Arvind Venkataramani

@arvindv
107 Followers
164 Following
88 Posts
design researcher, ritual technologist, neuroatypical in unsatisfactory ways. i sense and work towards emergent futures. let’s make the world a place of flourishing for all life.
Ritual Design Toolkithttps://www.ritualdesign.net/
Show threadArvind VenkataramaniDec 28
@impactology these are great, are you blogging this?
Show threadArvind VenkataramaniDec 17

@adamgreenfield which reincarnation?

(Jk jk congrats)

(Also makes me feel better about starting my PhD application prep this late in my life)

Show threadArvind VenkataramaniDec 15
@grimalkina also I’m not entirely making a point as much as gesturing towards maybe a way of identifying conditions under which it makes sense to think about measure corruption
Show threadArvind VenkataramaniDec 15
@grimalkina people / institutions subject to policies having the freedom to respond to them in more than one way
Show threadArvind VenkataramaniDec 15

@grimalkina (airplane WiFi ate half my point)

https://mastodon.social/@arvindv/115725596012293942

Show threadArvind VenkataramaniDec 15

@grimalkina if making the definition is a marker of power, but the actions of entities in the system are not overdetermined, it follows that both “corruption” and resistance are not abnormal but are ongoing and regular processes.

The (inaccurate) invocation of Goodhart’s (Campbell’s) law can be understood as a desire to talk about misaligned incentives and benefits between the measure-definers and the measured.

Or conversely to indicate conditions necessary for such corruption to happen.

Show threadArvind VenkataramaniDec 15

@grimalkina I think it’s useful to interrogate Campbell’s “the more subject it will be to corruption pressures […] the social processes it is intended to monitor”

It seems to me that “corruption” is an unexamined word here. A thing can only be corrupted relative to a definition, which suggests that corruption can only happen in a poorly defined system with freedoms available to the actors in it which cannot be constrained.

Which brings up the question of who gets to make the definition!

Arvind VenkataramaniDec 13
Show threadCat HicksDec 11
I have had this kind of conversation MANY times over in my life, I am comfortable with it, I am not sure where we would get to nor do I have all the answers, but I feel these have always ended up being very positive, and there's a lot of evidence out there that just isn't making its way into software. If you want to get on stage and include this kind of more inclusive positive evidence in a future talk, or in a piece of writing, it exists.
Arvind VenkataramaniNov 28
Show threadAlexNov 28
Arvind VenkataramaniNov 10
Randahl FinkNov 8

This thread is worth reading if you are a Google docs user.

Short version: When you export a document from Google Docs, Google replaces all your hyperlinks with links that allows Google to monitor the interactions of everyone you share your document with.

This hidden link replacement can potentially be used to build a model of your professional relations, where people who interact more with your content are considered a stronger relation.

Think about the implications.
https://fosstodon.org/@Joe_0237/111145684757912952

Joe :ferris: :nixos: (@[email protected])

Today I found out that google docs infects html exports with spyware, no scripts, but links in your document are replaced with invisible google tracking redirects. I was using their software because a friend wanted me to work with him on a google doc, he is a pretty big fan of their software, but we were both somehow absolutely shocked that they would go that far.

Fosstodon