Categories For later read
7 days
30 days
All time
Recent
Popular
I should mention, this is why I keep talking about this. Because I know so many people who legally CAN'T.
How do I know they have NDAs, if they can't talk legally about them? Because they trusted me with their secrets... after I said something. That's how they knew I was safe.
Some of the people who have reached out to me privately have been sitting with the pain of what happened to them and the regret that they signed for YEARS. But at the time, it didn't seem like they had any other option BUT to sign.
I do not blame *anyone* for signing an NDA, especially when it's attached to a financial lifeline. When you feel like your family's wellbeing is at stake, you'll do anything -- even sign away your own voice -- to provide for them. That's not a "choice"; that's survival.
And yes, many of the people whose stories I now know were pressured into signing an NDA by my husband's ex-employer. Some of whom I *never* would have guessed. People I thought "left well." Turns out, they've just been *very* good at abiding by the terms of their NDA.
(And others who have reached out had similar experiences with other Christian orgs. Turns out abuse, and the use of NDAs to cover up that abuse, is rampant in a LOT of places.)
How do I know they have NDAs, if they can't talk legally about them? Because they trusted me with their secrets... after I said something. That's how they knew I was safe.
And if the environment at the org was toxic or abusive, it is not uncommon to not realize the extent of that toxicity/abuse until after you're out. But by the time you realize that you signed under duress and presumed good faith where none existed, you're out of options.
— Lauren Thoman (@LaurenThoman) February 16, 2021
Some of the people who have reached out to me privately have been sitting with the pain of what happened to them and the regret that they signed for YEARS. But at the time, it didn't seem like they had any other option BUT to sign.
I do not blame *anyone* for signing an NDA, especially when it's attached to a financial lifeline. When you feel like your family's wellbeing is at stake, you'll do anything -- even sign away your own voice -- to provide for them. That's not a "choice"; that's survival.
And yes, many of the people whose stories I now know were pressured into signing an NDA by my husband's ex-employer. Some of whom I *never* would have guessed. People I thought "left well." Turns out, they've just been *very* good at abiding by the terms of their NDA.
(And others who have reached out had similar experiences with other Christian orgs. Turns out abuse, and the use of NDAs to cover up that abuse, is rampant in a LOT of places.)
Thereās an old Zen koan that goes, āif you meet the Buddha, kill him.ā
In other words, when something is self-verifiable or self-iterating, looking too heavily towards the originator can be a distraction along the path. Results speak for themselves.
Some folks have applied that to Bitcoin as well.
https://t.co/NYk1IKFDt4
For example, sometimes there are debates about Satoshi Nakamotoās original intent. Should block sizes be increased to facilitate āe-cashā or should block sizes be kept small for any user to run a node?
This is the type of problem encountered by engineers all the time: trade-offs.
A project can iterate or stay the same depending on what the market says.
Sometimes the successful product ends up being very different than the engineer initially envisioned. Sometimes itās exactly like what they envisioned.
With Bitcoin, there are developer-vs-developer disputes, and disputes between finance-types and earlier users.
This is similar to natural selection, with ānatureā as the market. Some creatures havenāt changed in hundreds of millions of years. Others have changed notably, or transformed into something else entirely.
In other words, when something is self-verifiable or self-iterating, looking too heavily towards the originator can be a distraction along the path. Results speak for themselves.
Some folks have applied that to Bitcoin as well.
https://t.co/NYk1IKFDt4
For example, sometimes there are debates about Satoshi Nakamotoās original intent. Should block sizes be increased to facilitate āe-cashā or should block sizes be kept small for any user to run a node?
\u201cIf you meet Satoshi on the road, kill him.\u201d\u2013 The Tao of Bitcoin
— Max Keiser (@maxkeiser) February 14, 2019
This is the type of problem encountered by engineers all the time: trade-offs.
A project can iterate or stay the same depending on what the market says.
Sometimes the successful product ends up being very different than the engineer initially envisioned. Sometimes itās exactly like what they envisioned.
With Bitcoin, there are developer-vs-developer disputes, and disputes between finance-types and earlier users.
This is similar to natural selection, with ānatureā as the market. Some creatures havenāt changed in hundreds of millions of years. Others have changed notably, or transformed into something else entirely.
1)
Five Eyes is VERY important.
It wonāt be around much longer.
Relevant here but not the focus.
2)
https:// https://t.co/f24vLp3Z5h
3)
The Five Eyes (FVEY) is an intelligence alliance comprising Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States. These countries are parties to the multilateral UKUSA Agreement, a treaty for joint cooperation in signals intelligence.
4)
The origins of the FVEY can be traced back to the postāWorld War II period, when the Atlantic Charter was issued by the Allies to lay out their goals for a post-war world.
5)
During the course of the Cold War, the ECHELON surveillance system was initially developed by the FVEY to monitor the communications of the former Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc, although it is now used to monitor private communications worldwide.
Five Eyes is VERY important.
It wonāt be around much longer.
Relevant here but not the focus.
2)
https:// https://t.co/f24vLp3Z5h
3)
The Five Eyes (FVEY) is an intelligence alliance comprising Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States. These countries are parties to the multilateral UKUSA Agreement, a treaty for joint cooperation in signals intelligence.
4)
The origins of the FVEY can be traced back to the postāWorld War II period, when the Atlantic Charter was issued by the Allies to lay out their goals for a post-war world.
5)
During the course of the Cold War, the ECHELON surveillance system was initially developed by the FVEY to monitor the communications of the former Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc, although it is now used to monitor private communications worldwide.
the whole point of Dunks was you could go cop them at VIM whenever you wanted for $65. this shit is like having to enter a raffle to buy milk.
like seriously why not make a ton more of them if they're gonna be so sought-after? they land at outlets? so? nike still makes money off that.
the only reason to keep making them so limited is that they KNOW all that matters is the profit on the flip and if they were readily available FEWER people would want them, not more
the whole system is super broken, but it's just gonna go the way it goes, because at this point it all caters to the secondary market. the only reason Nike can sell Jordan 1s for $200 is because the people buying them can flip them for $500
adjusted for inflation, a $65 AJ1 in 1985 is like $160āand modern-day AJ1s are made from cheaper materials in factories staffed by cheaper workers. they don't HAVE to be $200 retail. but the secondary market nuked the whole concept of what sneakers are "worth"
\U0001f91e ONLINE RAFFLE is available from @bodega for the upcoming "UNLV" Nike Dunk Low Retro. Open until 5 PM ET on 2/16.
— Kicks Deals (@KicksDeals) February 15, 2021
\u27a1\ufe0f\u27a1\ufe0f https://t.co/JxJlyPuJVo pic.twitter.com/zenWOCDg4L
like seriously why not make a ton more of them if they're gonna be so sought-after? they land at outlets? so? nike still makes money off that.
the only reason to keep making them so limited is that they KNOW all that matters is the profit on the flip and if they were readily available FEWER people would want them, not more
the whole system is super broken, but it's just gonna go the way it goes, because at this point it all caters to the secondary market. the only reason Nike can sell Jordan 1s for $200 is because the people buying them can flip them for $500
adjusted for inflation, a $65 AJ1 in 1985 is like $160āand modern-day AJ1s are made from cheaper materials in factories staffed by cheaper workers. they don't HAVE to be $200 retail. but the secondary market nuked the whole concept of what sneakers are "worth"
We have to pause now, because we have to have a whole new tweet thread on #AdamSmith and āsavage nations,ā because heās going to keep using this kind of phrase, so we need to talk about it. #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
Please know that your friendly SmithTweeters give heavy side-eye to Smithās use of phrases like āsavage nationsā and ānaked savagesā and so on. They are obviously shocking to the modern ear, and they should be. #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
āWell, itās the 18th century, what do you expect?ā just isn't a sufficient explanation. #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
The 21stC changed from talking about the First World/Third World to talking about developed/developing nations. Thatās a good change and a respectful one. The terms we use for countries will continue to change. See:
Probably the best way to think about Smithās use of the term āsavage nationsā is to think of it as its own developmental stage on its way to a better set of terms for talking about the differences among nations. https://t.co/2wr7yACEv5 #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
Please know that your friendly SmithTweeters give heavy side-eye to Smithās use of phrases like āsavage nationsā and ānaked savagesā and so on. They are obviously shocking to the modern ear, and they should be. #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
āWell, itās the 18th century, what do you expect?ā just isn't a sufficient explanation. #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
The 21stC changed from talking about the First World/Third World to talking about developed/developing nations. Thatās a good change and a respectful one. The terms we use for countries will continue to change. See:
Probably the best way to think about Smithās use of the term āsavage nationsā is to think of it as its own developmental stage on its way to a better set of terms for talking about the differences among nations. https://t.co/2wr7yACEv5 #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
I shared this on my FB page and asked, can ya really blame him?
I was half kidding. I also assumed someone would think of what I did pretty quickly and waiting for the comment to mention what I assumed was obvious.
The timing. I was sure someone else had thought of it.
But no one did. 20+ comments in people discussed the morality or bad sense or libertarian perspectives. Someone even said Iām thinking about doing that. No one said what I thought was obvious. Have you thought of it? Is it obvious to you?
Hereās a clue...recognize it?
How about this?
The author discusses it with Mike Wallace in 1958
I was half kidding. I also assumed someone would think of what I did pretty quickly and waiting for the comment to mention what I assumed was obvious.
The timing. I was sure someone else had thought of it.
Columbia professor: I do heroin regularly for 'work-life balance' https://t.co/6aq9cnGfPG pic.twitter.com/3OmmaHKORx
— New York Post (@nypost) February 19, 2021
But no one did. 20+ comments in people discussed the morality or bad sense or libertarian perspectives. Someone even said Iām thinking about doing that. No one said what I thought was obvious. Have you thought of it? Is it obvious to you?
Hereās a clue...recognize it?
How about this?
The author discusses it with Mike Wallace in 1958
