October 2014 - P2P-Foundation - lists.ourproject.org

WEBCAST TODAY: ISOC-HK Meetup with FireChat Creator Micha Benoliel
by Joly MacFie 06 Oct '14

06 Oct '14

FireChat, and it's use by Hong Kong protesters, is very much in the news. For instance there is a New York Times Story today - http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/06/technology/hong-kong-protests-propel-a-ph… . There is some confusion over how the app actually works, so today makers Open Garden have published what amounts to a FAQ - 'FireChat - what it is and what it is not' at http://opengardening.tumblr.com/post/99296368130/firechat . At 6am EDT | 10am UTC - about 30 mins from now - Open Garden CEO Micha Benoliel will go live with our Hong Kong Chapter to further elucidate. joly posted: "Today Monday October 6 2014 at 6pm HKT the Internet Society's Honk Kong Chapter (ISOC HK) will present a Meetup with FireChat creator Micha Benoliel, Co-founder and CEO of Open Garden. Firechat is a phone app that enables off-the-grid communication, e.g." [image: isoc-hk] <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/isoc-hk1.jpg>Today *Monday October 6 2014 at 6pm HKT* the *Internet Society's Honk Kong Chapter <http://www.isoc.hk/>* (ISOC HK) will present a *Meetup with FireChat creator Micha Benoliel <http://www.isoc.hk/2014/10/meetup-with-firechat-creator-6-octevening/>*, Co-founder and CEO of *Open Garden <https://opengarden.com/>*. *Firechat <https://opengarden.com/firechat>* is a phone app that enables off-the-grid communication, e.g. when there is no Internet connection or cellular phone coverage, *much utilized by students during the current Hong Kong protests. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AT1j8V-P1PQ>* The meetup will focus on the technical aspects, and will be webcast live on the *Internet Society Chapters Channel <http://bit.ly/isoctv>*. *What: Meetup with FireChat Creator Micha Benoliel <http://www.isoc.hk/2014/10/meetup-with-firechat-creator-6-octevening/> Where: Good Lab, West Kowloon, Hong Kong When: Monday October 6 2014 6-8pm HKT | 1000-1200 UTC | 0600-0800 EDT Webcast: http://bit.ly/isoctv <http://bit.ly/isoctv> Facebook event: https://www.facebook.com/events/1474989819442461/ <https://www.facebook.com/events/1474989819442461/> Twitter: #firechat <https://twitter.com/hashtag/firechat?f=realtime&src=hash> | @isochk <https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&q=%40isochk&src=typd> * Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7043#respond> See all comments <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7043#comments> *Permalink* http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7043 -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -

1 0

Speech of Argentine President Cristina Fernandez : UN General Assembly : Information Clearing House - ICH
by joseph orlando 06 Oct '14

06 Oct '14

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article39857.htm#.VDHrlBuhw9k.gmail

1 0

Fwd: 1st 3d printed car
by Michel Bauwens 06 Oct '14

06 Oct '14

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: james burke <lifesized(a)gmail.com> Date: Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 12:23 AM Subject: 1st 3d printed car To: Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> http://tech.co/local-motors-3d-printed-car-2-2014-09 J -- *Lifesized* James Burke *contact* Phone:+31 (0)6 5244 6445 Site: www.lifesized.net Twitter: https://twitter.com/lifesized Linkedin: nl.linkedin.com/in/lifesized - -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

2 1

Fwd: Amazing Ken Wilber interview recorded in January 2014
by Michel Bauwens 05 Oct '14

05 Oct '14

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Timothy Wilken, MD <timothy.wilken(a)gmail.com> Date: Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 1:48 AM Subject: Amazing Ken Wilber interview recorded in January 2014 To: Timothy Wilken <timothy.wilken(a)gmail.com> Dear Unity Thinkers, It is my privilege to share a special recording with you. I happened on to this with a random click while re-searching Unity consciousness. This is lengthy interview in which Ken Wilber shares the state of his knowledge as of January 2014, with a focus on the continued existence of the Human Species and hopefully, our transition into a peaceful and united humanity. One World -- One Humanity. This is an audio recording an interview, but Ken does most of the talking. In it, he starts from the emergence of human life ~200,000 BC, and presents the history of humanity up to the present from and Integral perspective. He next summarizes both outer and inner knowing, and explains his understanding of human enlightenment. He discusses Evolution, the current State of Humanity, and towards the middle of the talk, he begins his discussion of what some Buddhists are calling the *The Fourth Turning*, and the important difference between *Growing Up* and *Waking Up*. Growing up is about the structure of consciousness. It is moving from ego-centric to Cosmo-centric. Waking up is about states of consciousness. It is awaking to Unity consciousness -- sometimes called Christ consciousness or Buddha consciousness -- being one with source -- being one with ALL -- being one with all that is rising in consciousness -- being always connected to I-amness. Wilber argues that the next stage of human evolution which some Buddhists are calling the Fourth Turning must include both *growth* and *development* -- both *growing up* and *waking up* for both of these processes will be necessary if humanity is to survive. Towards the end of the second hour of the interview, he challenges those of us who are grown up and wake, to now move toward helping our brothers and sisters, who are still sleeping children, grow up and wake up. This will require dealing with those individuals stuck in their ethnocentric religions or controlled by coercive ethnocentric governments, who would prefer that their subjects remain as sleeping children. At this point in the interview, (~2:14:00) the interviewer decides to lighten things up somewhat, so they begin discussing less cosmic issues. One of his questions was: What kind of music does he like to listen to? ;>) The entire recording is 2 hours and 43 minutes long, which at first blush, may seem too long for most busy humans, but considering the quality and quantity of material discussed in this lesson, after listening, you may decide as I did, that it is really too short. ;>) However, you may need to pause the recording occasionally to take breaks, or divide it into several listening sessions. You can also download the recording all ready broken into 6 parts of ~28minutes each on this page <http://theindiespiritualist.com/2014/01/19/chris-grosso-interviews-ken-wilb…> . Namaste, Timothy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYjvKmYmPNY -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

1 0

Fwd: Cisco: The Internet Needs More Control - NYTimes.com
by Michel Bauwens 05 Oct '14

05 Oct '14

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Farsam Shadab <samfar(a)gmail.com> Date: Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 2:18 AM Subject: Cisco: The Internet Needs More Control - NYTimes.com To: integralresearchlabs <integralresearchlabs(a)gmail.com>, Michel Bauwens < michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/bits/2014/09/29/cisco-the-internet-needs-mo… -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

1 0

Fwd: Article at ROARmag on a possible electoral victory of the left in Greece
by Michel Bauwens 05 Oct '14

05 Oct '14

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Theodoros Karyotis <tkaryotis(a)gmail.com> Date: Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 11:26 PM Subject: Article at ROARmag on a possible electoral victory of the left in Greece To: Dear friends, as you may know in Greece we are informally entering a pre-electoral period, with left-wing coalition SYRIZA heading the polls. This is understandably creating a lot of anticipation and excitement in the European left and social movements. As a contribution to the debate generated by this development, Antonis Broumas from Athens and I have tried to explore what an electoral victory of the left-wing could mean for the social movements that have been the protagonists of social mobilization in the past 5 years in Greece -and around the world- and to what extent it is compatible with their vision of social transformation. The article is published at ROARmag: http://roarmag.org/2014/09/syriza-government-autonomous-movements/ Feel free to forward, republish, comment or start a debate at the ROARmag comment space! Best wishes, Teo PS Greek and Spanish language versions coming up. autonomias.net twitter.com/TebeoTeo ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ...buscar y saber reconocer quién y qué, en medio del infierno, no es infierno, y hacer que dure, y dejarle espacio... -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

1 0

Fwd: [Networkedlabour] Beyond the Wage-Labour Fixation and State-Dependency of the Traditional Left
by Michel Bauwens 05 Oct '14

05 Oct '14

it still seems to me that this hope of a purely soft transformation through self-organisation, without tackling state power, is utopian and illusory: "In that sense, let’s bear in mind that a precondition for the French Revolution was that, at a certain point, the social network of bourgeois relations no longer needed the aristocracy in order to exist. Likewise, we must work to reach a point where we can say “we don’t care if global capital isn’t investing in Spain, because we’ve built a mutual support network that’s strong enough to enable us to live with dignity.” ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: peter waterman <peterwaterman1936(a)gmail.com> Date: Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 10:21 PM Subject: [Networkedlabour] Beyond the Wage-Labour Fixation and State-Dependency of the Traditional Left - *Peter sez:* *John Holloway, who was once a UK political-economist of the traditional left, argues in Roar Magazine, the necessity of surpassing the wage-labour focus and (consequent) state dependency of that tradition. I have been trying to say this, in arguing the need for a global movement for the emancipation of labour. But, well, he does it more theoretically, more forcefully and, I would say, more elegantly than I am capable of doing. He raises, however, a major challenge to the international left unionism, represented variously by such bodies as the Global Labour Journal, the Global Labour Institute, the left unionism in the Third World, and various other such. One (this one anyway) would really like to see their response to this piece.* *Now read on...* John Holloway: cracking capitalism vs. the state option by Amador Fernández-Savater on September 29, 2014 [image: Post image for John Holloway: cracking capitalism vs. the state option] *With left parties on the rise in Spain and Greece, John Holloway reflects on his influential 2002 thesis: can we change the world without taking power?* *Interview by Amador Fernández-Savater. Translated by Richard Mac Duinnsleibhe and edited by Arianne Sved* *of Guerrilla Translation <http://guerrillatranslation.com/>*. In 2002, John Holloway published a landmark book: *Change the World without Taking Power* <http://www.plutobooks.com/display.asp?K=9780745329185>. Inspired by the ‘*¡Ya basta!*’ of the Zapatistas, by the movement that emerged in Argentina in 2001/’02, and by the anti-globalization movement, Holloway sets out a hypothesis: it is not the idea of revolution or transformation of the world that has been refuted as a result of the disaster of authoritarian communism, but rather the idea of revolution as the *taking of power*, and of the party as the political tool par excellence. Holloway discerns another concept of social change at work in these movements, and generally in every practice—however visible or invisible it may be—where a logic different from that of profit is followed: the logic of cracking capitalism. That is, to create, within the very society that is being rejected, spaces, moments, or areas of activity in which a different world is prefigured. Rebellions in motion. From this perspective, the idea of organization is no longer equivalent to that of the party, but rather entails the question of how the different cracks that unravel the fabric of capitalism can recognize each other and connect. But after Argentina’s “*que se vayan todos*” came the Kirchner government, and after Spain’s “*no nos representan*” appeared Podemos. We met with John Holloway in the city of Puebla, Mexico, to ask him if, after everything that has happened in the past decade, from the progressive governments of Latin America to Podemos and Syriza in Europe, along with the problems for self-organized practices to exist and multiply, he still thinks that it is possible to “change the world without taking power.” ::::::::::::::::::::::: *Firstly, John, we would like to ask you where the hegemonic idea of revolution in the 20th century comes from, what it is based on. That is, the idea of social change through the taking of power.* I think the central element is labor, understood as wage labor. In other words, alienated or abstract labor. Wage labor has been, and still is, the bedrock of the trade union movement, of the social democratic parties that were its political wing, and also of the communist movements. This concept defined the revolutionary theory of the labor movement: the struggle of wage labor against capital. But its struggle was limited because wage labor is the complement of capital, not its negation. *I don’t understand the relation between this idea of labor and that of revolution through the taking of state power.* One way of understanding the connection would be as follows: if you start off from the definition of labor as wage or alienated labor, you start off from the idea of the workers as victims and objects of the system of domination. And a movement that struggles to improve the living standards of workers (considered as victims and objects) immediately refers to the state. Why? Because the state, due to its very separation from society, is the ideal institution if one seeks to achieve benefits for people. This is the traditional thinking of the labor movement and that of the left governments that currently exist in Latin America. *But this tradition isn’t the only approach to a politics of emancipation…* Of course not. In the last twenty or thirty years we find a great many movements that claim something else: it is possible to emancipate human activity from alienated labor by opening up cracks where one is able to do things differently, to do something that seems useful, necessary, and worthwhile to us; an activity that is not subordinated to the logic of profit. These cracks can be spatial (places where other social relations are generated), temporal (“Here, in this event, for the time that we are together, we are going to do things differently. We are going to open windows onto another world.”), or related to particular activities or resources (for example, cooperatives or activities that pursue a non-market logic with regard to water, software, education, etc.). The world, and each one of us, is full of these cracks. The rejection of alienated and alienating labor entails, at the same time, a critique of the institutional and organizational structures, and the mindset that springs from it. This is how we can explain the rejection of trade unions, parties, and the state that we observe in so many contemporary movements, from the Zapatistas to the Greek or Spanish *indignados*. *But it isn’t a question of the opposition between an old and a new politics, I think. Because what we see in the movements born of the economic crisis is that those two things come to the fore at the same time: cracks such as protests in city squares, and new parties such as Syriza or Podemos.* I think it’s a reflection of the fact that our experience under capitalism is contradictory. We are victims and yet we are not. We seek to improve our living standards as workers, and also to go beyond that, to live differently. In one respect we are, in effect, people who have to sell their labor power in order to survive. But in another, each one of us has dreams, behaviors and projects that don’t fit into the capitalist definition of labor. The difficulty, then as now, lies in envisioning the relation between those two types of movements. How can that relation avoid reproducing the old sectarianism? How can it be a fruitful relation without denying the fundamental differences between the two perspectives? *Argentina in 2001 and 2002, the indignados in Greece and Spain more recently. At a certain point, bottom-up movements stall, they enter a crisis or an impasse, or they vanish. Would you say that the politics of cracks has intrinsic limits in terms of enduring and expanding?* I wouldn’t call them limits, but rather problems. Ten years ago, when I published *Change the World without Taking Power*, the achievements and the power of movements from below were more apparent, whereas now we are more conscious of the problems. The movements you mention are enormously important beacons of hope, but capital continues to exist and it’s getting worse and worse; it progressively entails more misery and destruction. We cannot confine ourselves to singing the praises of movements. That’s not enough. *Could one response then be the option that focuses on the state?* It’s understandable why people want to go in that direction, very understandable. These have been years of ferocious struggles, but capital’s aggression remains unchanged. I sincerely hope that Podemos and Syriza do win the elections, because that would change the current kaleidoscope of social struggles. But I maintain all of my objections with regard to the state option. Any government of this kind entails channeling aspirations and struggles into institutional conduits that, by necessity, force one to seek a conciliation between the anger that these movements express and the reproduction of capital. Because the existence of any government involves promoting the reproduction of capital (by attracting foreign investment, or through some other means), there is no way around it. This inevitably means taking part in the aggression that is capital. It’s what has already happened in Bolivia and Venezuela, and it will also be the problem in Greece or Spain. *Could it be a matter of complementing the movements from below with a movement oriented towards government institutions?* That’s the obvious answer that keeps coming up. But the problem with obvious answers is that they suppress contradictions. Things can’t be reconciled so easily. From above, it may be possible to improve people’s living conditions, but I don’t think one can break with capitalism and generate a different reality. And I sincerely believe that we’re in a situation where there are no long-term solutions for the whole of humanity within capitalism. I’m not discrediting the state option because I myself don’t have an answer to offer, but I don’t think it’s the solution. *Where are you looking for the answer?* Whilst not considering parties of the left as enemies, since for me this is certainly not the case, I would say that the answer has to be thought of in terms of deepening the cracks. If we’re not going to accept the annihilation of humanity, which, to me, seems to be on capitalism’s agenda as a real possibility, then the only alternative is to think that our movements are the birth of another world. We have to keep building cracks and finding ways of recognizing them, strengthening them, expanding them, connecting them; seeking the confluence or, preferably, the commoning of the cracks. If we think in terms of state and elections, we are straying away from that, because Podemos or Syriza can improve things, but they cannot create another world outside the logic of capital. And that’s what this is all about, I think. *Finally, John, how do you see the relation between the two perspectives we’ve been talking about?* We need to keep a constant and respectful debate going without suppressing the differences and the contradictions. I think the basis for a dialogue could be this: no one has the solution. For the moment, we have to recognize that we’re not strong enough to abolish capitalism. By strong, I am referring here to building ways of living that don’t depend on wage labor. To be able to say “I don’t really care whether I have a job or not, because if I don’t have one, I can dedicate my life to other things that interest me and that give me enough sustenance to live decently.” That’s not the case right now. Perhaps we have to build that before we can say “go to hell, capital.” In that sense, let’s bear in mind that a precondition for the French Revolution was that, at a certain point, the social network of bourgeois relations no longer needed the aristocracy in order to exist. Likewise, we must work to reach a point where we can say “we don’t care if global capital isn’t investing in Spain, because we’ve built a mutual support network that’s strong enough to enable us to live with dignity.” Right now the rage against banks is spreading throughout the world. However, I don’t think banks are the problem, but rather the existence of money as a social relation. How should we think about rage against money? I believe this necessarily entails building non-monetized, non-commodified social relations. And there are a great many people dedicated to this effort, whether out of desire, conviction or necessity, even though they may not appear in the newspapers. They’re building other forms of community, of sociality, of thinking about technology and human capabilities in order to create a new life. *John Holloway* *is Professor of Sociology at the Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences of the Autonomous University of Puebla in Mexico. His latest book is Crack Capitalism <http://www.plutobooks.com/display.asp?K=9780745330082&> (Pluto Press, 2010)*. -- 1. *EBook, November 2012: Recovering Internationalism <http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/recovering_internationalism/>. [A compilation of papers from the new millenium. Now free in two download formats] <http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/world_social_forum/> <http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/world_social_forum/>* 2. *EBook (co-editor), February 2013: World Social Forum: Critical Explorations http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/world_social_forum/ <http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/world_social_forum/> * 3. *Interface Journal Special (co-editor), November 2012: For the Global Emancipation of Labour <http://www.interfacejournal.net/current/>* 4. *Blog: http://www.unionbook.org/profile/peterwaterman. <http://www.unionbook.org/profile/peterwaterman.> * 5. *Interface Journal Special (Co-Editor) Social Movement Internationalisms. See Call for Papers <http://www.interfacejournal.net/>, (Deadline: May 1, 2014). * 6. *Needed: a Global Labour Charter Movement (2005-Now!) <http://interfacejournal.nuim.ie/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Interf…>* 7. *Under, Against, Beyond: Labour and Social Movements Confront a Globalised, Informatised Capitalism <http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/under-against-beyond/>(2011) Almost 1,000 pages of Working Papers, free, from the 1980 <1980>'s-90's.* 8. *Google Scholar Citation Index:* *http://scholar.google.com.pe/citations?user=e0e6Qa4AAAAJ <http://scholar.google.com.pe/citations?user=e0e6Qa4AAAAJ> * - _______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list NetworkedLabour(a)lists.contrast.org http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

1 0

Fwd: [tapas] Not-For-Profits & Beyond Capitalism
by Michel Bauwens 05 Oct '14

05 Oct '14

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Benjamin Tincq <btincq(a)gmail.com> Date: Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 7:06 PM Subject: [tapas] Not-For-Profits & Beyond Capitalism To: tapas(a)lists.p2pfoundation.net Dear friends, Here is a piece from Donnie Maclurcan in the guardian that might catch your interest: http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/oct/01/for-profit-capi… Cheers :) Ben — Sent from Mailbox <https://www.dropbox.com/mailbox> -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

1 1

Fwd: 3 broad programmer categories ? ( quora )
by Michel Bauwens 05 Oct '14

05 Oct '14

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dante-Gabryell Monson <dante.monson(a)gmail.com> Date: Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 6:55 PM Subject: 3 broad programmer categories ? ( quora ) To: "econowmix(a)googlegroups.com" <econowmix(a)googlegroups.com>, " op-n-m(a)googlegroups.com" <op-n-m(a)googlegroups.com> http://www.quora.com/What-do-the-top-1-of-software-engineers-do-that-the-ot… Michael O. Church <http://www.quora.com/Michael-O-Church> 632 upvotes the "Cliff's Notes" version of the theory (and the 0.0-to-3.0 scale of programmer competence) here. First, programmers tend to separate into three very broad (and overlapping) categories: - *Adders* ("level 1", 0.0 to 1.4) who can solve most programming problems, given enough time. These tend to be the ones who do line-of-business work, write scripts to fetch data and answer questions that executives or traders care about, etc. The good ones want to progress beyond this level, remove themselves from parochial details and work on more general "core" problems. - *Multipliers* ("level 2"; 1.5 to 2.4) who can select technologies, make architectural decisions, and write or maintain useful libraries. They tend to have open-source contributions to their name, speak at conferences, and are often executive-equivalent in importance to their companies. - *Global Multipliers* ("level 3"; 2.5+) who build communities, create platforms and come up with concepts like Google's MapReduce. Their ambitions tend to out-scope most companies so they're often in academia, consulting independently, or highly paid in large firms' R&D labs. These three abstraction levels don't tell the whole story, and of course some "adder" tasks are very hard (like building a production trading system) and could not be done by most "level 1" programmers. Then there's the altogether different issue of unqualified people being given "level 2" (or 3) work, such as architecture of a complex software system. Perhaps a hard L1 task is really 1.3 or 1.5 or even higher. This is just the theory. To assess programmer level and give more of a continuum (from 0.0 to 3.0) we add a decimal point and assume that, e.g., a 2.0 programmer will succeed at 95% of level-2 tasks (and likewise for L1 and L3). At 1.5, it's 50%. At 1.0, it's 5% (relative to L2) and 95% of L1 tasks. In building the model, I assumed a logistic S-curve-- so a 1.6 programmer will succeed at 64% of L2 tasks; 1.7, 76%; 1.8, 85%; 1.9, 91%-- but I don't think it can be taken that precisely. At 0.7, you're able to do most straight coding tasks (although it may take a long time, and you're still not sure what this "compiler" thing is really doing). 1.0 is the level at which people are typically considered "software engineers" and 1.2 is the probably the median employed engineer, but at top tech companies it's closer to 1.6. A typical SWE 3 at Google is 1.6-1.8 but assigned 1.2-1.4 level work. A typical Sr. SWE at Google is 1.8-2.0 but assigned 1.4-1.7 level work. You might sense a pattern. The bad news is that you'll often be under-leveled at that sort of place. The good news is that the quality of most of the code at Google is quite high. On the other hand, there are plenty of companies (usually non-technical ones that still rely on software) out there that don't have a *single* 1.5+ engineer (or, at least, not one that they listen to) and they still need architects... so you often see those L2 decisions made by people at the 1.2-1.4 level (or by non-technical managers, which is worse) and the results are what you'd expect. All of this might seem like a lot of verbiage, but it's useful in answering the question. The definition of "top 1%" depends on whom you include in the "programmer" population; I'm looking for something more objective. I'd guess that there are about 200,000 programmers alive at or above the 2.0 level. That's the level I'm going to focus on. (2.5, 3.0, I can't even answer.) So how do you get to the 2.0 level? - *Budget 7 to 14 years.* Yes, it's going to take time. (I've been programming, sadly not continuously, for 8 years; I'd guess that I'm 1.9-2.0 and it took work.) You have to write code, read code, experiment with new technologies, see a few architectural failures and (one hopes, but let's not get ahead of ourselves because most "software architects" are politically empowered shitheads) see an architectural success or two. I think you can probably get up to 0.7-0.8 (basic code fluency) in a dedicated summer slinging Javascript, and 1.0-1.1 in another year if you really dive in. Beyond that, 0.1 point per year is a pretty aggressive clip. Most employers will assign you work below your frontier of ability, so you may have to steal an education from your boss (reading papers on work time, experimenting with new technologies). Remember: it's always better to ask forgiveness than permission. - *Study voraciously.* Computer science is a deep field, and to be good at it, you need at least a working understanding of everything. If you think assembly code or linear algebra or strong static typing is "scary" or "too deep" you'll never reach 2.0. That doesn't mean you need to be an expert in everything because you can't. You can't have "I won't go there" areas. You probably don't want to be hand-writing assembly code very often, but if you take the attitude that it's "black magic" or "grunt work" or "unclean", then it will hinder your learning. (You see some Java programmers take this attitude toward manual-memory languages like C.) I would probably use Haskell (a high-level language with strong static typing) given a clean slate; but I've exposed myself to Clojure, C, and even Python (data science libraries) because they cover important topics from computer science. You can't have the "Will this be on the test?" mentality. You have to be curious about everything CS-related. (Mathematical curiosity helps.) You also need to learn about the industry itself. Why do so many software projects fail? What mistakes (technical and nontechnical) lead to that and how might they be prevented? What makes a good startup CTO? What things are worth building, and what patterns betray a death march? - *Build things when you don't know that you'll succeed.* How do you become a competent programmer? Or architect? Or Linux kernel hacker? Practice. If you know that you can do something, then you won't learn as much as if there's some chance of failure. Employers want you at a difficulty level where you'll succeed 95% of the time. Your best learning is in the 65-75% "stretch" range, I'd say. That means that you're eventually getting successful outcomes, but faltering a bit. There's progress, but it's not smooth and you definitely have to work. - *Network, not for jobs but for ideas.* Don't think of "networking" as something you do after you get laid off. We're social creatures and programmers are no different. The best way to become a great programmer is to go talk to other great programmers, and then get a sense of what problems they've solved and how. I'd be cautious at AI/machine learning talks in 2014 (some are very good, but there plenty of poseurs in "data science"; that will probably change in 3 years) but Haskell and Clojure user groups both draw a great crowd. - *Job hop when you stop learning.* Most programmers plateau around 1.2. Why? Because they aren't pushed, and they don't get opportunities to work on hard things. Or, the "hard" stuff they get pertains to difficult/ugly legacy code, not computer science itself. It's useful to spend ~3 months on a bad legacy module or two to learn about architectural mistakes, but not more. Ultimately, you'll want to work on successful projects, and you'll want to be surrounded by strong people. If you ever stop growing, it's time to move on. You know how people end up stagnant? One day at a time. That's also how you become a great programmer. One day at a time (for about 4,000 days). -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

1 0

Fwd: [Networkedlabour] Fwd: [WSF-Discuss] Challenging the radical critique of the People's Climate March: a different drummer does not alone a march make
by Michel Bauwens 05 Oct '14

05 Oct '14

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: peter waterman <peterwaterman1936(a)gmail.com> Date: Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 9:35 PM Subject: [Networkedlabour] Fwd: [WSF-Discuss] Challenging the radical critique of the People's Climate March: a different drummer does not alone a march make To: networkedlabour(a)lists.contrast.org, "johnholloway(a)prodigy.net.mx" < johnholloway(a)prodigy.net.mx>, Debate is a listserve that attempts to promote information and analyses of interest to the independent left in South and Southern Africa <debate-list(a)fahamu.org> A lesson for us all? P ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Brian K. Murphy <brian(a)radicalroad.com> Date: Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 4:13 PM Subject: [WSF-Discuss] Challenging the radical critique of the People's Climate March: a different drummer does not alone a march make To: worldsocialforum-discuss(a)openspaceforum.net http://www.thenation.com/article/181799/whats-wrong-radical-critique -peoples-climate-march# *What's Wrong With the Radical Critique of the People's Climate March* *The movement to stop climate change needs both mass mobilizations and direct action.* by Jonathan Smucker and Michael Premo, September 30, 2014 Last Sunday, we joined 400,000 people in the People's Climate March (PCM) to demand action on climate change. The next day, we joined with 3,000 others to participate in Flood Wall Street (FWS), disrupting business as usual and naming capital as the chief culprit of climate change. In the days leading up to these mobilizations, a few critics on the left framed a stark dichotomy between these two kinds of actions. The PCM was cast as a depoliticized, corporate-friendly sellout, in contrast to more militant direct action, which Flood Wall Street soon emerged to organize. Chris Hedges, for example, called the PCM "the last gasp of climate change liberals," and argued that the real resistance would come afterward "from those willing to breach police barricades." Resistance, according to Hedges, can only be effective "when we turn from a liberal agenda of reform to embrace a radical agenda of revolt." Likewise, Arun Gupta accused PCM of spending too much money on subway advertisements and wondered how much political value a march can have when mainstream politicians and other elites felt comfortable enough to march in it. Surely there are critiques to be made of last week's mobilization-there is always room for improvement. But last Sunday's march was an important step toward building a popular movement for climate justice, which, in turn, is a necessary condition for more radical actions-like the ones FWS organized. The dichotomy between the PCM and FWS is a false one. What the world saw last week in New York was a vibrant movement ecosystem in which a broad mobilization and its radical edges engaged in a critical interplay. What Hedges overlooks is how easily direct acts of revolt can be dismissed or repressed, if they are carried out by a small number of people who are not visibly tied to a broader social base. This is why Flood Wall Street's mobilization in relation to the PCM was so vital. To grasp this relationship requires us to shed the dichotomous thinking that pits this vs. that and us vs. them-too often extended to even our closest allies-and that limits our options to the absurdity of a multiple choice test. Even if we are partial to the escalated tactics of Flood Wall Street, it is clear that the efforts and resources that poured into the PCM literally set the stage for a radical edge to then move further. Leading the radical edge was the Climate Justice Alliance (CJA), a collaborative of more than thirty-five community-based and movement support organizations uniting front-line communities. CJA put out a call to action that accomplished several important things. *First,* it inserted a deeper structural analysis into the mobilization, both naming corporate profit and power as culprit and articulating how different communities-indigenous peoples, people of color and working-class whites, for example-are disproportionately impacted.* Second,* CJA called for nonviolent tactical escalation. Indeed, Flood Wall Street was initiated in response to this call.* Third,* the call helped build Sunday's massive march by encouraging CJA's social bases and allies to attend the march and organize delegations. By insisting that the people who are affected by the climate crisis should be involved in the solutions, CJA positively altered the composition, framing, and narrative of the march. Rather than position itself as an outsider in relation to the broader mobilization-which was being organized primarily by 350.org, Avaaz and the New York City Host Committee, which included a network of labor, economic and environmental justice organizations-CJA positioned itself as a left pole that pulled the larger mobilization in its direction. Later, FWS positioned itself similarly-not as "the most radical kid on the block," but as a complementary operation that had something important to contribute to the larger effort. Radicals who are serious about political change-and not just engaging in self-righteous sideline critique-would be wise to learn from CJA and FWS's strategy here. CJA added capacity to the broader efforts and both groups constituted a left pole that pulled a broader base toward a more visionary direction. The Climate Justice Alliance brought perspectives, participation and leadership from frontline communities that had been lacking in the more mainstream climate movement. And Flood Wall Street brought tactical innovation, cultural creativity, smart political targeting, and a willingness to take risks. Having the most radical-sounding solutions in the world is all for naught if those solutions are only believed by a relatively small number of self-identifying radicals. We have to engage broader social bases by meeting new participants at the on-ramps by which they initially enter into collective action. The PCM provided such an on-ramp to many thousands of newcomers. Those of us who identify with the left end of the progressive spectrum need to be honest with ourselves about our current lack of capacity for building such on-ramps on our own. If we want to move more people in a radical direction-to fundamentally reengineer the roots of a broken system-it behooves us to build and maintain good relationships with organizations that have more resources and a greater reach, even if they do not share all of our politics. The left of the left spectrum has to muster the courage and savvy to enter into alignments that are too big for us to be able to control. The dead-end alternative is for radicals to work only with other radicals-and to remain stuck in a story of the righteous few, whose protagonists bravely fight the good fight but always lose. Part of our trouble is that we are at the end of a decades-long period of fragmentation and decline in the broad social justice left. Some on the left have become so accustomed to powerlessness that they have become attached to it. Success itself becomes suspect, and politics becomes framed only in terms of expressing values and making righteous stands-instead of as intervention in the terrain of power. Accustomed to the margins, we can have a hard time recognizing how many of our ideas have actually become popular. This is not to say that radicals should not push. But if radicals find the plans for big marches limited and constrained, the most constructive push we can make is to plan a complement to the action that adds the things we see as lacking. This has to be done with strategy, principle and loving care; with the knowledge that autonomous actions will impact the whole mobilization, one way or another-with potentially negative outcomes. This is why Flood Wall Street insisted upon clear action agreements to guide its nonviolent civil disobedience on Monday. And this is why both CJA and FWS engaged in principled open communication with all organizational partners throughout the mobilization. The emergent climate justice movement is stronger now because of the People's Climate March, the Climate Justice Alliance and Flood Wall Street-and because of the overall positive interplay between these complementary efforts. Around the world a growing network of communities is embracing a multi-pronged strategy to challenge the powers that are pushing our planet to the brink. Such a strategy has to tap into a broad-and-growing base of support, and it also has to be willing to turn up the heat and disrupt business as usual. Such an alignment will, of course, be full of challenges. But these are good challenges to have. Let us lean into them together. _______________________________________________ ** WSFDiscuss is an open and unmoderated forum for the exchange of information and views on the experience, practise, and theory of the World Social Forum at any level (local, national, regional, and global) and on related social and political movements and issues. Join in !** _______________________________________________ WSFDiscuss mailing list POST to LIST : Send email to WorldSocialForum-Discuss(a)openspaceforum.net SUBSCRIBE: Send empty email to worldsocialforum-discuss-subscribe(a)openspaceforum.net UNSUBSCRIBE: Send empty email to worldsocialforum-discuss-unsubscribe(a)openspaceforum.net LIST ARCHIVES: http://openspaceforum.net/pipermail/worldsocialforum-discuss_openspaceforum… LIST INFORMATION: http://openspaceforum.net/mailman/listinfo/worldsocialforum-discuss_openspa… -- 1. *EBook, November 2012: Recovering Internationalism <http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/recovering_internationalism/>. [A compilation of papers from the new millenium. Now free in two download formats] <http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/world_social_forum/> <http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/world_social_forum/>* 2. *EBook (co-editor), February 2013: World Social Forum: Critical Explorations http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/world_social_forum/ <http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/world_social_forum/> * 3. *Interface Journal Special (co-editor), November 2012: For the Global Emancipation of Labour <http://www.interfacejournal.net/current/>* 4. *Blog: http://www.unionbook.org/profile/peterwaterman. <http://www.unionbook.org/profile/peterwaterman.> * 5. *Interface Journal Special (Co-Editor) Social Movement Internationalisms. See Call for Papers <http://www.interfacejournal.net/>, (Deadline: May 1, 2014). * 6. *Needed: a Global Labour Charter Movement (2005-Now!) <http://interfacejournal.nuim.ie/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Interf…>* 7. *Under, Against, Beyond: Labour and Social Movements Confront a Globalised, Informatised Capitalism <http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/under-against-beyond/>(2011) Almost 1,000 pages of Working Papers, free, from the 1980 <1980>'s-90's.* 8. *Google Scholar Citation Index:* *http://scholar.google.com.pe/citations?user=e0e6Qa4AAAAJ <http://scholar.google.com.pe/citations?user=e0e6Qa4AAAAJ> * - _______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list NetworkedLabour(a)lists.contrast.org http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

1 0