Yeah, absolutely, and as far as I understand it anarchism doesn’t really prevent large organizations from forming and coordinating.

My understanding of pure anarchism would have two main conditions for such coordinated orgs or efforts:

1. Collective decisions are made via consensus - if one person disagrees, we continue deliberating.
2. People can leave and join organizations at any time, with no obligation to stay if they no longer agree with the direction.

Now, these conditions aren’t realistic for real life all the time. Sometimes we need to be able to make decisions with a time constraint, and consensus is very, very slow. And likewise, sometimes resources are constrained and one can’t just leave and do their own thing. But if we see this as an ideal sort of direction, we can aim to get closer over time.

And this is actually how many professional organizations and technical groups work. For instance, TC39 is the committee that defines the JavaScript the language, and it works via consensus - any member can prevent a proposal from moving forward at any time. This makes it a very, very slow process, and people complain about this a lot (myself included, I was impatient when I first started working on proposals). But JavaScript also has the constraint of “no breaking changes, ever”. So these proposals are permanent, and we live with the consequences of earlier ones today. So a process that forces more thought, discussion, and agreement, that really makes us make sure it’s a good idea, is a good one here.

There are varying levels of this. 2/3rds majority rather than 51%. Requiring at least 50% and not a plurality. Approval voting is more in line with this than first-past-the-post. Etc etc.

Like I said, it’s not about preventing things from moving forward. It’s about slowing down a bit, and using that time to shore up infrastructure, solve general problems (like how do we get basic amenities for every person, or at least many more people), and getting society as a whole out of a scarcity, zero-sum mindset.

I dunno, I feel like rushing forward and making hasty generalizations and doing shoddy science is also morally questionable, and also ultimately gets worse results. And I see a lot of that in the tech industry anyways.

Just a had a convo today with one my mentors about javascript framework benchmarks, and how the main ones don’t actually measure accurately at all because of the way the engine inlines and optimizes things. He went through all the trouble of building a tool to make it easier to do rigorous measurements, because engineers at the company had been doing these shoddy benchmarks, using it to justify shipping “optimizations”, getting a nice raise, and then he would come in and realize that they had really just moved the work elsewhere and it actually caused a regression here or there.

And nobody really cared in the end. They used it for a while, then it fell by the wayside.

Real scientific rigor isn’t really respected in the same way it used to be, if it ever was. It’s more about marketing, finding an angle you can sell. Because when a metric becomes a target, it ceases to be a good metric, everyone starts gaming it. And money and productivity have become the ultimate metric.

I posted more about this below, but I think it would work, it would just take much longer. Coordination takes more time, but if there isn’t a time constraint (which I think can be true in a functionally post-scarcity world) then that is much less of an issue.

Maybe it would take several decades to do what it would have taken 5 years before. But if the fundamentals are covered in the meantime, why is that an issue?

I think it’s more that it would take more time and coordination to do larger things. Like, you need to get all of the people on board, you need to convince them to work on it without coercion (either force or money), so it takes a lot longer. Everybody is going to want their basic needs met and their problems dealt with first.

But when you step back and think about it, with our current level of technology, that would be fine. Like, if I went to a hundred engineers and was like “hey I wanna build a rocket, who’s with me?” And they said “sure, once I have free time, but can we figure out food/water/shelter/entertainment/comfort first?” That would be reasonable. Maybe it takes a few decades or longer to figure those things out in a sustainable way, but at scale in society it could definitely be done.

Think about electricity. It is currently functionally limitless (yes, there are limits, but we don’t treat it like that in day to day life). And to keep it that way is relatively low maintenance, once we figure out renewables (or nuclear, or both) anyways. Same with the internet, once it’s built it’s fairly easy to maintain, and we’re at the point with fiber where it’s fairly difficult to overuse it, so giving it to everyone as baseline would be easy.

Once we had a better system for the basics, one that essentially is low maintenance and ensures everyone gets everything they need (with choice and freedom too, if everyone is fed but all we have is potatoes, the next question would be “ok how do we get more variety?”), then there would be a lot more time to focus on large efforts.

Those still would take longer, because even when we have all of the basics handled, it would take much longer to make decisions, there would be long, frustrating debates, somebody might storm off, etc. It might take a lifetime. But there wouldn’t be urgency either, because we all have the basics, plus luxuries, essentially our modern lives as they are. Just without the need to produce more every second of every day.

All of this could be decentralized too. It’s not like I’m saying there would be a command economy, necessarily. In fact, it shouldn’t be centralized too much ideally, that could over concentrate power.

Where this falls apart is game theory essentially. If I choose to be less productive and focus on that basic infrastructure, and take my time, that lets other players get ahead. If that goes on long enough, those other players may have advanced enough that they can dominate the game. It’s a literal arms race in that sense, this is playing out with AI right now. For it to work, everyone would need to agree to slow down, all at once.

This is a major issue because what’s happening is we’re hitting artificial maximum’s because of this strategy. I deal with this all the time working on software infrastructure. People want to push for product non stop, and then their code turns out completely unmaintainable. Infra comes along, analyzes, figures out a better pattern, and eventually we fix it, but not before the damage is done and it takes years to fix, or we just rewrite it all. If we had taken the time to build it the right way the first time, it would have likely been a much faster process. BUT, the startup may have folded in the meantime, because someone else put together a dumpster fire, spruced it up to look real nice, and got a bunch of people to choose them instead. And now they won.

So yeah, I think about this a lot haha 😅 we are, technologically speaking, capable of being post scarcity. Why are we still acting like technological advancement is about life and death? Why do we have to race to the bottom?

Edit: Oh, speed also does matter for coordinating in emergencies, so there is an argument for “we don’t have time because the environment will fall apart or we have an asteroid incoming, etc.” but like, re: the environment, that is not only happening, but the productivity arms race is making it worse! That’s an example of an artificial maximum’s there.

And I feel the same way when I look over the shoulder of my collegues who are seasoned mac users. Things which I would do in no time on PC seems to take many additional clicks and more time for them as well.

That's really strange, can you give some examples? Just curious what things are easier to do on Windows (assuming that's what you mean), I just have never had that be the case. Maybe it's cause I'm a webdev and most tooling for web stuff is tailored for *nix systems?

But the thing that really works me up is when I ask people about the hardware issues. The answer is always “you need to buy apple hardware”.

Uh whaaaaat that's crazy. Yeah I'm the same way, I've cycled through a lot of different mechanical keyboards and whatnot to find the one I like now (Ultimate Hacking Keyboard, dumb name but nice features lol). But I can't say I've ever had an issue with a keyboard having hardware compatibility like that... I guess I don't really use function keys. Again I use Karabiner to remap that kinda stuff to a different layer, which works universally so the same layering works on my laptop as my mechanical keyboard and I don't need to have different muscle memory for different work-zone setups.

This is the article that got me introduced to Karabiner, even if you hate Mac I do recommend giving it a look. One of the best things I ever did was use Karabiner to modify my layout and reduce hand movement/chording. It completely fixed my RSI issues. My current layout treats the JKL; home row keys as arrow keys when I hold down Capslock, and Capslock + CMD turns them into jump-by-word so I can navigate really fast. Rarely use a mouse when writing code these days. Oh, and Capslock + ' is delete, surprising how often that is a common hand movement. Plus plenty of other small optimizations. Really couldn't live without it.

I dunno, I used PCs pretty exclusively until about halfway through college when I switched and every time I try to go back it’s pretty bad. Windows sucks, it just does everything different than *nix systems, and they have like, 5 different ways of doing things? It feels like they’ve had multiple efforts to clean up the tech debt and never completed them.

And Linux is just lacking for day to day use. I still would love to switch at some point, but it just doesn’t have the right tools and polish. Like, I rely on Karabiner for key remapping and layering and the Linux story is pretty lacking there (though I haven’t looked in a while so could have gotten better). Core stuff for my day to day.

I think a lot of it is muscle memory. Like yeah, it’s hard to relearn a lot of muscle memory type things. But if you open a terminal, it’s just like any *nix based system, same layout. You can navigate anywhere and open the Finder with open, etc.

Hmm, I think of baseload as the following:

• Hospitals and emergency services
• Data centers and communications
• 24 hour transit needs
• 24 hour lighting in cities
• Ventilation, heating/cooling for certain climates

Some of these can be mitigated significantly, but some of these are just things that really can never be down and have to have like 99.999% reliability. As we electrify, I’m going to be looking at storage solutions for these things and seeing if we really feel confident in that up time and having extra reserves. Engineers usually over design, so if we expect to need like 0.1 gigawatts for a week for emergency services during an abnormal weather event, I would want to plan for 1 gigawatt for two weeks for instance.

If that can be done with storage, then that’s awesome, and once we start seeing that roll out widely I will stop advocating for the “do both” strategy.

Yeah, like, even generally those are really tough questions. And every kid is different right? Even among my brothers, I had 5, and they were all different. One was a rebel, one was a golden child, one was a space case... it's not really possible to be perfect.

But if you're talking specifically about gender and exploration, I can share my thoughts there. I'm not a parent yet, so I haven't gone through this, but here's how I would approach it I think:

First, let's talk about social experimentation and transition. All of this is pre-medication and would be the first steps of things generally. This is a time to figure out what they want by trying things out, which is something we all do during childhood and adolescence. It can start at any time, and it can fizzle out or keep going.

• In general, I would let my kids play with and wear whatever they wanted from a young age. I think it's important for them to have independence, and I also think that really by pushing them to dress "appropriately" for their gender, you kind of are encouraging that behavior (and implicitly discouraging them exploring themselves). Especially at a young age, kids just decide they like random things in my experience and letting them do that sets them up to not have like, a feeling that it's "forbidden" for lack of a better word, AND especially it lets your kid know you're safe. That if they want to try things out more when they're a teen or later, they can trust you to talk about it and try to work it out together.
• To be clear, I would not encourage my kids to experiment or try things at a young age. In fact, I would probably not encourage it at any age. The impulse or the idea should come from them, I wouldn't want to plant the seed of it. In fact, that's kind of the "prime directive" that we follow as a trans community: Even if someone seems to be struggling with their gender and asks you if their trans, you have to tell them that this is something only they can figure out. I can tell them about my experience, what I went through, etc. But even if they're telling me every single symptom of gender dysphoria, the most I would tell them is something like "this really sounds like it could be, you should definitely be seeing a therapist about it and try to work it out and think on it."
• If my kid did bring up the idea of trying something out - like wearing a dress or a binder, trying on makeup, cutting their hair - I would make it clear that I think that's completely ok. I would not necessarily encourage it. Like, if they said "I'm thinking about cutting my hair short" I wouldn't say "oh definitely, you should try that, you've never had short hair!". I would instead say something like "for sure, if that's something you wanna try that's cool. Let me know, I can take you to a barber." Or if it sounds like they really want to, but are nervous, I might say "well it sounds like it's something you want to try. If you're worried what other people think, I don't think that should hold you back, it's completely ok to try things out."
• If it moves forward to full on social transition - that is, trying out a new name and different pronouns, etc. I would respect whatever they asked me to call them and expect others to do that as well. Honestly I would probably like to be part of the name-choosing process, it feels only fair haha! But one thing here is that I would NOT expect everyone else to always get it right, and I would NOT accept them being like, super upset if someone is really trying and they mess up. As a teen I would react way more emotionally to small missteps like that, but as an adult... I misgender myself a lot, lol. Like, I think for a lot of people it's just mental muscle memory, and it takes time. And this is especially true if they're like, trying tons of new pronouns or names or switching things up constantly. Like, you can't both expect everyone to always get it right AND for there not to be a learning period 😝
• In all of this, if they try things out and don't feel happy, I would point that out. If my child thought they were trans and started socially transitioning, but then started really complaining about the things they had to do now, or complaining about missing certain things, I'd note that. I'd specifically be looking for if they were missing certain things due to their new gender role. Like, "I miss playing my sport" is different than "I miss hanging out with the guys and being one of them", if that makes sense. And if that came up, I would just point out that there's no reason they can't do the thing and be trans. Like, if they want to be a guy but wear dresses, or want to be a girl but play football, at least in theory those things should be fine, because from my perspective those aren't inherently gendered.
• IMPORTANT NOTE: If the reason they can't do certain things that don't align with their new/old gender is due to society's rules, then that's a modifier here. There are high schools that let girls play football and places where it's acceptable for boys to wear feminine clothing, and there are not, whether we like it or not. So if they're like "I'm trans, but I still want to do a thing that's not allowed by my old gender", I WOULD NOT say "well, that's the rules, that's what happens because you're transitioning". That puts me on the side of people that made, from their perspective, unjust rules. I would instead say "yeah, that really sucks, I don't think there's really a good reason for them to have those rules, other than I think I'd worry for your safety because society is going to discriminate against you if you break them." Hear them out, let them vent, let them know you support them, but that those are things that just might not change.

So basically, let them try things out, respect whatever they're doing at the time, let them know they have permission to try things out (within reason). The important thing here is that all of these things are easily reversible. They could decide to try something out one day, and change it back the next. So, there's really not much harm in trying things out, unless we get all the way to like, legally changing their name or something.

So, onto more permanent things, specifically medical treatment.

• First off, I would find a doctor and therapist that is experienced with trans and gender non-conforming youth, and I would also look into and follow the WPATH guidelines (they're the organization that recommends standards of care for trans adults and minors). These would help me set a baseline of what typical treatment looks like and what to expect.
• Surgeries would not happen until they're an adult. They can wait for that, and frankly a lot of surgeries should wait until they're older, they are a lot to put on a person.
• Hormones I think I would be ok with at a normal time for puberty, AFTER at least a year (and ideally several years) of social transition and blockers. So like, 16 I think is probably the right age, and plenty of people really hit full on puberty a bit late so I think that would be fine. But if they didn't figure this out until they were 17, I would tell them they should try to wait at least a year before they start hormone therapy, and that maybe we could do hormone blockers in the meantime.
• Hormone blockers are trickier. I would trust medical experts the most here, but it makes sense that in general you want to give the child as much time as possible to try things out socially and make sure this is right for them. So, I would probably be ok with starting them when puberty in general starts, and continuing as long as there no major side-effects. And I would absolutely be doing my own research into them to make sure it was safe, wouldn't have long term effects, etc.

So to sum that up, I would generally be conservative in the sense of trying to give as much time as possible before they make any permanent decisions, and I would do my research and really try to make sure that nothing they're doing is going to cause permanent harm. But I would also trust my child's doctors and medical team here.

That's how I feel about it all right now at least. Let me know if you have any thoughts or questions about this, and like I said before, I think if you were looking at this and saying "well I get why that works for you, but I wouldn't want to buy my 8 year old son a dress" or "I think my kids would have to wait until 18 to do anything medical," I do think those are understandable feelings and I would respect the right, as a parent, to parent your kid in the best way that you can. Every kid is different, every path is different, and it's really hard to know what's right. There's lots of extremes out there and sometimes I think it feels like we can't ever just not know or try our best, and the reality is, we never know and life is hard. You seem like you're trying, which is more than a lot of people 😊

Yeah, I agree re: Reagan. I think the overall point is more that there may need to be compromise to create a new coalition, because right now the Dems keep choosing economics that hurt the average person, and lean harder into socio-political progressivism to still appear left leaning.

Yes, definitely agree it should require the doctor to approve as well, and the child should also consent. The point is that the government is interfering with both parents and doctors by stepping in. Feels very much like your body, my choice here.

Obviously it would only be if the doctors and parents approved together. Point being, the government is stepping in and overriding my parental rights and my doctor’s recommendation just because someone else does not agree.

And I don’t see parents voting for bans, none of these have been initiatives. These are law makers.

This is why I’ve been thinking we should focus on changing the voting system within primaries rather than in the general to start with. The general election is going to require massive amounts of effort and political will to change, but primaries could be changed more easily since it’s mainly up to the party itself (still could require some legal changes to update voting machines, etc)