Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't want to seem mean, but you're like a caricature of a country person. People are living things which grow to suit their environment, everyone thinks their way is the best way and that their hometown is the coolest. When you say things like "city people care more about money" and "city people are mean" you sound like a bumpkin.
Maybe he's a caricature, but he's 100% right. I grew up going to school in the burbs, all summer in a small home-town - and have lived in several major cities. 'City people' are definitely more about the money. Small towns are communities. Everyone knows everyone - often for multiple generations. Families have ties - not just people. You can't 'not care about' someone you've known for 40 years, even if you don't know…
Are Cities Too Complicated?
61–70 of 71 posts
Re: Are Cities Too Complicated?
#62This is the fundamental premise that object oriented thinking was created to solve. You cannot understand a sufficiently advanced system from both an overview and granular view. You have to either see the overview and trust the granular objects, or specialize in one granular object and then trust your adjacent objects. Its a problem written about in detail by Marcus Aurelius in Meditations when he comments on running…
It seems to me that in Toyota, a first, basic process is designed centrally by someone who is an authority in that specific area, but realizing that the top of the pyramid lacks the on the ground information necessary for continuous improvement, it pushes agency to change the process down to the bottom of the pyramid, to the people who make up the process.
That is how Toyota is able to evolve their process and achieve yearly gains in efficiency of around 10%. There's no great genius other than in the insight that the boss can't do the job of his subordinates, that knowledge is situational.
And that is probably why companies fail to adapt the TPS - because they do not trust and even despise people on the floor.
Re: Are Cities Too Complicated?
#63Re: Are Cities Too Complicated?
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Some really odd red-necky types showed up - and don't mean negative - just poor. They were welcome. Old guys in wheelchairs. Young partiers. It was an unbelievably mixed crowd. And had a trans person showed up, how would that have gone? A Latinx person? A queer couple? Had the opposite experience moving from a suburb to a major metropolitan area. There's a level of community here (not all communities are communitie…
I believe the term is "communities of choice". In a small community there is only one community and everyone has to be in it, for good or ill. In a city you can make a much better community suited to you - but it requires active effort to maintain that link, so it's much easier to fall off and become invisibly alone.
(What you are describing did happen to me a long time ago, and it did take a long time to work my way out of it. So It's a completely valid point)
Re: Are Cities Too Complicated?
#65This is the fundamental premise that object oriented thinking was created to solve. You cannot understand a sufficiently advanced system from both an overview and granular view. You have to either see the overview and trust the granular objects, or specialize in one granular object and then trust your adjacent objects. Its a problem written about in detail by Marcus Aurelius in Meditations when he comments on running…
> If each one requires knowledge of the entire system The general problem is the growing number of dependencies. James Burke in "Connections" warned that civilization is an interconnected web of technology traps [1]. We survive as long as everything works (or "mostly" works), but there is a risk of cascade failure. More recently, Dan Geer warned[2] about the same type of problem: In the last couple of years, I've fou…
And for dependencies that aren't local to begin with, mail doesn't offer any advantages in terms of cascade failure - you're still relying on some centralized infrastructure that can't really be maintained just locally, and if it goes, your connectivity breaks down all the same.
Re: Are Cities Too Complicated?
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
It might have been reasonable to maintain backup paper workflows years ago when those paper workflows already existed and institutions were just starting to offer digital alternatives. But new institutions and workflows have arisen that never had paper alternatives in the first place. And it's unreasonable to expect institutions to build and test paper alternatives just as a backup. No one's going to pay for that, re…
I agree that new institutions that never had pre-internet systems are a harder problem. > it's unreasonable to expect institutions to build and test paper alternatives just as a backup. Some type of backup is necessary for anything critically important. From my previous [2]: In sum, as a matter of policy everything that is officially categorized as a critical infrastructure must conclusively show how it can operate i…
Re: Are Cities Too Complicated?
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe he's a caricature, but he's 100% right. I grew up going to school in the burbs, all summer in a small home-town - and have lived in several major cities. 'City people' are definitely more about the money. Small towns are communities. Everyone knows everyone - often for multiple generations. Families have ties - not just people. You can't 'not care about' someone you've known for 40 years, even if you don't know…
> Some really odd red-necky types showed up - and don't mean negative - just poor. They were welcome. Old guys in wheelchairs. Young partiers. It was an unbelievably mixed crowd. And had a trans person showed up, how would that have gone? A Latinx person? A queer couple? Had the opposite experience moving from a suburb to a major metropolitan area. There's a level of community here (not all communities are communitie…
Trans or Queer - that would have been different. You can be gay in the country, but you can't flaunt it. If you were to have introduced 'your boyfriend' that would have made people feel uncomfortable. Trans - well - you'd be treated fine, but like someone with a disability type thing. People would not accept it as your identity, but just consider it weird.
Here's the big thing: When you know people you treat them totally different than what your prejudices might incline you towards. I didn't say 'small town people' were more tolerant in the classical sense - in fact I said 'city people' were more tolerant. BUT - and here's the differentiator: if you're gay - remember that everyone has known you since you were a kid. So it's the difference between someone being 'uncomfortable with gays' to 'my brother/cousin/family friend' is gay. Which is a completely different social context.
"There's a level of community here (not all communities are communities that straight white tech workers are involved with or are welcome in) that is unparalleled."
I've lived in San Franciso - in the heart of the Castro - with gay people - and I know the micro-communities well enough. Yes - any grouping of marginalized people tends to be a little closer, and I do agree that there is 'community' in the Castro for example.
BUT - this is definitely not the norm in cities or burbs.
AND - it's not the same. Nobody will care about you when you are old, young kids will not know your name, the young gay kids will laugh at the older gay dudes to their faces and be pretty harsh etc. (although, I think this is a special feature of that community).
When my (small town) Grandfather passed away - his wake was 3 days long. 3 days of people streaming by his casket. He owned a hardware store and was a 'good community member'. He wasn't anyone really special. But you spend 94 years in one place and you literally know thousands of people - most of whom would 'pay their respects' by coming to the wake. The whole community mourned.
If you've ever seen how the Danes have their old age homes, their much smaller, familial and local, they are still in a way, a part of the community. I think that the North/West European countries have a huge social advantage on North Americans when it comes to community culture.
Finally - and more controversially: most European and Asian nations are ethnic groups - so people are surrounded by 'like people' in terms of ethnicity. A lot of culture boils down to ethnicity. When people are surrounded by other people within their ethnic group - there is no 'hatred' for others, it's just that they feel more affinity for 'their own'. If you're from a small town - it's not something you ever really think about. It's just normal. 'Multiculturalism' challenges all sorts of norms and wipes out the things that differentiate us. The burb I grew up in was the most multicultural place in the world: Mississauga, Ontario (burb of Toronto). People were friendly, we got along very well, but ironically - a complete absence of culture. We have a word for it 'living room culture' because outside the home there's nothing. In the city I live in now, almost all the local cab drivers are from Haiti. They feel alienated and often want to go home when they have enough money even though it's much less advanced. Why? Because 'it's home'. I am sympathetic to them, and not upset with them because they 'don't like my culture'. They want to 'be among their people'. Who can blame them? Again - that's another issue or urban cultural dissonance that is too uncomfortable for most people to talk about in North America, so the discussion never happens :)
Re: Are Cities Too Complicated?
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Some really odd red-necky types showed up - and don't mean negative - just poor. They were welcome. Old guys in wheelchairs. Young partiers. It was an unbelievably mixed crowd. And had a trans person showed up, how would that have gone? A Latinx person? A queer couple? Had the opposite experience moving from a suburb to a major metropolitan area. There's a level of community here (not all communities are communitie…
I believe the term is "communities of choice". In a small community there is only one community and everyone has to be in it, for good or ill. In a city you can make a much better community suited to you - but it requires active effort to maintain that link, so it's much easier to fall off and become invisibly alone.
'Communities of choice' work when you're young OR when you're part of a specific ethnic group (say Somalis in Philly or whatever) - which is in many ways like a 'small town' within a city.
Re: Are Cities Too Complicated?
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
">your comment might be a kind of bigotry The irony is so deep." I was making generalizations about people that I think is true. But I wasn't calling people names, or making them seem as though they are 'out of touch and stupid' because they are either from the city or a small town. There are advantages and disadvantages of both - but city people are by far and away more 'individualist', in much the same way that 'Am…
I was referring to the post I originally replied to, which has since been edited. It called "city people" selfish, depressed and obsessed with money among other tired stereotypes.
It's not a stereotype, it's true.
There's a lot of data on urban/rural happiness and it all points in the same direction.
As for the other attributes, they are generally true.
Spend more than 3 months solid in the same small town. Then come back to the city - it will feel weird, antisocial, and a little crazy.
Re: Are Cities Too Complicated?
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about a simpler idea, like sudden, widespread lack of electricity?
Diesel generators?