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

Care Doesn't Scale

stevenscrawls.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 382 posts

Re: Care Doesn't Scale

#291

Post by crabmusket »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #200
crabmusket wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it doesn't in America. Nor here in Australia. Some European cities are showing that better is in fact possible by strongly supporting co-operative housing sectors which are better for residents. But that would break the American taboo against government intervening usefully in private markets for human rights (in this case, shelter). More from a recent report by Australia's business council of coops and mutuals…

‘Society and governments’ can also ‘decide’ that the Sun is revolving around the Earth… so decisions and policies on paper cannot be fully credible by themselves… What is the actual tangible evidence that the aforementioned issues are avoided?

Yes I did take a slightly different tangent than your build quality argument. I don't actually know whether there's been studies done about that. You've inspired me to go find out.

Re: Care Doesn't Scale

#292

Post by myroon5 »

ativzzz wrote: post #145
User23 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is quite remarkable, because up until less than a century ago when women “entered the workforce” virtually every woman who had ever lived somehow managed to care for her 3+ children. Incidentally, large families do scale sublinearly with respect to the parents. The reason why is that even with merely natural spacing by the time they have a fourth child, the oldest is in a position to provide significant assista…

It is remarkable. I have one child, and it is by far the hardest thing I've ever done - far harder than any job I've had. It doesn't help that both parents are working full time. Maybe parenting has changed recently and we are too hands-on, but I can't imagine having 2, much less 3+ running around. Even if one of us stops working to raise the kids full time, it's way more taxing, physically and mentally, than working…

> Maybe parenting has changed

It has:

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2017/11/27/parents-...

Re: Care Doesn't Scale

#293

Post by nine_zeros »

rachofsunshine wrote: post #262
cassepipe wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for elaborating further what we mean by "scaling". Couldn't it be said that when organization acquire ranks, it is to solve coordination problems that arise with scale but that in this case, there isn't much that is solved by more organization ?

There's also a different kind of coordination problem. The incentives of an organization - or at least of a corporation - are to make money and to continue to exist and to enrich and empower the people who control it. But employees' incentives are usually pretty different. Nurses usually get into nursing because they, at least to some extent, want to help people. Engineers get into engineering because they, at least…

This is the most insightful comment about organizational dysfunction and misaligned incentives. What you have described is astute and 100% accurate.

Please make a blog post or something and share it around.

Re: Care Doesn't Scale

#294

Post by _carbyau_ »

tripper_27 wrote: post #165
Tade0 wrote: post #46

> But I wonder if part of that smaller focus comes from a deep realization that care doesn’t scale. My experience (and I believe it to be common) is that I'm really, really, really out of spare energy to care about anyone or anything else. Mind you, I'm in my best shape in years and I've explored my limits to find out they're actually way further than I originally thought, but still.

hey, I hear you. Modern America is full of voices demanding you give them care/attention. Every. Single. Thing. It is overwhelming. See following comments on the need for slack/margin in capacity. Well, we also need it in emotional demands. Yet every commercially-moderated interaction in our society seems to be optimizing for making us care more about it, because that increases their revenue.

This is why I recently fell in love with libraries. It is one of the few places where ads/manipulation to part you from your money is extremely limited and the demands are so chill.

"Want to borrow a book? Ok." "Don't want to? Ok. Whatevs."

And even analysis paralysis is overcome with: "Why not both! Borrow two whole books!"

Re: Care Doesn't Scale

#295

Post by Nevermark »

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #257
bunderbunder wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is also where I really dislike a lot of this more recent push toward automating communication. One person deciding what needs to be said, to whom, and when, can have a LOT of leverage in the productivity department, by reducing the time that tens or even hundreds or thousands of other people lose to coping with the fire hose. Microsoft Copilot has been yet another downgrade in this department. Since it got adopt…

At my company we are aggressively rolling out policies to forbid the use of AI. I'm one of the bigger folks behind it. I just see no benefits. I have no desire to debug AI generated code, I have no desire to read pages and pages of AI generated fluff, I have no desire to look at AI generated images. Either put the work in or don't.

If you use AI like a quick answer machine, or quick example machine, they all outdo Google by a large margin.

The friction between moving between, and knitting different systems and languages together that I don't use frequently enough to be fluent, has been lowered by an order of magnitude or two. Due to small knowledge gaps getting filled the instant I need them to be.

The same with getting a basic understanding (or a basic idea) about almost anything.

My AI log documents many stupid questions. I have no inhibitions. It is a joy.

Re: Care Doesn't Scale

#296

Post by r14c »

jimbokun wrote: post #205
peepee1982 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re describing the extremes on a spectrum, but you only go to one of the extremes, which exposes your bias. And it’s a false dichotomy to begin with, since shifting more care work towards society doesn’t equate to a path toward totalitarianism. You’re conflating socialism with totalitarianism. Understandable, but misguided. Frankly, your whole premise is based on a capitalist narrative that keeps workers in their…

"because individual care work is so inefficient" The whole point is scaling "care work" is almost oxymoronic. Care is only quality care when there are a small number of carers per those being cared for. To make it "efficient" is to turn children, the addicted, the disabled, and the elderly into cattle. > "Wages for Housework" by Silvia Federici - Federici argues for the recognition and compensation of domestic labor,…

> This reveals one of the poorly hid secrets of progressive ideology. Progressives LOVE Capitalism and want to spread it to encompass every human interaction

this is one of the fascinating consequences of "capitalist realism". often people who attempt to criticize the system end up describing a form of capitalism that they would prefer to participate in. picturing a world that isn't the one you know is really difficult. questioning everything is a painful and slow process.

Re: Care Doesn't Scale

#297

Post by nicknow »

KittenInABox wrote: post #162
dkarl wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The food system is different from homecooked meals This is a good point, and everything I've heard from parents says that it's parents, not children, who identify home-cooked meals with care. Children notoriously prefer prepackaged industrially processed food over whole foods prepared with care and love. In order to feel cared for, all children need is to trust that the person caring for them will make sure they ge…

Children notoriously prefer consistent meals over diverse ones, home cooked or not. The issue with serving blueberries for example is that each blueberry is different. My mother home-cooked for me a boiled egg and rice porridge every morning, and it was that consistency that associated me with care.

Yes. And child psychologists will tell you that babies and children crave consistency, variety is not their thing. In fact, one of the reasons we as parents (adults) expose them to variety is so they develop an understanding of how to cope with inconsistencies. And it's always a careful balance, small amount of variety but mostly consistency.

And I can tell you most little kids love hard boiled eggs which I suspect is because they are incredibly consistent in texture and taste, unspoiled by some cook seasoning them or cooking them differently.

Re: Care Doesn't Scale

#298

Post by nicknow »

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #251
moolcool wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To complete the thought, the baker example is explicitly in opposition to OP's point. In the economy we exist in, a 3am artisan baker does so explicitly out of a care for craft and community.

The 3am baker currently exists because the people who benefit the most from the exploitation of labor have the extra money to buy artisan products. My great grandfather had a bakery. He and my great grandmother would bake their product and my grandfather and his brothers would deliver the product to local businesses and homes. And then corporate breadmakers came in and made it impossible to compete from a price stand…

Essentially most consumers just didn't care about quality and preferred the lower price over the higher quality product. That seems like normal consumer choice. The people didn't get poorer all of a sudden when the corporate breadmakers came along - the people simply decided they would prefer to get an inferior product at a lower price.

The reality is most people don't want to spend more money for higher quality goods. Or, if they do, it's on a limited set of goods based on personal preference.

Re: Care Doesn't Scale

#299

Post by miki123211 »

rachofsunshine wrote: post #262
cassepipe wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for elaborating further what we mean by "scaling". Couldn't it be said that when organization acquire ranks, it is to solve coordination problems that arise with scale but that in this case, there isn't much that is solved by more organization ?

There's also a different kind of coordination problem. The incentives of an organization - or at least of a corporation - are to make money and to continue to exist and to enrich and empower the people who control it. But employees' incentives are usually pretty different. Nurses usually get into nursing because they, at least to some extent, want to help people. Engineers get into engineering because they, at least…

Then there's also the "rat-race" aspect.

If you're focused on teaching, building or caring instead of test scores, conversions and profits, you're going to lose customers and opportunities.

Parents choose schools with better test scores, not schools with better teaching. Customers use products with better conversions; this is literally what the word "conversions" means.

If you focus on making your employees happy instead of making your customers happy, you'll quickly find that your employees have no more customers to serve. You will be outcompeted by other companies in the great rat race.

This is why most of the companies we have now are the way they are. It's not because all CEOs are evil, it's because the non-evil ones can't survive.

Re: Care Doesn't Scale

#300

Post by flappyeagle »

rachofsunshine wrote: post #262
cassepipe wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for elaborating further what we mean by "scaling". Couldn't it be said that when organization acquire ranks, it is to solve coordination problems that arise with scale but that in this case, there isn't much that is solved by more organization ?

There's also a different kind of coordination problem. The incentives of an organization - or at least of a corporation - are to make money and to continue to exist and to enrich and empower the people who control it. But employees' incentives are usually pretty different. Nurses usually get into nursing because they, at least to some extent, want to help people. Engineers get into engineering because they, at least…

> Your engineers want to do that

This is not true, I can confidently say, most of the time. Engineers generally want to build software they think is a good trade off between fulfilling the spec and not being too hard to build.

This does not generally translate to good software. It’s not a detriment of character or anything like that. They’re just lazy like most people are

Post reply on HN