “money” are gone for good. It didn’t exist in the first place for the lack of tangibility and intrinsic value. But now it should be clear even to the die-hards.

It doesn’t mean you’ll see the crash in the prices tomorrow. The speculative cycle might as well keep going for Dao knows how long. But it is going to end. Like all the bubbles have before.

Don’t get fooled by the shiny, gold-like images of Bitcoin. Unlike real gold, being a mere electronic construct it doesn’t shine.

Taking “The red pill”

An amazing documentary movie by Cassie Jaye “The red pill“. Deep, troubling, intellectually honest, well balanced argument about the, perhaps, most important issue of our time. Because it is tearing apart the very fabric of our lives.

The uniformity of the “public opinion” expressed through MSM channels is disturbing. Those dare to speak up are opressed, chased with the hounds, and diminished to pariah. Look at the story of James Damore and his attempt to strike an honest argument inside of Google? Look at the apologetic stance of the radical feminists and their sympathizers. What other data points are needed to demonstrate the divide and the blind urge to silence the other side at any cost?

This is a very dangerous road! The end of it isn’t pretty nor serene: it is harmful for all, dangerous and violent. Hopefully, there’s still a chance to turn around?

Please watch the movie without prejudice and the shores on your eyes. Just try…

Google _is_ anti competetive and anti free-speech!

I writing this with a inner-satisfaction for the perfect timing of my last night move: I have finally pulled the plug on (read #Google) and moved all my stuff to WordPress. Guess what has happened today?

Yes, you read this right: because is standing for the free speech and unrestricted exchange of ideas, the Internet giant is trying to stomp on the platform provider that has higher standards and respect for individual rights such as the one protected by 1st Amendment.

What’s next? Will Sundar Pichai of Google make an order to delete Gab from the search index? Or just send in a firing squad to go right over the half-measures?

"The bank killed me"

“I killed the bank” said once Andrew Jackson, the 7th President of US, considering it the biggest achievement his life. Of course, he was referring to the 2nd Central Bank of US, which was wiped out of existence in 1836. It was preceded by First Bank of United States which was too corrupt to be allowed to exist and its charter was simply let to expire in 1811. And until 1913 US economy was developing at the pace and strength never seen since.

Ironically, as a strong proponent of sound money (as in ‘sound as gold’) he was, Jackson’s face was put on $20 bill in 1928. Back in the day, $20 was effectively the same as a one-ounce $20 coin (well, technically, 1 ounce price was $20.63).

And that fact was clearly stated on the face of the IOU note, as you can see for yourself:

But the irony hasn’t kicked fully in until 1933, when as the result of FDR gold confiscation and following dollar devaluation to $35/ounce, it has loss nearly 63%  of purchase power overnight. And it was only downhill since. Today, it would take 60+ of these pieces of paper to get you same one-ounce coin

And now, I am sure, Jackson is laughing up in the heavens observing how his face is being replaced with a picture of some neo-liberal darling, finally getting removed from the piece of paper, that represents everything he was opposing strongly all his life.

Is Amazon such an awful workplace?

Well, if you came here to read about yet another poor bastard crying his eyes out in a lone Amazon cubicle – go to NYT or elsewhere. Because this ain’t about it. This is the rant: rant about wimps bitching about a corporate culture that doesn’t take into account their delicate souls or sophisticated personalities. And you know what – you aren’t working there for free: if you think that your compensation doesn’t balance out your alleged “moral damage” – quit. Yep, quit as in go somewhere else where you can sit in a conference room, hold each other hands and sing kumbaya all day long. And where you delicate horseshit will be appreciated.

For the record: I am not working for Amazon and never did. But I was at that company once, which was pretty great in the beginning but had turned into a complete shit-hole in about five months. And when the stink in that place became unbearable – I did just that: I quit. I didn’t go to overly politicized NYT or the clown-ass Huffpost to bitch about how diminishing the place was, or how devastating to the very engineering culture the management style was. Nope – I just moved on.

So, the lesson here is pretty simple: stop bitching and take charge of your life or move back into your mommy’s basement: ’cause Bezos isn’t your daddy.

Об инициативе "Ассоциация выпускников СПбГУ"

Несколько раз за последние пару недель мне на глаза попалась
информация об инициативе “Ассоциация выпускников СПбГУ”. Как
создатель LinkedIn группы “Выпускников Санкт-Петербургского
Государственного Университета” я хотел бы поделится своим
отношением к подобным инициативам.

Для чего создаются ассоциации? Как правило люди стоящие за
конгломератами любого типа – консорциумы, объединения, картели,
гильдии и проч. – предлагают очень убедительные объяснения, что
именно эта инициатива поможет решить все или почти все проблемы
по повышению публичности участников, их конкурентно-способности,
росту доходности и тому подобное. Эмпирические данные, однако,
свидетельствуют только об одной цели: создание механизма
контроля. И даже не важно, что именно будет
контролироваться. Главная цель всегда одна: контроль.

Несмотря на всю кажущуюся противоречивость, объяснение этого
явления довольно простое. Чем больше группа, тем выше ее шансы
оказать влияния, чаще всего через использование не-добровольных
мер, повлиять на принятие каких-то решений, изменения различных
законных, подзаконных или административных процедур. Итоге –
получение прямой выгоды в виде политического или финансового
капитала. Но политический и финансовый капитал никогда не
достигает тех участников, для которых ассоцияция,
предположительно, создавалась. Можно привести множество
исторических примеров для подтверждения этой гипотезы, начиная от
коммерческих картелей до столь, казалось бы, замечательной
организации как профсоюзы. Последние оказались очень эффективным
и практически криминальным средством борьбы с предпринимателями,
коммерческими производителями, и проч. Достоточно просто
поизучать историю создания профсоюзов в любой стране, в любой
отрезок времени, в любой экономической системе.

Большую часть своей профессиональной деятельности я посвятил
разработке и продвижению открытого программного обеспечения (Free
& Open Source Software).  Мой собственный опыт много раз
подтверждал вышесказанное: ассоциация всегда приводит к введению
контроля с целью ограничения доступа к тем или иным ресурсам и,
как следствие, получения выгоды создателями в той или иной форме.

Зачем же создается “Ассоциация выпускников СПбГУ” и почему в этом
принимает участие McKinsey & Company – “…международная
компания, предоставляющая услуги в области управленческого
консалтинга.” Чем именно она будет управлять и какие и, что
немаловажно, как именно цели будут достигаться? Может быть
г. Andrey Yakunin со-товарищи сумеют ответить?

Ultimate hipster-fu$%up.

A pathetic product for a pathetic hipsters:

Because taking notes on the iPad is, apparently, next to impossible, one needs to have an old-fashioned pen-and-paper solution alongside. The ultimate part of it of course is when one has to take a picture of paper notes with the iPad and send the image to hipster-friends. OMG WTF!

Людвиг Фон Мизез: определение рынка

Глава 9 “Рынок”, “Человеческая деятельность“, Людвиг Фон Мизез (в моем переводе, поскольку я не сумел найти более адекватного):

“Рыночная экономика это социальная система разделения труда, предполагающая частную собственность средств производства. Каждый участник представляет собственные интересы; действия каждого направлены на удовлетворения потребностей других людей так же как и своих собственных. Действия каждого служат интересам всех членов общества. Симметрично, интересы каждого удовлетворяются действиями его сограждан.
… Рынок способствует удовлетворению потребностей всех участников этого процесса, направляя индивидуальную деятельность наиболее эффективным образом. Рыночные операции происходят без принуждения или насилия.
… Рынок это процесс возникающий в результате взаимодействия всех индивидуумов, сотрудничающих в системе разделения труда… Рыночный процесс состоит исключительно из результатов человеческой деятельности…Рыночный процесс – это состояние постоянной перестройки действий индивидуумов, отражающее изменения требований взаимной кооперации… Производитель получает информацию о том, какая продукция, как, и в каком количестве должна быть произведена; источником такой информации служит система рыночных цен.”

В этих трех параграфах содержится больше понимания экономики, чем в трех томах Das Kapital. Смогут ли сторонники марксизма, фашизма и социализма внятно и логически непротиворечиво объяснить, что не работает в вышеуказанной экономической системе и почему командная экономика в состоянии удовлетворить запросы потребителя лучше, если способна вообще? Или это знание доступное исключительно людям “пролетарского происхождения”?