Mastery isn't the problem, Slavery is

PublishedJuly 16, 2020

•2 min read•View as Markdown

R

Risav Karna

Technical Leadership & Architecture

Comments

Join the discussion

No comments yet. Be the first to comment.

More from this blog

Amnesiac APEs Wearing RAGs

Towards a substrate for distributed intelligence: Shared Epistemic Memory

May 6, 202615 min read

How P2P E-Voting fixes E-Voting - I

Voting Without the Middleman

Apr 16, 20267 min read

Unified Knowledge Access & Distributed Intelligence

Towards a unified access architecture for a civilization-scale knowledge base - Part 1

Apr 16, 202619 min read

Unified Knowledge Access & Distributed Intelligence

Mt. Kolmogorov: A Complex Climb

A minimalist approach to code-generation

Aug 31, 20247 min read

Mountains & Software: Similar Peaks

A Unified Approach to Data Access User Interfaces in Large Projects

Aug 26, 20247 min read

A

anarchitekt

33 posts

Anarchitecture

Why Git repository providers needn't rename `master`

Mastery of a certain concept or skill is probably not our problem. Mastery over other people's human rights is. However, we delegate such mastery to structures of power all the time. This is because of an outdated social contract with unregulated late stage capitalism.

To actually do something beyond just a symbolic rename, GitHub, for instance, just needs to actually remove different forms of mastery because of organizational and managerial constraints.

For there to be any freedom to work but work unlike a slave, we need freedom to not work and still exist. This basic idea is connected not just to universal income but deeper constructs as well, e.g. negative income taxes and basic social equities.

We need to be trained before work

Learning to work needs to happen before work. This is especially so as to not let it mix up the organizational roles like 'interns' or another vague / undescriptive title.

With qualification, we need to have matching contractual offers. This is handled on an abstract and extensible + self-hosted way within nep.work core.

Removing `master`

Renaming master should be a local choice of the repository owners, not a globally imposed constraint from structures like Microsoft's GitHub.

This can be done with an easy script that could just be added to any CI/CD pipeline.

Command Palette

Comments

More from this blog

Why Git repository providers needn't rename master

We need to be trained before work

Removing master

Why Git repository providers needn't rename `master`

Removing `master`