Did having such a person in charge make a qualitative difference in the atmosphere of how work proceeded among people there?
If so, do you think it would have played out similarly if the organization had had an equally effective "glue person" who wasn't in charge (therefore didn't have any authority to delegate or divide most tasks) and was required to manage upward [sic] to coordinate things for people?
I'm not sure, mostly because it's hard for me to feel confident in figuring out what to attribute to that versus other facets of how he did things. Overall, I have an extremely positive view of how he ran things, but I also personally found him great at a lot of the other things that go into a technical leadership position (making good decisions about what to prioritize, having a consistent vision of what our long-term goals were, not falling into the trap of micro-management, having enough technical skill to be able to help out with the higher-level issues while still respecting the areas where others were more knowledgeable, going out of his way to try to address issues that people raised with the idea that retaining talent long-term was hugely important, etc.), so I honestly don't know how much things would have been different if he didn't also have this level of retention of details. It was impressive still though, not in small part because I don't have any trouble imagining someone in his position just genuinely not caring enough to do it even if they were capable.
Maybe the genuineness that it seemed to come from really is what made the difference in the long run; I obviously don't know how everyone else felt about it, but in other jobs I haven't found it particularly difficult to notice when the general perception of higher-level managers is a lot more positive or negative than my own, so my instinct is that most people probably also liked him, and I do think that makes some amount of difference. Having a "glue" person who is more detail-oriented is probably fine if the reason the actual authority figure doesn't retain the details is just not having that particular skill, but if it's because they genuinely think that the people beneath them in the org chart are just resources they can use to solve problems rather than actual people who will work better in the long term if treated well, then no, I don't think it would be as effective.
> I have an idea for a quirky event experimenting with the "minimum viable feeling of community", but need to explain some context first. Bear with me...
> [...]
> So here's the event idea: what if someone ran an event where the 2nd rule was "NO INTRODUCTIONS", but only because the 1st rule was "you must arrive having fully memorized ONLY everyone's name and face". Beyond the strange entry requirement, what would such an event feel like?
> And what strange sorts of intimacy might be created by this minimal scaffold of "knowing everyone"... & being in community together? I suspect it might feel like a warm event full of friends, but where everyone had mysteriously forgotten everything they knew about one another :)
Arsenal of democracy is something that Detroit specifically was called during WWII, so historically it isn't a wild phrase. Ford Motor Company itself built complete B-24 heavy bombers too.
Without more prominent melody or harmony I could not find what is finer about it than conventional approaches to jazz. Could you please elaborate on what its quality is?
To be honest, I am not a jazz musician or even a jazz fan. When I do record music I have better progress when holding myself to a standard or a set of limitations to work within. It gets the brain going to find new solutions to fit within a self-imposed framework.
Implicitly, the argument is that, when "cost and time of litigation scales like n^2 where n is the textual length of the law," justice for litigants declined when sheer access to the necessary legal funds and time began to outweigh other costs and benefits as a factor in determining pursuit of justice. Maybe it's not self-evident, but I don't think direct quantifiable evidence of justice is necessarily available, so what qualitative evidence would be capable of confirming support?
> There are coal seam fires that have been going on for centuries and the pollution of these is just as bad as the pollution generated by human created coal mine fires (and that's truly awful, a significant source of carbon pollution).
Has CO2 fire suppression been unsuccessfully attempted in these seams? Since nobody is underground and we know how to inject CO2 into underground deposits at various pressures, it seems like it would be a good candidate. Plus, with rotary steerable drilling, we could come in laterally (from a safe location above ground) to as many depths of injection as necessary.
These are large coal seams with significant exposure to the atmosphere. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jharia_coalfield for an example. That excavator in the picture is not trying to put out the fire, it is just mining coal that happens to be burning. Spray some water, put out the fire and ship it off to customers.
Apparently in mines they are sometimes extinguished with nitrogen. For less contained ones, injecting water or mud, while trying to seal off the ground with impermeable clay to halt oxygen and hopefully choke the fumes. Their scope can be huge though, and they generate a lot of energy which can cause subsidence to open up new passages. The Centralia fire in the US is apparently 15km².
I have a question on rotary steerable drilling. I gather we're only talking about a degree or less of deflection on the steering head. But how does the km's long rest of the stack behind the head snake through the curves? Is it like rail cars, with a little bit of angular bend allowed at the connection of each segment?
Most of these [0] started as desktop software but some have extended to mobile devices in ways that can interact via cloud with the version on your desktop, if I'm not mistaken.
This civic control correlation can simply have more to do with the most-white-supremacist Democrats switching to the GOP en masse and also simultaneously leaving multiethnic cities and school districts en masse after the 1960s. That self-selection left Republicans not a competitive amount of credibility or voter pool behind to work with. Your implication that policy dysfunction has ensued on that account rather than because of fiscal drain -- that's a separate topic. Individual states and individual cities have too many fiscal policy similarities and differences, overlapping, to responsibly compare in any online discussion.
> New York is a better governed state than Florida
Yes, New York is significantly more successful than Florida in almost every way: Better education, better healthcare, longer life expectancy, less pollution, lower crime, more productivity, higher wages, more amenities, better transportation infrastructure, less poverty, happier residents, and so on.
> So by your logic New York is a better governed state than Florida? Net internal migration would seem to disagree.
Yes, and it's not even close. Choose just about any metric and NY is running laps around Florida.
And, not just Florida, but red states in general. If you look at the metrics, they typically are some of the poorest states with the worst outcomes. Bad infrastructure, bad education, not a lot of job opportunities, horribly impoverished, under-developed.
It's just that nobody cares. Nobody expects Louisiana or Florida to be decent places to live. But since California is the economic powerhouse of the US, people do expect it to be decent. That's the issue, the blue states are essentially carrying the economy of everything else on their back, so they now get a new, unfair set of standards.
I think quality of governance is a major reason, yes. When my parents immigrated to this country, they moved to a deep red state (Virginia) instead of the deep blue state next door (Maryland). Why? A focus on good schools, low crime, and low taxes, instead of a focus on economic redistribution.
I may have misunderstood, when you said internal migration in the earlier comment I assumed that was referring to people moving from one state to another rather than immigrating from another country.
> A focus on good schools, low crime, and low taxes, instead of a focus on economic redistribution.
That's also interesting. I wouldn't have rolled that up to quality of governance, but I could see why you would. To me that falls more into a sign of long standing culture, I could see a place with existing policies that match now having a terrible administration in charge.
> may have misunderstood, when you said internal migration in the earlier comment I assumed that was referring to people moving from one state to another rather than immigrating from another country.
I was just giving an example—people moving within the U.S. make the same choice. When I was growing up, Virginia was like Florida is today: a red state with a booming economy, low taxes, and a good business climate. Why did AOL start in the farmland of Loudon County instead of the farmland of eastern PG County (which is closer to DC)?
> That's also interesting. I wouldn't have rolled that up to quality of governance, but I could see why you would.
It’s a cultural trait that strongly affects governance. The government can focus its energies on making things better for middle class people and businesses, as Virginia long did, or it can focus on poor people and minorities, as Maryland long did. And the resulting differences in governance are quite apparent. Virginia has better schools, ore employment, and has grown faster than Maryland over the last 50 years.
... because nobody moves to Florida for (what they perceive of) the weather, right? Especially not retirees tired of the idea of one more winter in NY.
US Senator was an office initially designed to be selected by state legislatures rather than by direct popular election like the representatives. To a populist or a party boss, that might count as a spoiler to the will of the people or to the will of those in DC, or to both. But I may misinterpret GP's point.
I assume the person you're replying to is talking about the Filibuster and supermajority requirements not the direct election history. The filibuster is a senate rule not a constitutional design, so it wasn't part of the "design". Maybe they're both different ways of adding veto points to the same effect, but I think spoilers as "explicit design" is probably not how I'd describe it.
If so, do you think it would have played out similarly if the organization had had an equally effective "glue person" who wasn't in charge (therefore didn't have any authority to delegate or divide most tasks) and was required to manage upward [sic] to coordinate things for people?