For example, norms that overwhelmingly prioritize the publication and dissemination of philosophical research as articles in pay-to-read academic journals, although serving an evaluative purpose within the discipline, also reinforce a strong separation between professional philosophers and the public.

Finally, you gain the ability to reuse previously built packets for new projects. Maybe some research you did for an online marketing campaign becomes useful for a new campaign. Or some sketches that didn’t quite make it into an old design give you inspiration for a new one. Or some book notes you wrote down casually turn out to be very useful for an unforeseen challenge a year later.

Refactoring at scale is challenging and a significant investment, so communicating the progress is important both from a business perspective but also as a motivational effect to developers. In this case we used a combination of complexity trend visualizations and Code Health Metric as shown in the preceding example.

I also like that the folksonomic approach (as in, there are no “pre-established groups”) allows for a great deal of expression, of negotiation (I imagine that #barcamp will be a common tag between events, but that’s fine, since if there is a collision, say between two separate BarCamps on the same day, they’ll just have to socially engineer a solution and probably pick a new tag, like #barcampblock) and of decay (that is, over time, as tags are used less frequently, other people can reuse them — no domain squatting!).

Of course you can start implementing your own thing, but you will waste a lot of precious time reinventing the wheel. Why not take advantage of a validation library that takes care of all this complexity for you?

Form validation can get complex (synchronous validations, asynchronous validations, record validations, field validations, internationalization, schemas definitions...). To cope with these challenges we will leverage this into Fonk and Fonk Final Form adaptor for a React Final Form seamless integration.

Adding checks for bracket[3] syntax as opposed to dot.3 syntax adds a lot of complexity, and has consciously been avoided.

One of the primary tasks of engineers is to minimize complexity. JSX changes such a fundamental part (syntax and semantics of the language) that the complexity bubbles up to everything it touches. Pretty much every pipeline tool I've had to work with has become far more complex than necessary because of JSX. It affects AST parsers, it affects linters, it affects code coverage, it affects build systems. That tons and tons of additional code that I now need to wade through and mentally parse and ignore whenever I need to debug or want to contribute to a library that adds JSX support.

For a long time I considered default values to be a "pure evil" thing, something that "cloaks the catastrophe" and results in a very hard do find bugs.

Good risk management is inherently simple; adding too many complexities increases the likelihood of overlooking the obvious.

“Complexity cloaks Catastrophe”

It causes some implementation complexity just by existing.

Science and Complexity (Weaver 1948); explained the three eras that according to him defined the history of science. These were the era of simplicity, disorganized complexity, and organized complexity. In the eyes of Weaver what separated these three eras was the development of mathematical tools allowing scholars to describe systems of increasing complexity.

For instance, in the study of mobile phone networks, the frequency and length of interactions has often been used as measures of link weight (Onnela et al. 2007), (Hidalgo and Rodriguez-Sickert 1008), (Miritello et al. 2011).

Problems of disorganized complexity are problems that can be described using averages and distributions, and that do not depend on the identity of the elements involved in a system, or their precise patterns of interactions. A classic example of a problem of disorganized complexity is the statistical mechanics of Ludwig Boltzmann, James-Clerk Maxwell, and Willard Gibbs, which focuses on the properties of gases.

"Protestant" life of wealth and risk over the "Catholic" path of poverty and security.[8]

What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of postwar history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1606.03433 : Calculating the Middle Ages? The Project “Complexities and Networks in the Medieval Mediterranean and the Near East”

“On average across all five polities, a change of ruler in one year increased the probability for another change in the following year threefold,” says Preiser-Kapeller. So the closer you are to an upheaval, the more likely there is to be another one soon. Or in other words, upheavals tend to cluster together.

While the complexity that arises from network theory in many areas of science has been studied for decades, there has been almost no such research in the field of history.

That leaves economist Martin Shubik, surely the second most powerful mind among economists to have tackled the complexity problem (John von Neumann was first). Shubik pursued an overarching theory of money all his life, one in which money and financial institutions emerge naturally, instead of being given. In The Guidance of an Enterprise Economy (MIT, 2016), he considered that he and physicist Etic Smith had achieved it. Shubik died last year, at 92.  His ideas about strict definitions of “minimal complexity” will take years to resurface in others’ hands.

Two of the most successful expositors of economic complexity were research partners, as least for a time:  Ricardo Hausmann, of Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, and physicist César Hidalgo, of MIT’s Media Lab. They, too, worked with a gifted mathematician, Albert-László Barabási, of Northeastern University, to produce a highly technical paper; then,  with colleagues, assembled an Atlas of Complexity: Mapping Paths to Prosperity (MIT, 2011), a data-visualization tool that continues to function online. Meanwhile, Hidalgo’s Why Information Grows: The Evolution of Order, from Atoms to Economies (Basic, 2015) remains an especially lucid account of humankind’s escape (so far) from the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but there is precious little economics in it. For the economics of international trade, see Gene Grossman and Elhanan Helpman.

Among the barons who came across my screen were John Holland, Scott Page, Robert Axelrod, Leigh Tesfatsion, Seth Lloyd, Alan Kirman, Blake LeBaron, J. Barkley Rosser Jr., and Eric Beinhocker, as well as three men who became good friends: Joel Moses, Yannis Ionnides, and David Colander.  All extraordinary thinkers. 

His data also suggest that who you know growing up can have lasting effects. A paper on patents he co-authored found that young women were more likely to become inventors if they’d moved as children to places where many female inventors lived. (The number of male inventors had little effect.) Even which fields inventors worked in was heavily influenced by what was being invented around them as children.

Similar to my recent musings (link coming soon) on the dualism of matter vs information, I find that the real beauty may lie precisely in the complexity of their combination.

There's a grassy vacant lot near her apartment where Franklin often takes a break from her job as a landscaping crew supervisor at Bon Secours Community Works, a nearby community organization owned by Bon Secours Health System. It's one of the few places in the neighborhood with a lot of shade — mainly from a large tree Franklin calls the mother shade. She helped come up with the idea to build a free splash park in the lot for residents to cool down in the heat. Now Bon Secours is taking on the project. "This was me taking my stand," Franklin says. "I didn't sit around and wait for everybody to say, 'Well, who's going to redo the park?' "

But we face our own hostile environment: underpowered devices, poor network connections, and the complexity inherent in front-end engineering.

Lets not extend the framework with yet another syntax

In general, I'm unpersuaded by these arguments (learning curve is determined not just by unfamiliar syntax, but by unfamiliar semantics and APIs as well, and the frameworks in question excel at adding complexity in those areas).

Anything that is added to a system to improve it (or make it more reliable!) increases complexity, thus uncertainty and risk. We have a bad habit of trying to add “more” to fix a problem, increase the layers of safety, band-aid over a system vulnerability, etc. We don’t often evaluate this, but this added complexity can (and does) make things worse. Wherever possible — and I know it isn’t always possible — remove something isntead of adding it. This is not usually politically favorable, something that Sr. Software Engineers who reduce the codebase size have often heard, but has far fewer side effects.

A simplified pricing and packaging (PnP) strategy serves customers in the optimal way per the industry best practice. More SKUs lead to a more complex PnP model as a company scales, which eventually causes huge confusion to customers.

The issue of the different layers is similar. If you chose software that doesn’t deal with those layers in a sophisticated way, you will not reap the benefits in the long term. Your archive will note work as a whole. I think that this is one of the reasons why many retreat to project-centered solutions, curating one set of notes for each book, for example. The problems that come with big and organic (= dynamic and living) systems is avoided. But so is the opportunity to create something that is greater than you.

When it comes to building HTTP APIs, other frameworks weigh you down with tons of dependencies and unnecessary abstractions. Falcon cuts to the chase with a clean design that embraces HTTP and the REST architectural style.

where the dragon is an enchanted prince, where the handsome prince is a nasty thief, and where the thief saves the day

We find Alper et al.'s (2000) concept of "conflict efficacy" useful: it says that conflict should be measured not by its nature or origin, but by its contribution to the perception among group members that conflicts can and are dealt with productively.

Ravn (1998) poses the interesting possibility that Thomas' definition of conflict includes in it both productive and unproductive conflict, because productive conflict stops before it gets to the third phase of non-acceptance, instead using the energy of conflict as a positive force.

Skule (1999) describes how an inter-organisational group of workers from five food-and-drink companies were taken through a training program that included "practice in other companies". Says Skule, "Most of the skilled operators described [the experience] in terms like "see things differently", “opened my eyes”, “think more about what I am doing”, “more alert” and “think more about the consequences”. These new perspectives or ways of seeing in turn made operators attend to features in their work situation in a new way. From a former habitual way of working according to minimum standards, many skilled operators developed a more reflectively skilled way of performing their job, within the limits of existing job structures and routines." We believe this kind of benefit may not be as often used as is possible.

The strength of unwritten rules is that they are habitual within the group and thus both adaptive and resilient. Good management practice creates habits rather than rules. Coming

Inter-organisational networks help organisations sustain productive rule networks

In rejecting managerialism, we can equally discover the tyranny of the expert, as in Orwell’s nightmare the animals look through the window of the farm to see the pigs dressed as men.

What inter-organisational networks provide is the opportunity for employees to discover this paradox for themselves through learning about the experiences of people at other organisations, and in the process to change how they manage their own constellation of identities in relation to their organisation.

The most effective systems leave a sufficient level of inefficiency in order that they can be resilient in changing contexts.

Idealistic approaches tend to privilege expert knowledge, analysis and interpretation. Naturalistic approaches emphasise the inherent un-knowability of current and future complexities, and thus they de-privilege expert interpretation in favor of enabling emergent meaning at the ground level.

we face two particularly important choices. The first is between totalitarian surveillance and citizen empowerment. The second is between nationalist isolation and global solidarity. 

Entire countries serve as guinea-pigs in large-scale social experiments. What happens when everybody works from home and communicates only at a distance? What happens when entire schools and universities go online? In normal times, governments, businesses and educational boards would never agree to conduct such experiments. But these aren’t normal times. 

Instead of every country trying to do it locally and hoarding whatever equipment it can get, a co-ordinated global effort could greatly accelerate production and make sure life-saving equipment is distributed more fairly.

When people are told the scientific facts, and when people trust public authorities to tell them these facts, citizens can do the right thing even without a Big Brother watching over their shoulders. A self-motivated and well-informed population is usually far more powerful and effective than a policed, ignorant population.

But temporary measures have a nasty habit of outlasting emergencies, especially as there is always a new emergency lurking on the horizon.

One of the problems we face in working out where we stand on surveillance is that none of us know exactly how we are being surveilled, and what the coming years might bring. Surveillance technology is developing at breakneck speed, and what seemed science-fiction 10 years ago is today old news.

But with coronavirus, the focus of interest shifts. Now the government wants to know the temperature of your finger and the blood-pressure under its skin. 

This kind of technology is not limited to east Asia.

Use the simplest and most boring solution for a problem, and remember that “boring” should not be conflated with “bad” or “technical debt.” The speed of innovation for our organization and product is constrained by the total complexity we have added so far, so every little reduction in complexity helps. Don’t pick an interesting technology just to make your work more fun; using established, popular tech will ensure a more stable and more familiar experience for you and other contributors.

The :shallow_prefix option adds the specified parameter to the named route helpers:

You can also specify the :shallow option in the parent resource, in which case all of the nested resources will be shallow:

The shallow method of the DSL creates a scope inside of which every nesting is shallow. This generates the same routes as the previous example:

I like making existing tech better and removing accidental complexity.

Unfortunately, it also gets the other properties, including bringing down the whole system when it crashes. This matters because systemd is complex

Don't let the complexity get to you. Don't let the vast breadth of content get to you.

The chosen approach pushes a lot of complexity out of the core. As a result it might take more code to achieve certain functionalities. This is the price of flexibility. And that's the primary design goal of Reactabular.

These user classes are not mutually exclusive. There-fore, if a user has earnings and/or holdings that fall intomultiple classes, their vote can be counted in multipleclasses.

many organizations end up with messy workflows, or overly complex ones.

darklang.com

we have never had to fundamentally rethink the energy basis of our way of life

The Lisp Machine (which could just as easily have been, say, a Smalltalk machine) was a computing environment with a coherent, logical design, where the “turtles go all the way down.” An environment which enabled stopping, examining the state of, editing, and resuming a running program, including the kernel. An environment which could actually be fully understood by an experienced developer.  One where nearly all source code was not only available but usefully so, at all times, in real time.  An environment to which we owe so many of the innovations we take for granted. It is easy for us now to say that such power could not have existed, or is unnecessary. Yet our favorite digital toys (and who knows what other artifacts of civilization) only exist because it was once possible to buy a computer designed specifically for exploring complex ideas.  Certainly no such beast exists today – but that is not what saddens me most.  Rather, it is the fact that so few are aware that anything has been lost.

might markets just not work?

Other examples of complex adaptive systems are:stock markets: Many traders make decisions on the information known to them and their individual expectations about future movements of the market. They may start selling when they see the prices are going down (because other traders are selling). Such herding behavior can lead to high volatility on stock markets. immune systems: Immune systems consist of various mechanisms, including a large population of lymphocytes that detect and destroy pathogens and other intruders in the body. The immune systems needs to be able to detect new pathogens for the host to survive and therefore needs to be able to adapt.brains: The neural system in the brain consists of many neurons that are exchanging information. The interactions of many neurons make it possible for me to write this sentence and ponder the meaning of life. ecosystems: Ecosystems consist of many species that interact by eating other species, distributing nutrients, and pollinating plants. Ecosystems can be seen as complex food webs that are able to cope with changes in the number of certain species, and adapt – to a certain extent – to changes in climate. human societies: When you buy this new iPhone that is manufactured in China, with materials derived from African soils, and with software developed by programmers from India, you need to realize that those actions are made by autonomous organizations, firms and individuals. These many individual actions are guided by rules and agreements we have developed, but there is no ruler who can control these interactions.

\Uk7!U"shouldbe\U7!Uk"

Special Complexity Zoo Exhibit: Classes of Quantum States and Probability Distributions 24 classes and counting! A whole new phylum of the Complexity kingdom has recently been identified. This phylum consists of classes, not of problems or languages, but of quantum states and probability distributions. Well, actually, infinite families of states and distributions, one for each number of bits n. Admittedly, computer scientists have been talking about the complexity of sampling from probability distributions for years, but they haven't tended to organize those distributions into classes designated by inscrutable sequences of capital letters. This needs to change.

I hope that non-theorists, even if they don't understand everything, will at least find some amusement in the many exotic beasts that complexity theory has uncovered.

“Why are some people more able to manage complexity?”

Unlike the movement of the body, in scholarship we can—and often do—look at one piece of a system of communication without seeing its relationship to others.

US

CLAVIER is more difficult to define than the acronym may appear, as I recall Simon and I discussed the choice of letters as I traveled back from a trip to London for a UCML meeting

The paths we take as we travel through life are sometimes the result of conscious decision making, sometimes the inevitable result of our behaviours, sometimes directed by others, often a complex weaving of all of these and more.

The transition from one species to another – like the variation between individuals – is gradual in both time and space; but those transitions that evolutionary theorists have singled out as the most important appear to present relatively sudden increases in complexity. With higher complexity come new possibilities. But new possibilities often come at some cost to the organisms concerned.

struggle upstream against the discursive power of the term, or playfully subvert it

Ehrenfeld (2008) concurs with McDonough and Braungart, in his plea for a holistic approach towards sustainability: “Our society is addicted to reductionist ways of solving virtually all our problems. ... Over time, as we engage more and more in this practice, society’s (as well as individual’s) competence to address the complicated, messy problems we confront has diminished. Unsustainability is just such a messy problem. Reductionism will not make it go away.” (Ehrenfeld, 2008, p. 11-12)

Complex personhood means that the stories people tell about themselves, about their troubles, about their social worlds, and about their society’s problems are entangled and weave between what is immediately available as a story and what their imaginations are reaching toward….Complex personhood means that even those who haunt our dominant institutions and their systems of value are haunted too by things they sometimes have names for and sometimes do not. At the very least, complex personhood is about conferring the respect on others that comes from presuming that life and people’s lives are simultaneously straightforward and full of enormously subtle meaning (4-5).

loopholes proliferated, and the tax code grew more complex

This is why people can play the piano with their fingers but not with their toes.

Complexitytheorists

Natural Algorithms and Influence Systems By Bernard Chazelle

He continues to fight against the architectural forces that value the modular over the adaptive, the global over the local. His project, the Eishin School, continues to be under fire by the powers-that-be in Japan. He continues to fight back. He is still the consummate outside. He believes in design from the folk up. I will use that yardstick to measure everything I will be trying from this course and in my courses. Is everything I do designed from the folk up? Is everything you do designed from the folk up? Is it humane and regenerative and sustaining, and alive? Or does it just serve the status quo ante bellum?

Is it even possible to have a System A that arises from our own or other’s codings? How will we know that we have not deluded ourselves, that we are so invested in the time and energy and pride of creation that we fall into the sinkhole of bias and blindspot?

System A and System B. System B is all about efficiency and hierarchy. It is about power and control and productivity. All of which is well and good within its proper context. I want the centralized control systems built into the flying and landing and taking off of airplanes. I don’t want it nearly so much in the ‘ergonomic’ fascism of bathroom design or of learning management systems.

Yet I have to ask: are they (including Mike Wesch, Cathy Davidson, and Randy Bass) enough outside to pull the center to the margin?

I freely admit that this is a mess of post

It was all that I could do to put the pieces together on the carpet. I have no memory of whether I finished the puzzle.