Just a note, right now this post is just a collection of thoughts I am adding to as I am reading this book. Over time, I will polish the thoughts and organize narratively but right now its a page by page play by play.
Pg. 19
Most likely we will go to work at larger companies after gradation. The very same companies that are perpetuating these inequities, and even if we do not we are affected by their choices. There is no part of my life that is not connected, to recede from these tools is to also deny the reality of their power and a luxury to define my life in such a way.
If I want to work in this field I must enter the monster so to speak, I must build these tools in this system because these are the places that give me the most capital and resources to raise the QoL for my family and loved ones.
Am I only ever stuck with choosing the lesser evil?
Pg. 20
Although I favor regulation in theory, I think moving slower has a significant tradeoff, that we may never know what could be when we define solely based off current knowledge, understanding, and sentiment. Should our present selves be allowed to define future probabilities?
Regulation is always a red tape, and a double edged sword that depending on the regulator excludes and codifies changes and tools that we have not fully grasped yet. Any of these tools is still nascent in their lifecycle. If we impose regulation on their growth it also ultimately impacts the nature of that tool, and the path to its grown.
Pg. 31
As a designer, one of the key usability principles I was taught was to give the users what they know. As a user, I also want this. I want to go into a tool and feel familiar but at what point are these “givens’ challengeable? How do we define the point to switch to a more inclusive voice? All my life I have been forced to normal, why cannot I make it a two-way street?
Pg. 33
At what point has power ever been equitable? Individualized power requires an underlying moral compasses aligned with altruistic collectivism, which is not something culturally rewarded in the US.
Pg. 38
If the US is a multicultural, and apps global, how people interact with society and their exceptions of what it should provide varies by such an amount that defining must be reevaluated in each, less we define these concepts too vaguely to take action upon.
Pg. 45 How is “Thin description” differ from fact based, or empirical descriptions. Should those communities be allowed to make their own thick descriptions about those that described them? A community of thick descriptions might provide a more complete picture?
