Category Archives: Leadership

Facebook to federal agents: No, you don’t get to create fake profiles to ensnare suspects

“THE ZUCK STOPS HERE!”

– what he should have said.

Facebook is serious about real people using real names on its service. After initially cracking down on drag queens, the social network is going after the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency for using fake profiles.

IMO: Awesomeness…

Mark is doing the right thing. By allowing authorities to do crap like this is absolutely the worst way to create much worse problems than they are trying to prevent.

These people are employed by the citizens (through taxation), to act in our best interest, but in reality, are more concerned with the war on drugs, than the war on hate.

This makes them no better than pedophiles luring in young children, scammers luring in identity theft victims, and it only slows down our ability to Fix the BIGGER picture:

The “War on Boundaries,” meaning that we, as citizens of this planet, should be able to communicate amongst ourselves and to any other society, without government intervention. What led to the “Arab Spring,” is now trying to be disrupted, right here in “The Land of the Free.”

Don’t get me started on the war on drugs, which turns people who, at worst, were messing up their own personal lives, and turns them into actual criminals. Of course, cannabis is still considered “Schedule One” (meaning it has absolutely zero possible medical benefits), so it has been illegal for researchers to discover that it is the one plant with more potential medical uses than anything.

The Average Ratio of Chemicals Found in Cannabis:
IMG_5148.JPGTHC, is the tiny light blue sliver… The stuff that is strictly pleasure, although, in healthy usage, even that has medical benefits to help with everything else…

The man responsible for turning it into a Schedule One drug back in 1970, has already openly confessed his mistake, the evidence confiscated that exposed how the drug companies already discovered this, and made it a primary effort to spread misinformation about it, out of the very possible fear that it will cure cancer.

Yes, the wave of decriminalized regulations is sweeping the country, but why the hell was every leader in our country on TV the next day demanding immediate, emergency actions to fully allow testing to be done nationwide.

I’m not talking about letting people do it, although that’s happening already, I’m saying that when the guy who made it officially unhealthy admits he was lied to, completely screwed up, and produces a film proving this, if any leader in this country had the lives of their people as a top priority, things would have changed immediately.

“WEED” is about 6 people, forced to illegally acquire alternative medication, and their desperate attempt to cure of themselves of diseases that doctors said were uncurable, untreatable, and there is no longer any reason to keep trying….

All of them: Alive. 100% healthy. 2 of them were little children…

IMG_5171.JPGThese are not my opinions (though I agree 100%), but rather the man, once misled by these people. He goes on to say about how we’ve been lied to as people for 70 years, and that he will devote the rest of his life trying to undue him indirectly preventing countless deaths.

I’d be slightly more understanding, if they were entrapping pedophiles or an identity thief – people who are actively ruining other people’s lives. What we need to realize is that, as much as it saddens me to say this, they’re worse than those people, because they do it in a guise of trying to help us out and keep us safe.

They keep us from curing, so they can profit off the horrendously excruciating drug cocktails that let us live a tiny bit longer.

They care about $$$… and not completely out of fear that they will be put out of business, because even if cannabis end up having 1 million medical uses, those pharmaceutical companies could adjust the way they do things to create those products. However, it is not out of fear that they will be put out of business.

We have to face the truth, as much as it hurts, in order to ever solve this:

They make more money by NOT curing or preventing diseases, then using desperation to sell hope. Hope in the form of 30 year old medical science. That’s how long it’s been since we’ve made any noticeable advancements on chemotherapy.

Medical Science 3 decades old… sounds a lot to me like the pyramid scheme of snake oilers. The only ones who can change this is all of us. THAT is why they use privacy scares to keep us down, just like in horrific countries.

Are YOU going to let this happen?

Click here to read the actual article.

Haters Hate, Creators Create

Haters, haters, haters: they will always keep on hating,
So, give exactly zero fucks to what they say, and keep creating.
Dream so big and weird, that everyone will think you’re “nuts,”
Then, laugh until it makes you cry, while counting up your bucks.

Enjoy what you have earned… After all, you do deserve it,
But don’t forget the little guy who’s thinking he’s not worth it.
For some reason, he didn’t walk the “recommended” path,
Plus, Life’s a ‘number’s game;’ he just got left out in the math.

A day, not long ago, that lonely lunatic was you!
Remember how it felt thinking there’s nothing you could do?
You’ve finally made it to the promised land, why ever leave?
The goal was never wealth, but getting hopeless to believe.

  • Not Chris Hoeller

How Technology could Cause an Instant Global Awakening

Imagine technology that enabled 2 people’s brains to momentarily sync.

In in instant, both people would immediately not just know every thought and action each other has ever had. They would actually have experienced it (as far as they know).

Now, imagine that same technology scaled large enough to “sync” every single person on the planet, for 60 seconds.

Instant Global Awakening.

For geeks, think of:

  • Telepathy (aka Professor X).
  • Vulcan Mind Meld.

It’s the same thing, but instead of cool but impossible magic powers (Trust me that would be “Plan A,” but my extensive research of trying to grab the remote control using “The Force,” isn’t looking very promising at the moment.

However, we can invent… and as impossible as this idea sounds, it could be done, with immense R&D, a bottomless pit of money, and a lifetime.

Most (or all) of the people starting the project would never live to see the result, but it would give your life purpose. We’d be building heaven, but never get to go…

What about our kids?

…and theirs?

Randomly thought of that… the same effect is happening with the gradual extinction of privacy, and our ability to instantly communicate.

It’d still be faster, but then you run into:

Is it wrong to force everyone to do something once, if it means putting an end to so much pain? Who gets to make that decision?

Think.
Have Ideas.
Be Wrong.

How to Design the Workplace to Increase Effectiveness and Retain Top Talent

Experience Designing the Workplace

A hot topic in modern business, Customer Experience has an equally important cousin: Employee Experience.

What is Employee Experience?

Employee experience is using a blend of psychology, personality types, observable behavior, interests, mental and physical ability, styles of learning, game theory, and gamification to create a custom tailored workplace.

Everything that can be customized to increase a person or group’s effectiveness will be customized.

Quantified Self:

Collecting a person’s blend of individual personality type, observable behavior, interests, preferred style of learning, mental abilities, physical abilities, and experiences is essentially used to create their Quantified Self. This is a new concept called Humanistic Intelligence.

All of these factors are collected by certain tests, mixed with monitoring a person’s activities through the technology they use, along with wearable monitoring devices (to capture things that cannot easily be observed, such as mental or physical stress.

The Layout of the Workplace:

 

Inspired by Pixar, the entire floor plan of the office is specifically designed to promote accidental, spontaneous collaboration and maximize creativity. However, this takes it one step further, because instead of using rules-of-thumb about human psychology to create the environment, the quantified selves of the actual employees customize what can be customized.

The Software and Equipment Used to Perform the Job:

All the software programs are customized, so that employees intuitively know and clearly understand what is expected of them. By completely “knowing” a person, everything that this person interacts with can be customized to enhance their effectiveness and quality of life.

What About Privacy?

This will be a controversial topic, as this can be seen as an invasion of privacy. In my opinion, it should remain a controversial topic, so that it is constantly being evaluated. This way, we can make sure that the ethics of how such data can be collected and for what purpose is under continual review.

Yes, there is the potential abuse of such data collection. However, that doesn’t mean that it should not be used. There is a chance that I’ll be killed in a car crash on the way to work. That doesn’t mean I should not use a car. However, it does mean that the safety of using automobiles should always be discussed, debated, and improved.

Ultimate Goal:

 

Essentially, the end goal is making people better at doing their job, while at the same time making it easier and more enjoyable. If done correctly, Employee Experience should be a win-win scenario for the business and the individual.

Making what the employees are supposed to do, what they want to do. Creating an environment custom-tailored to enhance both the effectiveness and enjoyment of the employee.

Business from the Future – Eliminating the Sales Department

I Despise Most Traditional “Sales” Methods…

It’s because I think too much like a customer. Even when when I’m working for the company in question, I purposefully maintain the delusion of merely being a regular customer.

20140509-075304.jpg

I pretend to be the customer, so that I am completely fair, honest, and effective at enhancing products and services.

I don’t have the cognitive biases associating with being an employee.

It’s not in my best interest that a product is perfect, so I can clearly point out weaknesses:

  • I haven’t invested a year of my life creating a product I conceived of.
  • I haven’t spent millions of dollars building it.
  • I am not a fanboi.
  • I don’t subconsciously invent excuses.
  • I don’t like going through the experience of some random person making me feel pressured.
  • I certainly don’t care what his personal opinion of which product is better, since I’ve already spent 3 hours online “being Colombo” about all the potential options.
  • My mind is 90% – 97% made up, before I take a single step into the store.
  • Replace Salesmen with Consultants or Advisors

    20140509-075638.jpg
    Customers certainly don’t want to feel pressured. Hold up, though, that doesn’t mean to eliminate the staff:

    Instead of salesmen (whose primary objective is selling a product), employees will be helpful consultants (whose primary objective is to ensure that the customer has the best experience possible, even if it means losing a sale):

  • To ensure that the customer fully understands the product.
  • To answer any of their questions.
  • To help them make decisions.
  • To ensure that every customer connects with a product that will enhance their lives in some way.
  • Chris Hoeller

    20140509-081105.jpg

    How to Disagree, Win Arguments, and Not Create Enemies.

    The web is turning writing into a conversation.

    Twenty years ago, writers wrote and readers read. Now, the Internet lets people respond, and increasingly they do: in comment threads, on forums, and in their blog posts.

    Many who respond to something disagree with it.

    That’s to be expected… Agreeing tends to motivate people less than disagreeing, and when you agree, there’s less to say.

    You could expand on something the author said, but he has probably already explored the most interesting implications of that line of thinking. However, when you disagree, you’re entering territory he may not have explored.

    The result is there’s a lot more disagreeing going on, especially measured by the word.

    That doesn’t mean that people are growing angrier. The structural change in the way we communicate is enough to account for it, but even though it’s not anger that’s driving the increase in disagreement, there’s a danger that the increase in disagreement will make people angrier.

    This is especially true online, where it’s easy to say things more abrasive than you’d ever say to someone’s face. If we’re all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to do it well.

    What does it mean to disagree well?

    Most readers can tell the difference between mere name-calling and a carefully reasoned refutation, but it would help to name the intermediate stages.

    The Disagreement Hierarchy:

    20140509-055654.jpg

    DH0: Name-calling.

    This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common. We’ve all seen comments like this: “u r a fag!!!!!!!!!!”

    Also, it’s important to realize that more articulate name-calling has just as little weight. A comment like “the author is a self-important dilettante”
    is really nothing more than a pretentious version of “u r a fag.”

    DH1: Ad Hominem.

    An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. It might actually carry some weight. For example, if a senator wrote an article saying that senators’ salaries should be increased, one could respond: “Of course he would say that. He’s a senator.”

    This wouldn’t refute the author’s argument, but it may at least be relevant to the case. It’s still a very weak form of disagreement, though.

    If there’s something wrong with the senator’s argument, you should say what it is, strait up. If there isn’t, what difference does it make that he’s a senator?

    Saying that an author lacks the authority to write about a topic is a variant of ad hominem (and a particularly useless sort), because good ideas often come from outsiders.

    The question is not whether a person has the credentials or authority to speak about a particular topic. The question is whether the author is correct or not.

    If his lack of authority caused him to make mistakes, point those mistakes out (do not even refer to his lack of authority — that is irrelevant, only refer to any mistakes). If it didn’t, it’s not a problem.

    DH2: Responding to Tone.

    The next level up, we start to see responses to the writing, rather than the writer. The lowest form of these is to disagree with the author’s tone. For example: “I can’t believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion.”

    Though better than attacking the author, himself, this is still a weak form of disagreement. It matters much more whether the author is wrong or right than what his tone is.

    Mainly, tone is just so hard to judge. On the internet, judging tone becomes impossible and very dangerous:

    Someone who has a chip on their shoulder about some topic might be offended by a tone that to other readers seemed neutral.

    So, if the worst thing you can say about something is to criticize its tone, you’re not saying much. Is the author flippant, but correct? Better that than grave and wrong. If the author is incorrect somewhere, say where.

    DH3: Contradiction.

    In this stage we finally get responses to what was said, rather than how or by whom. The lowest form of response to an argument is simply to state the opposing case, with little or no supporting evidence.

    This is often combined with DH2: Attacking Tone statements, as in: “I can’t believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion. Intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory.”

    Contradiction can sometimes have some weight. Sometimes, merely seeing the opposing case stated explicitly is enough to see that it’s right. However, evidence will always help.

    DH4: Counterargument.

    At level 4 we reach the first form of convincing disagreement: counterargument. Forms up to this point can usually be ignored as proving nothing. Counterargument might prove something. The problem is, it’s hard to say exactly what

    Counterargument is contradiction plus reasoning and/or evidence. When aimed squarely at the original argument, it can be convincing. Unfortunately, it’s common for counterarguments to be aimed at something slightly different.

    More often than not, two people arguing passionately about something are actually arguing about two different things. Sometimes they actually agree with one another, but they become so caught up in their squabble that they don’t realize it.

    There could be a legitimate reason for arguing against something slightly different from what the original author said: when you feel they missed the heart of the matter. When you do that, however, you should say explicitly that you’re doing it.

    DH5: Refutation.

    The most convincing form of disagreement is refutation. It’s also the rarest, because it’s the most work. Indeed, the disagreement hierarchy forms a kind of pyramid, in the sense that: the higher you go, the fewer instances you find.

    To refute someone, you probably have to quote them. You have to find a “smoking gun,” a passage in whatever you disagree with that you feel is mistaken, and then explain why it’s mistaken. If you can’t find an actual quote to disagree with, you may be arguing with a straw man.

    While refutation generally entails quoting, quoting doesn’t necessarily imply refutation. Some writers quote parts of things they disagree with, to give the appearance of legitimate refutation, then follow with a response as low as DH3 or even DH0.

    DH6: Refuting the Central Point.

    The force of a refutation depends on what you refute. The most powerful form of disagreement is to refute someone’s central point.

    Even as high as DH5, we still sometimes see deliberate dishonesty, as when someone picks out minor points of an argument and refutes those. Sometimes the spirit in which this is done makes it more of a sophisticated form of ad hominem than actual refutation:

    For example: correcting someone’s grammar, or harping on minor mistakes in names or numbers. Unless the opposing argument actually depends on such things, the only purpose of correcting them is to discredit one’s opponent.

    Truly refuting something requires one to refute its central point, or at least one of them. That means one has to commit explicitly to what the central point is.

    So, a truly effective refutation would look like:

    “The author’s main point seems to be x. As he says: ‘xyz…’ However, this is wrong for the following reasons:

    1. Reason 1.
    2. Reason 2.
    3. Reason 3.”

    The quote you point out as mistaken need not be the primary statement of the author’s main point. The quote only needs to be able to refute something that the main point depends upon.

    What it Means:

    Now, we have a way of classifying forms of disagreement, but what good is it? One thing the disagreement hierarchy doesn’t give us is a way of picking a winner.

    DH levels merely describe the form of a statement, not whether it’s correct. A DH6 response could still be completely mistaken.

    Although, while DH levels don’t set a lower bound on the convincingness of a reply, they do set an upper bound:

    A DH6 response might be unconvincing, but a DH2 or lower response is always unconvincing.

    The most obvious advantage of classifying the forms of disagreement is that it will help people to see through intellectually dishonest arguments.

    An eloquent speaker or writer can give the impression of vanquishing an opponent, merely by using forceful words. In fact, that is probably the defining quality of a demagogue.

    By giving names to the different forms of disagreement, we give critical readers a pin for popping BS balloons.

    Most intellectual dishonesty is unintentional.

    Someone arguing against the tone of something he disagrees with may believe he’s really saying something. Zooming out and seeing his current position on the disagreement hierarchy may inspire him to try moving up to counterargument or refutation.

    20140509-073456.jpg

    The greatest benefit of disagreeing well is not just that it will make conversations better, but that it will make the people who have them happier.

    If you study conversations, you find there is a lot more meanness down in DH1 than up in DH6. You don’t have to be mean when you have a real point to make. In fact, you don’t want to. If you have something real to say, being mean actually gets in the way.

    If moving up the disagreement hierarchy makes people less mean, that will make most of them happier. Most people don’t really enjoy being mean; they do it because they can’t help it.