
The Copenhagen Catalog: Principles for a new direction in tech - doener
https://www.copenhagencatalog.org/
======
ghufran_syed
"Principle: a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation
for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning."

These aren't 150 "principles" \- more like "150 feel-good marketing
statements". Or perhaps I should say, "virtue-signalling statements"

Taking just one example : "Make business human to human instead of b2b or b2c
- let's build companies that have humans at the core"

Consumers are human, and businesses are made up of humans, so what exactly is
this saying? It seems like "humanity" and "humans" are bing used as a synonym
for "good", which makes the whole thing trivial.

If we were serious about something like this, we would try and find 1, 3 or 5
"principles" out of the 150, _then_ we would actually be doing some real
thinking in terms of what things mean, relative importance etc

~~~
mola
Humans are also consumers. Modern businesses think about people as consumers
first and human second. This paves the way to many perversions, such as, huge
industries bases on exploiting human weaknesses (e.g. addiction based online
gaming) . This is enabled morally by marginalizing the concept of a human to
consumer first. In this moral outlook, as long as you get costumers to buy
your product, everything is AOK morally. Being human oriented means you don't
create a product that which manipulate humans into self or social harm even if
it'll turn a profit.

~~~
icebraining
The problem with generic principles like that is that they'll be used against
you by anyone who doesn't share your opinions on what "manipulate" or "social
harm" mean. You'll be harangued for being an hypocrite and going against your
own principles, despite never having intended the principle to be applied that
way.

------
njepa
I don't disapprove, though it does seem a bit out of touch. Maybe developers
aren't the most thoughtful people, but the state of things isn't without
reason. If you moved to another city, you are paying a lot of rent, you work
as a contractor (or other "flexible" employment), you have student loans,
potentially a mortgage, you don't know how long you have this career and there
isn't any employee organization to back you up then "values" doesn't come
first. You should change the way investors, schools, companies and societies
work.

~~~
adjkant
I mean investors, schools, companies, and societies are all made up of people.
It isn't only aimed at developers.

That said, even with those factors, many employees in tech today 100% have
ways they can influence the way companies interact with these values, even in
small ways. More nuanced yes but I don't think its fair to say it's out of
touch. Especially if this hits its goal and is displayed in many places,
social pressures can help at both the developer and company level.

------
hliyan
Many of these resonate with me, but I feel 150 is too many. I try to live by
the following:

1\. A corporation must equally serve the three groups that come together to
make it possible: investors, customers _and_ employees. Losing the long term
goodwill of customers and employees for quarterly (or even annual) targets is
ultimately unprofitable.

2\. Technology is not an end in itself. Focus on solving problems. Don't use
machine learning where a spreadsheet would suffice. Don't use Redux, GraphQL
etc., unless you have the particular problem they try to solve. Don't cram
blockchain into everything.

3\. Don't use technology to solve human problems. Use it to make the solution
easier. If your team is unhappy, _talk to them_. Don't create apps to manage
their sentiment. But do create an app that helps them express themselves to
you easier.

4\. Question the prevailing view, especially if it's super-popular: "Fail
fast", "Move fast, break things", "Fake it till you make it", "Premature
optimization is the root of all evil", "Man days estimates are anti-agile",
"Relational DBs constrain your ability to develop quickly" etc.

~~~
sonnyblarney
Neat point: "the three groups that come together to make it possible:
investors, customers and employees."

But - there are two more entities in direct relationship: suppliers, debtor;
and more importantly many externalities, like non-participants, non-customers,
the environment etc..

I don't think it's practical to promote this 'arbitrary equality' ideology on
everything because it has a 'good sensibility'.

A 'corporation' is just a group of people doing stuff. They can do whatever
they want: make profits, not, have fun, make stuff, provide some service, or
not. It's entirely up to them how to determine the 'balance' between the
various actors.

As for many of the remaining points in the article, I suggest people can do
whatever they want as well, so long as they trying to be good people. "Move
fast and break things" is a perfectly suitable approach in some situations,
though obviously not always.

~~~
hliyan
I think you're missing my point. The reason for (1) is the idea that
"maximizing shareholder value" is the only goal of a corporation. There are
two other stakeholders in a corporation who get shortchanged because of this
principle. Of course, suppliers are there, but consider that _we_ are _their_
customers (we being the corporation under consideration).

Also note that this is what _I_ follow personally and it's based on fifteen
years of experience working for many companies. I would hardly call that
arbitrary, and certainly not arbitrary in quotation marks. Whether that's
right for an entire industry, is an open question.

~~~
sonnyblarney
I did see your point, I'm trying to get you to consider what those '3 parties'
actually are, and that there are actually other participants as you would like
to define it.

"There are two other stakeholders in a corporation who get shortchanged
because of this principle."

There is at least one other obvious group: suppliers.

There is a buyer/supplier relationship equilibrium on both sides not just one
side - is my point.

For example, if you 'contract' for a company, well - you're not an 'employee,
shareholder or customer'. But you are 'part of that equation' as a supplier,
as important as customers.

The other major party that's missing is the lender - this is very much like
the 'investor relationship' and so they can't be left out. Remember that
financiers who provide debt to a company have _senior_ rights to assets, above
and beyond the investors. They can also have special covenants that give them
incredibly control. Those financiers can even be individuals (i.e. many
'bondholders' are individuals).

They are not investors.

So you talk about 'investors getting the advantage' ... that's actually not
quite true - many cases it's not the investors, it's the lenders/bond holders
who are making bank.

Lastly are the externalities. While a company has 'responsibility' towards
it's employees and customers, it absolutely has a relationship with every
entity that it doe any kind of business with - and those parties matter.

The 'economy' is basically a big web of those entities: buyers, suppliers,
investors, lenders, workers, externalized entities (+government +NGOs).

------
Jun8
This one of the few that resonated with me: #readpoetry

    
    
      It is difficult
      to get the news from poems
        yet men die       
      miserably every day
          
      for lack
      of what is found there.

~~~
skybrian
Well, it's good marketing, maybe, but this is an assertion made without
evidence, and the author may have been biased.

------
tlb
“Principles” should be worded to be clear and unambiguous. The items listed
here can be interpreted to mean something, but different people will interpret
them to mean different things. They are more like koans. Useful to ponder, but
not for people to agree to and think they’ve agreed to the same thing.

