Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Permissionless innovation

learnliberty.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 115 posts

Re: Permissionless innovation

#91

Post by scaryclam »

ythn wrote: post #89
vidarh wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd never, ever consider working a place like that, as it places the power in the hand of managers who may decide something I consider perfectly reasonable is "abuse", and use this "under their name" bit to harass people. Which means I can't evaluate if the company will be a decent work place or a sweatshop. To me, this is disrespectful to employees in the extreme. It shows a total disregard for the power disparity t…

I would rather work at a company with few rules than one where there is red tape around everything. For example, at my current company I don't even have root access on the machines I develop on, and I have to submit tickets to IT to get anything installed or changed. One time I asked them to install Docker and was met with suspicion. IT said they would investigate, and months later it is still is not installed.

Why do you feel like you need root access? In my experience, there are pretty much zero real reasons for a dev to need that level of access in a company that has an IT dept. IT may have good reasons not to let you mess around. If you want more access, I suggest you have a conversation with them and make a good business case for why it's a good thing. If you can't, then you probably don't need it and they would be right to deny it to you.

Re: Permissionless innovation

#92

Post by specialist »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #73
tonyedgecombe wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with this is as organisations get older they accrete more and more rules until you aren't allowed to do anything.

It's sometimes called organizational scar tissue. But what about making it an organizational scab instead? Have the damage-control rules in an organization be time-limited? Those freedoms people keep abusing would get repeated temporary restrictions and eventually a permanent ruling, but one-time problems would not weigh down the organization forever.

I'm starting to get metaphysical about IP leases. (Request, grant, revokation, expiration.)

As in: leases are a cure all for all of societial and organizational woes. I'm having trouble articulating my thoughts. But the basic notion is give all the cruft a TTL, after which the cruft cleans itself up.

---

Want a new tax, or tax break? Sure. It expires in 36 months. Want an extension? Then ask again and we'll reassess.

Want to bring dogs into the office? Sure. Let's try it for 6 months.

Want to provision a new customer of a critical service? Sure. Here's your token. It expires in 2 days.

--

Hat tip to Bill Joy, Jini, JXTA, etc for lifting the lease notion up the OSI stack.

Hat tip to The Utopia of Rules by David Graeber for describing how organizational scars/scabs come to be.

I'm not yet sure how, if ZeroTrust Networking extends this model, metaphor.

Re: Permissionless innovation

#93

Post by ythn »

scaryclam wrote: post #91
ythn wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would rather work at a company with few rules than one where there is red tape around everything. For example, at my current company I don't even have root access on the machines I develop on, and I have to submit tickets to IT to get anything installed or changed. One time I asked them to install Docker and was met with suspicion. IT said they would investigate, and months later it is still is not installed.

Why do you feel like you need root access? In my experience, there are pretty much zero real reasons for a dev to need that level of access in a company that has an IT dept. IT may have good reasons not to let you mess around. If you want more access, I suggest you have a conversation with them and make a good business case for why it's a good thing. If you can't, then you probably don't need it and they would be rig…

> Why do you feel like you need root access?

Because I'm a developer and I need to install things to develop. For whatever reason, the vast majority of windows packages require admin to install.

If you think it's great that I have to open a ticket to IT every time I want to update VSCode or install Python or Node or whatever, that's good for you, but I find it cumbersome and annoying and would rather work for a company that gives me root and trusts that I won't install viruses.

Re: Permissionless innovation

#94

Post by scaryclam »

ythn wrote: post #93
scaryclam wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you feel like you need root access? In my experience, there are pretty much zero real reasons for a dev to need that level of access in a company that has an IT dept. IT may have good reasons not to let you mess around. If you want more access, I suggest you have a conversation with them and make a good business case for why it's a good thing. If you can't, then you probably don't need it and they would be rig…

> Why do you feel like you need root access? Because I'm a developer and I need to install things to develop. For whatever reason, the vast majority of windows packages require admin to install. If you think it's great that I have to open a ticket to IT every time I want to update VSCode or install Python or Node or whatever, that's good for you, but I find it cumbersome and annoying and would rather work for a compa…

I read your previous comment as you wanting access to the servers that your code will run on. I'm guessing from the reference to VSCode that you're talking about your local work machine, so I apologise for my mistake and I agree, you should have trust from your company to look after your own work machine as you see fit.

Re: Permissionless innovation

#95

Post by jpetso »

specialist wrote: post #92
TeMPOraL wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's sometimes called organizational scar tissue. But what about making it an organizational scab instead? Have the damage-control rules in an organization be time-limited? Those freedoms people keep abusing would get repeated temporary restrictions and eventually a permanent ruling, but one-time problems would not weigh down the organization forever.

I'm starting to get metaphysical about IP leases. (Request, grant, revokation, expiration.) As in: leases are a cure all for all of societial and organizational woes. I'm having trouble articulating my thoughts. But the basic notion is give all the cruft a TTL, after which the cruft cleans itself up. --- Want a new tax, or tax break? Sure. It expires in 36 months. Want an extension? Then ask again and we'll reassess.…

I'm not sure I would want to operate in a country where the tax situation was likely to change drastically from one term to another. If I need Tea Party people to agree on frequent tax extensions, even the sensible/proven ones, I see nothing but zigzag and uncertainty instead of actual, planned forward progress.

Re: Permissionless innovation

#96

Post by blackbagboys »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #74
Declanomous wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have a bunch of regulations on that stuff in Chicago now. I don't know if it was the same guy, but some people got upset because they thought solar panels were super ugly. Here's a pdf (warning) of all of the hoops you need to jump through to install solar in Chicago: https://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/bldgs/g... Disclaimer: This is off the top of my head from stuff I read in the paper five or mo…

> I don't know if it was the same guy, but some people got upset because they thought solar panels were super ugly. This is a sad aspect of living in a high-density society. A lot of people are not only boring themselves, but they excessively want everyone else to be boring too.

Another way of saying this is that they have preferences about their immediate living environment and express those preferences through the political process, as is their right.

Re: Permissionless innovation

#97

Post by mindcrime »

adrianN wrote: post #68
drdeadringer wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't remember if it was on HN or reddit, but there was a comment//post about how a job site operated similar to this. To heavily paraphrase over the gist of the second-hand account from the boss: "Our workplace will be rule-free until people start abusing it. When someone goes overboard, a rule against their abuse will be created under their name which will be applicable to everybody; if you think that rule bullsh…

I'm a bit ambivalent about this. On the one hand, rules are stupid and red tape is one of the most annoying things about offices. On the other hand, rules also protect the employees from bad managers. If everything is allowed until "someone goes overboard", this basically allows the managers to make up rules after the fact to punish people they don't like.

Manager can always punish people they don't like. This doesn't change anything in that regard.

Re: Permissionless innovation

#98

Post by bsbechtel »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #76
CalChris wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. It isn’t stifling at all. This is Patent 101. Joe has a patent on the widget. I can’t make a widget without violating his patent. I get a patent on an improved widget. Joe can’t manufacture the improvement. He’s incented to cooperate with me and I’m incented to innovate. Incented, not stifled. Just allowing copying incents manufacture but not innovation. Even China is moving in the IP direction.

Joe has a patent on the widget. You can't make an improved widget without either getting permission from Joe, or breaking patent law. So you don't invent your improved widget, you don't patent it, and if Joe is not interested in innovating, nobody else won't do it either. The world becomes poorer. (In reality: enter China, who doesn't give a fuck and innovates anyway.) (In real reality: unfortunately, the Chinese gov…

That's now how IP law works. If you invent material improvements on prior art, you are entitled to a patent as well, so long as you can articulate the material differences to the patent office.

Re: Permissionless innovation

#99

Post by AnimalMuppet »

vidarh wrote: post #78
drdeadringer wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't remember if it was on HN or reddit, but there was a comment//post about how a job site operated similar to this. To heavily paraphrase over the gist of the second-hand account from the boss: "Our workplace will be rule-free until people start abusing it. When someone goes overboard, a rule against their abuse will be created under their name which will be applicable to everybody; if you think that rule bullsh…

I'd never, ever consider working a place like that, as it places the power in the hand of managers who may decide something I consider perfectly reasonable is "abuse", and use this "under their name" bit to harass people. Which means I can't evaluate if the company will be a decent work place or a sweatshop. To me, this is disrespectful to employees in the extreme. It shows a total disregard for the power disparity t…

You'd rather they set rules than treat people like grownups? You say the proposed way of treating people like grownups can be abused. You are correct in that, but you forget that "rules plus a mechanism for asking for exemptions" can also be abused, and has been, often.

Re: Permissionless innovation

#100

Post by AnimalMuppet »

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #50
indescions_2017 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without some risk, however. You may never succeed in breaking the binds that keep us in the dark. I think the canonical example is something like the Wright Brothers first flight in Kitty Hawk, NC. Of course living in more agrarian times helps when you have an impromptu airport runway in your backyard. But the "permissionless innovation" theory probably concludes the reason we are not driving around in flying cars ju…

Things similar to the Wright Flyer are still allowed by default in the US in similar geographic areas. The weight limit under FAA regulation part 103 is lower - 254 pounds empty weight, rather than the Wright Flyer's 605 pounds empty weight - but material science has advanced since then, so the restriction isn't that severe. Ultra-light aircraft is very much regulated under philosophy of "if you aren't endangering ot…

The funeral could cost more than the lessons...
Post reply on HN