This website might not be for you if you tend to think that:
technologies will solve all of our problems
In other words, if your organisation is blind to solutionism (Morozov), which can be interpreted as: jumping at the implementation of “solutions” when problems have not yet been identified. I often have to remind myself that the solution is the problem.
technological development is “progress”
Technologies can foster our condition. No doubt. But to think that technologies only do good is to fail to ask whether technological usage doesn’t also come with a regressional (downside) effect (as philosopher Daniel Ross helped me see), or maybe whether technological usage is like a drug, a pharmakon, as philosopher Bernard Stiegler used to write; the intertwinement of a poison and a remedy, “good” and “bad”. Neil Postman also used to asked (I paraphrase): aren’t technologies a Faustian bargain? When we adopt a technology, we surely win something, but don’t we also lose something?
ditching the “old” for latest [technologies] is wise
In other words, if your organisation doesn’t know the adage “use old rule”, or is unfamiliar with the Lindy Effect, which definition is (I provide an example next since the definition is confusing): “the future life expectancy of some non-perishable things, like a technology or an idea, is proportional to their current age.” (Wikipedia). So for example, based on the Lindy Effect, an application which has existed for 2 years is expected to exist for another 2 years; along the same logic, an application that has existed for 40 years is expected to exist for another 40 years. This is not a theorem, obviously; but, we know that most novelties vanish; startups founders know that: 9 out of 10 startups will die.
more technologies will make things easier
In other words, if your organisation is blind to the concept of technological debt - which convey the idea that as we adopt more technologies, systems become more complex, thus the probability of encountering future problems increase.
Sometimes these problems (that we are trying to solve by adopting a more technologies) come up because of past technological systems our organisations have implemented. It can become a vicious circle: more technology, more problems to deal with.
If you organisation simply thinks than adding technologies will make things easier, they also fail to see that “we improve systems by removing parts, not by adding”.
In other words, we improve systems via negativa (by removing).
You already know this concept through the contemporary saying: “less is more”. I got this from Nassim Nicholas Taleb (نسيم نقولا طالب).
Implementing technological systems the wrong way will make your organisation fragile, i.e. adverse effects will weaken your organisation.
I am not saying that you shouldn’t use technologies, obviously, I am just saying that, if you can see that technological systems can make an organisation fragile, we have to think about how we implement technologies, so that adverse effects affect your organisation positively, and make your organisations stronger (i.e. learn at the expense of those who make mistakes; I am not saying this should be done immorally).
That is possible. My job to help you use technologies to implement such business.
That is the concept of antifragility (also Taleb), if you’re familiar with that term.
all-in-one tools are better than single-use tools
In others words, if your organisation is blind to UNIX philosophy: “[use tools] that do one thing, and do it well”.
Think of cooking or gardening tools: one tool, one usage; the kitchen utensil designed to do everything, averages at everything, but does nothing well. Often, after having tried novelties, we revert back to tools that have passed the test of time (see Lindy Effect mentioned above).
economies of scale is the only way to scale
In others words, your organisation can’t see that operating at scale doesn’t necessarily imply economies of scale. Your organisation can’t see that scale either means economies of scale, or: economies of network (Zamagni).
What is the difference?
Both imply scale. Economies of scale means that one entity is in charge of the production and distribution of items for everyone. Think of Microsoft: one company controls the production and distribution of software for all its users). That’s economies of scale. Conversely, economies of network means that as many entities as possible can be in charge of production and distribution. Think of all kebab joints: the distribution of kebab scaled, yet no entity is in charge of all joints. If one kebab joint shuts down, its failure does not undermine the network of kebab joints, it can even make it stronger. The trial and errors of all joint operators make the network of joints stronger; yet we are not short of joints. While with economies of scale, Microsoft can learn from the trial and errors of all users, but, if there is a problem, if Microsoft does something wrong, for example, if a virus or a bug spreads through Microsoft’s infrastructure, all users can be affected. When Microsoft’s infrastructure comes down, the businesses of all users is at risk.
The question of scale is important because it brings us to the question of fragility and antifragility (Taleb). One could say that most of the joint infrastructure is antifragile: recipes are distributed freely. Anyone can open a joint. When a joint fails, 1. its failure does not affect the network, and 2. others can learn from the mistakes the operators made e.g. selling kebabs at this location on this street does not work or kebab with banana & durian filling does not work, others can learn from that; or selling kebabs here works fine, others can try their luck and open a kebab joint. The more people try, make mistakes, even fail, the better the network becomes. The network of kebab joints is antifragile. Conversely, other type of infrastructures, such as the banking infrastructure, are fragile: the failure of one single bank can lead to the failure of the whole banking system. Each new layer of complexity adds fragility, every day. Microsoft (and I don’t care about Microsoft, there are many many many other technology companies like Microsoft - but I had to take one example) and other such technology companies are also fragile.
If we can see that economies of scale imply fragility, and economies of network imply antifragility, we might want to think about what technological system we adopt.
As a business owner, I do not want to become dependent on technology providers which will become like banks: an infrastructure or digital tools which I can no longer do business without, yet which is fragile. Also: I do not want to use tools which purveyors become stronger at my expense, and over time, undermine my business. That’s what led me to do research, to answer the following question (amongst many others): how can we put a technological infrastructure in place, for my business, which is antifragile? Now my job is to make sure I provide my clients with technological tools which rely on infrastructures that are more like network of kebab joints, and less like banks. If a kebab joint goes out of business, say, down the street; you can carry on doing business. No problem. You have other options for lunch. If a bank fails (and it does not even have to be your bank!), and other banks fail, all our businesses are at risk. If we can see that scale is not necessarily about economies of scale, we might want to ask: how can we rely on digital infrastructures which don’t put our businesses at risk? This business (my business) is more like a kebab joint, if I fail, others can step in my stead, and you can carry on doing business with the digital tools I provided you with, easy.
One last thing. Each time I have to adopt a new technology, or hire a technology provider, I ask myself these two questions: 1. is this purveyor getting stronger at my expense (thus making me weaker)? And, 2. if this purveyor fails, can I carry on using this technology? Think of Apple products, when Apple decides to no longer support a device, you can no longer use this device.
data-driven decisions lead to innovation
In other words, if your organisation can’t see that what matters is to foster the possibility to create what yet does not exist (the improbable as Stiegler, Blanchot et al wrote), but that your organisation think that they should be looking at data (what is already computed, thus belongs to the sphere of events that are probable) to make decisions; if so, how can a group of people think “outside the box”? Worse: will sticking to data-driven decisions undermine the possibilities for your organisation to create what yet does not exist? And last but not least - thinking of AI - one question for the ones who imagine that AI can help them create what does not exist: can AI (computers) generate (compute) what is beyond the sphere of computation?
we have to adapt; because there is no alternatives
In other words, if your organisation can’t distinguish between the meanings of the words adopt and adapt (Ars Industrialis) - and the importance of distinguishing between the two.
security comes at the expense of “privacy”
Untitled Essay, RP, to be published by XYZ Press
“privacy-friendly” applications are the panacea
Privacy Is Missing The Point, RP, to be published by XYZ Press.
open source is the panacea
In other words, if your organisation can’t see that open source is missing the point. Why? One reason maybe is that your organisation might be confusing open source with freely distributed. It is not the same. Freely distributed means that you can freely use, study, copy, modify and redistribute an application (which is freely licensed). An application which is licensed as open source might only allow you to study its source code, while restricting your ability to use, copy, modify or redistribute that same application. Both terms are often confused, that might be because an application that is freely distributed is necessarily open source, but an application that is open source, is not necessarily freely distributed. I got all this from Richard Stallman.
restricting users is the way to make money
e.g. using DRM, distributing binaries.
I am not sure about that one, but, the question could be: can a movement thrive if it isn’t free? Don’t confuse free with gratis; free does not necessarily means gratis.
anonymity is dead
I don’t mind if I don’t know your name.
Nota bene: these statements should not convey the idea that the author rejects technologies, obviously not. The author of this text is a technophile and a technologist.
I made this webpage to tell you that:
I can help you with digital things, so you can focus on your job, instead of spending time dealing with unnecessarily sophisticated
When I see a website that is unnecessarily sophisticated, I feel I am being mislead. For the ancient Greeks thought of sophists (that is the root of sophisticated) as rhetoricians who (mis)lead their public to believe something through a fallacious-yet-convincing reasoning. The etymology dictionary says early usage of the word sophisticate in English circa 1500 implied altered dishonestly. In my mind, sophisticated resonates with bamboozling.
digital tools.
What do I do?
I can do system administration
I use GNU/Linux, Ngnix, Codeberg Page, etc.
and web development
I keep things simple, I use HTML, CSS, Markdown and some static site generators, usually written in Bash and often using Pandoc.
AND I’ve also spent a number of years helping businesses adopting digital tools to help grow revenue. Some people call this practice growth
But what is the point of growing revenue if it means that we have to “run faster” to maintain the same level of income? In other words, what’s the point of growing revenue if your Return on Investment (ROI) is dwindling? Digital tools I call digital glebes cause dwindling ROIs.
or product marketing.
In plain words:
my job is to take care of the digital tools you need,
so you can focus on:
business
painting
raising money
your patients
trading
your clients
accounting
farming
fixing plumbing
pleading in court
suing morons
cat-sitting
recording music
risography
making deals
chartering yachts
or: whatever it is that you do for living.
I keep things simple, I document what I do, I use freely distributed software, and help you make money.
Why?
So you don’t become dependent on me, or on a vendor.
Once I’ve set things up, you can call me back if you need help, or you can hire someone else (or I can train your people).
My value proposition is that there is no vendor lock-in
From Wikipedia: “vendor lock-in, also known as proprietary lock-in or customer lock-in, makes a customer dependent on a vendor for products, unable to use another vendor without substantial switching costs.”
; you are free to go, anytime.
What can I do?
These bullet points list examples of what I can do for you:
set up email addresses with your own domain name. Here is how it goes: we buy a domain name; I set thing up, and we’re done. You have an email address with your own domain name
set up your website so you can focus on work that matters, instead of spending time managing an unnecessarily sophisticated website. Here is how it goes: you send me the text for your site, I upload it on the website of your choice, and we’re done. We can do this quick first with a one-pager, to get started, then iterate as we work on product market fit (see below)
help you with copywriting to craft your message for the web - so it can spread through referral
See AARRR: Acquisition, Activation, Retention, Referral, Revenue; for more details see https://yewtu.be/watch?v=XJRq5cP_xJk.
i.e. when people read your message, it reasonates with them, so they share it with others
help you implement a User-Generated Content system: that means that you provide digital tools to users; these users create content e.g. discuss topics; then this content becomes your marketing asset to acquire more users, or clients, for example
We use federated tools such as Lemmy, Discourse, PeerTube, wikis, etc.
help you create internal documentation (“knowledge base”) so, say, the work your employees produce becomes an asset (so you don’t have to redo or repeat or ask for things again and again
E.g. trainings, onboardings, FAQ, guidelines, documentation
)
help you adopt a version control system, for example git along with Forgejo
help you iterate to find product market fit
I use a mix of the jobs-to-be-done and product-market-fit-indicator methods as well as my own experience.
help you understand how you can use encryption with emails, data and files using GPG
help you implement a password management policy
provide you and your people with laptops which you can own
If ownership if about agency (or ~control), you don’t really own Apple products.
set you up with an end-to-end encrypted VoIP (call) application you can use under your own domain name, for example talk.yourdomain.com, so you don’t come across as a moron inviting your clients on Zoom & co for “private” calls
and finally, transfer my know-how to you, or members of your organisation, so you don’t become tethered to me or other digital vendors.
I don’t want to lock you in
Most digital technologies agencies nudge their clients to adopt tools provided by technofeudalists. By doing so, agencies prompt their clients to build their businesses or practices on the digital glebe (a territory where their agency is undermined). I don’t. I use software which are not tethered to any digital glebes or vendors. I use software which usage is free as in unrestricted, and which will remain freely distributed (i.e. copyleft-licensed).
.
How do I do things?
I use digital tools which you have agency over (that does not mean that you have to host applications yourself)
I use freely distributed (that is different from gratis
This webpage is made using Markdown, Pandoc, Bash, HTML, 710 about 50 lines of CSS (as of now) and is hosted on a virtual machine running the free GNU/Linux distribution Trisquel
FAQ: Ubuntu and Debian GNU/Linux are both composed of binary blobs, i.e. proprietary programmes.
along with Nginx, on a shared server.
This webpage is a fork from https://plaintext.website; credit: Matt Stevans for the inline footnotes.
Data collection policy
There is no “privacy policy”, only Data Collection Policies.
: logs are kept for four weeks; only looked at if there is an issue. No analytics, cookies or trackers are used on this website.
(My PGP public key).