Notices by JW prince of CPH (jwcph@norrebro.space)

@gyokusai @pluralistic "In corrupt systems, a few bad actors cost everyone else billions in order to bring in millions – the savings a factory can realize from dumping pollution in the water supply are much smaller than the costs we all bear from being poisoned by effluent. But the costs are widely diffused while the gains are tightly concentrated, so the beneficiaries of corruption can always outspend their victims to stay clear." 👍👍

@aral The sad thing is, nobody doesn't know how absurd & incongruous this is - and yet they did it anyway, clearly & aggressively demonstrating that the Powers That Be™️ couldn't give less of a sh*t about reason, accountability, or indeed the future of humanity on this planet...

Hey, designers of things: Don't make a release button that has to be pushed in the opposite direction of the detachment action itself, mkay?

#design #ux #engineering

@aral @futurebird I can't be arsed to research it but my guess would be that they have some sort of petty personal beef between them. After all, the only thing billionaires hate more than poor people is other billionaires.

@strypey @trib @laura @aral @danhon Sorely needed indeed - as very eloquently pointed out by Mike Monteiro in his talk "How Designers Destroyed The World" 👉 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jg15fVFnXFk

@aral Will definitely watch in its entirety - but just from your headline it seems this talk may be related, subject-wise, to Mike Monteiro's 2015 "How Designers Destroyed The World", which remains one of my favorites on this topic 👉 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIcM21l61TE

@lore I think rhetorics can have lengthy discussions about this - like, for example, if we say that "effective" = "producing *any* effect" doesn't that mean that literally *everything* is effective, and does that not invalidate having a word for it at all?

Wouldn't the reason we have a word like that be that we want a word to describe achieving an effect we agree upon to be beneficial?

Also, can evil be desirable? Why would we call it evil, then?

You know, et cetera...

@lore is it though...? Besides the myth of Mussolini getting the trains to run on time (he didn't), do we have examples of authoritarian societies that were *actually* effective?

- because quickly building, say, a ton of shitty concrete housing isn't effective. It may be (!) efficient but that's a different thing. It seems most grandiose authoritarian "getting things done" projects fulfill a propaganda purpose, but not much else...

Enlighten me, please, I don't mind being proven wrong.

@lore Just to clarify my own understanding, such as it is: "Effective" means "producing a successful result", and "efficient" means "producing a result with minimal ressources, regardless of successfulness". So "effective" does relate to some desirability, while "efficient" doesn't.

This relates to dictatorship outcomes in the sense that they don't produce lasting benefits, meaning they may be efficient, but not effective.

@aral America, land of the (buy one, get one) free*.