The first time I took on the role of a lead engineer, a few years ago, I had a really hard time learning how to prioritize and delegate work. For much of my early career, I had simply never needed any planning skills beyond “say yes to everything and work yourself into the ground”. One of the best pieces of professional advice I’ve ever received came during this time, from a mentor who told me to delegate the things I was already good at. If I’m good at something, it means I’m actually equipped to evaluate whether my team is doing a good job. It also means I don’t need the practice as much, so delegating frees me up to improve other skills.
There’s an oft-repeated myth about artificial intelligence that says that since we all know that humans are prone to being racist and sexist, we should figure out how to create moral machines that will treat human beings more equitably than we could. You’ve seen this myth in action if you’ve ever heard someone claim that using automated systems to make sentencing decisions will lead to more fairness in the criminal legal system. But if we all know that humans are racist and sexist and we need the neutrality of machines to save us—in other words, if we should delegate morality to AI—how will we ever know if the machines are doing the job we need them to do? And how will we humans ever get better?
There’s a depressing sort of symmetry in the fact that our modern paradigms of privacy were developed in response to the proliferation of photography and their exploitation by tabloids. The seminal 1890 Harvard Law Review article The Right to Privacy—which every essay about data privacy is contractually obligated to cite—argued that the right of an individual to object to the publication of photographs ought to be considered part of a general ‘right to be let alone’.
Like many fundamental assumptions about The Way The Internet Works, the idea that the things you put online stay online feels both arbitrary and inviolable. Once upon a time, the lovable nerds who built the first bulletin board systems decided that anything posted to it would persist on disk until the disk hit capacity, and that (as they say) was that.
I know that human brains gobble up patterns and ritual like there’s no tomorrow, and while there is technically no difference between the December 31st of one year and the January 1st of the next it nevertheless feels like the turn of the year is when I am granted a brief reprieve from physical reality in which I get to believe that I’m the kind of person who can effect change just by wanting it a lot.
I read 104 books this year! Not including 10 books that I started and gave up on. Goodreads tells me that’s 32,886 pages, which seems like an awful lot of pages. I’m pretty proud of the fact that I averaged a steady clip of 2 books per week, but I’m also starting to suspect that I’ve been approaching these reading challenges as an end in and of itself—that is, as a metric to be tracked and gamified, not for the pure enjoyment of reading. Growth mentalities are unsustainable everywhere, even in beloved hobbies. In 2020, I’d like to make a conscious effort to read fewer books more deeply, to re-read books that have shaped my thinking, and with any luck, to write more about them.
One of my absolute favourite things to be asked is whether I have any advice for finding a therapist. This is because:
- I’m a huge fan of mental health and people getting help and treatment.
- I’m extremely honoured that people trust me to treat their question with care, to keep their confidence, and to provide good advice.
- I really love telling people what to do.
I’ve been getting this question more frequently recently so I thought I’d write up a guide for easy reference. I’m located in Toronto, Canada, but most of this advice applies across the board. There’s also a list of self-guided resources at the bottom if you’re not quite ready to take that plunge.
Disclaimer: I have no professional training in health care of any variety. My credentials mainly consist of having had five therapists in four cities in two countries and interviewed many more, so I’ve done this a lot. Comments and suggestions super welcome.
I read 84 books this year ! Holy shit! That is more books than I have ever read in any previous year. Goodreads says that amounts to 25,596 pages and that sounds like a lot of pages. I attribute this mostly to the Toronto Public Library and its excellent and extensive ebook library, because I read 68 of those 84 books in the last seven months of 2018 after moving back to Toronto. Support your local public library, y’all. Also, I got a job in an office where after work I go home and don’t continue working forever, so that helps. Plus, I’m not running three other side projects at the same time. Aren’t you proud of me?
I know that practically every generation has thought that the end times were nigh, but it’s hard for me not to think that maybe this time we could be right. After all, we have Science now, more information than our brains were ever meant to absorb, and if I think too much about the bees and the coral reefs and the antibiotics and the cellphones in our hands and in our oceans and the borders and walls and cages and guns and bombs —
Toronto was my first view of Canada, a grey slushy view in the dead of March that called into question all of my parents’ decision-making capabilities in choosing to move here. After the idyll of a tiny German university town (complete with castle ruins!), nothing about this place that was too big and too loud and too cold made sense. It had giant box stores in the middle of the city and a downtown that wasn’t entirely dedicated to pedestrians. It was basically barbaric.
- non-tech people trash talking tech products that don’t function perfectly as though tech were easy
- tech people trash talking tech products that don’t function exactly the way they want them to as though tech were easy
- non-tech people citing Arthur C Clarke’s “sufficiently advanced technology” quote as an excuse for wilful ignorance about the technical systems they use
- tech people citing Arthur C Clarke’s “sufficiently advanced technology” quote as a justification for hostility and contempt towards their users
- non-tech people rationalizing bad product decisions as though tech being hard were an excuse for mediocrity
- tech people rationalizing bad ethical decisions as though tech being hard were an excuse for perpetuating social harm
- non-tech people thinking the latest brand new disruptive app will generate enough cover to distract from the labour-hostile late-stage capitalist systems they’ve built
- tech people latching onto universal basic income because it absolves them of the massive inequalities they’ve perpetuated
- the macbook pro touchbar