Thread: When I accepted my OBE I did so in full knowledge there would be backlash from academic philosophers in my discipline, and here it is. The letter contains some basic errors about my view - but that's to be expected as their aim is not truth.

So, here's my contrarian take on Why Trunk-Based Development Is Great But Probably Won't Work For You. Buckle up, it's a long one.

From time to time I talk about, or boost someone else's discussion of, "classical" continuous integration/trunk-based development/push-to-master/whatever. I do this because I've personally worked like this and I genuinely think it's a marvelous way to write software.

I've also, at this point in my career, failed—a bunch of times!—to bring this technique into practical use on the teams and organizations I've worked with. As a result, while I still do it myself, I don't focus as much on encouraging it in others.

The technoculture that's presently in vogue is what I think of as async/individual—optimize for the individual, performance-manage the individual, decouple the individual from others so they can be their best, most productive, most heroic selves.

This is in contrast to what I think of as sync/team—a culture that leans into interdependence and collaboration. If you've never worked on a team that collaborates very closely every day for months or years on end (and likes it) you've likely not experienced a team like this.

I'll not leave Riddlersworld. But I'll redefine the notion of riddler. A riddler is a person who doesn't know about specific dates and even about dates in general such as the year things will happen. He only knows, in general, some of the events that will take place,... 1/*

a kind of general history, a plot. In this sense continuing in Riddlersworld goes through an approach of minimums, taking riddlers as what gives an outline of some of the events that could happen at an always unknown date. 2/*

Sure, riddlers intend to convey the idea that they do know the dates, or at least the year, but they don’t know them. 3/*

Take 2020 as an example. At this point of the year you can make so many ad hoc statements as you like, but guys, 2020 clearly meant year 2020. 2020 was the year of the visible "outcomes". 4/*

On November 4, 2019 Mr Pool suggested that outcome of action Plan B is what you have been waiting = price increase. It should have happened in November and December 2020, as Plan B ended on November 7, so the outcome should be those months. 5/*

I was asked to do a tweet on how to be a good Minceir Ally. So here are my thoughts ... Other Minceiri are welcome to add.
Allies can do the actions you can.

Learn about Traveller Culture, history and issues affecting us from us not others. You can do this by checking Traveller org websites, chat with us, invite us to give inputs in your place of work.

Educate others and challenge Anti Traveller racism when you see it.

Get to know Travellers locally and local issues. Support the work of local and national Traveller orgs.

Get to know Travellers locally becoming friends. Invite Traveller children to your parties/playdates. Let your children go to Traveller children parties,playdates in their home.

My morning thought. I think what's most incompatible about the way I think and the journal article format as a means of capturing and validating thought is that I have a completely different sense of the relation between tentativeness, rigor, and informatic compression.

The characteristic Pete thought is: wait a minute, this whole area is dominated by an assumption that no one seems to be questioning, and I've got two options to express that: i) outline the logic of the issue in a quick and compressed way, ii) write a small book with references.

The discipline seems to want something in between these poles every single time, and this makes me extremely anxious because I feel (with good reason) like any partially referential engagement with the issue will get instantly torpedoed by anyone outside its referential remit.

To repeat something I've said before: I'm actually quite good at being *concise*, I just find it very hard to be *brief*, because most of the thoughts I have don't permit brevity. Consider what your (referential) reactions are to this brief piece:

One of the main genres of publication I've actually excelled in over the years is dictionary articles, which I take a lot of joy in writing, and include some of the pieces of which I'm most proud. Consider this one on the crux of Meillassoux's project:

Some familiar figures are pushing the absurd and defamatory claim that Ken Loach supports Holocaust denial. The story of this bogus talking-point, which relies upon multiple layers of falsehood and guilt-by-association, makes for a revealing case-study. 1/

It dates back to the 2017 Labour conference. In a NYT op-ed, Howard Jacobson claimed that “a motion to question the truth of the Holocaust was proposed” from the conference floor—a crude fabrication, which the NYT sanctioned in its pages. 2/

If you follow the link supplied by Jacobson or his editors, you’ll see that he was wrong on 3 counts: it wasn’t a motion, it wasn’t at the conference, and it wasn’t in favour of Holocaust denial. Quite the hat-trick! 3/

At a fringe meeting, granted no official status by Labour, an Israeli-Jewish speaker, Miko Peled, had said that he didn’t think Holocaust denial should be a criminal offense (which it is in some European countries). 4/

This is a perfectly reasonable position to hold—that opinions, no matter how wrong-headed or morally objectionable, should not be a matter for the criminal law—and of course it does not mean that Peled himself questions the truth of the Holocaust. 5/