[Arm-netbook] Ethics, eco-conscious, and treating your backers with respect

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 3:19 AM, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
<manuel.montezelo at gmail.com> wrote:

> 2017-12-29 14:53 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton:

> +1 to Julie, and to the other people who expressed doubts about the
> wisdom to go down this path.

 the decision was already made.  and couldn't really be properly
assessed without having the information of someone *who* had made the
decision to invest.  i've now _got_ that information and it's nowhere
near as good an opportunity as i initially thought... but i have
enough to know that it is NOT a ponzi scheme.

> If anything, the whole coin-mining rush and the resources devoted to it
> (not only computational, also human resources and the amount of
> press/attention that is given to it) compared to many of the other world
> problems, look to me anything but sensible, and much less
> "eco-conscious" or "ethical".

 dude: it's the first time in human history where third parties are
neither required for contracts to be ATOMICALLY binding.  i'm not sure
if you grasp the full significance of that.

 prior to blockchain and hashgraph and so on the only way to guarantee
that a contract was honoured is to (a) trust each party in the
contract and (b) if there is a dispute trust a THIRD PARTY.

 entire power structures have built up over millenia based around that
and THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THE POWER TO NEGOTIATE CONTRACTS IS TRULY
DECENTRALISED.

 i... i can't... i can't emphasise enough how mind-bogglingly
significant that truly is for the whole of humanity.


> So I am not going to start arguing about this, I hope to not reply to
> any other email in the thread, but just to express that I also feel that
> this new adventure is quite far from the general idea of the EOMA (which
> I backed as part of the campaign and also a few years before that), and
> the campaign, which I contributed to echo in many places while it ran,
> which now I kind of regret after the latest developments.

 there is nothing that i can say here.  as in, i am not permitted,
under my own ethical operating framework, to say anything that would
interfere with your right to make assessments and conclusions for
yourself.


>> (2) if you're part of the 1st batch, that's much more complex: as
>> i've outlined many many times, the reputation of the factory is harmed
>> if the suppliers do not get the orders that they've been promised; the
>> factory workers are harmed because they don't the get jobs that
>> they've been promised; it also does harm to the project if the funds
>> are below the critical threshold (that they're already at) for buying
>> components and much more.  i therefore have to do an analysis to see
>> if there is any harm that you intend to do to the project.  it would
>> help in my assessment if you make it absolutely clear if it is your
>> intention to *actively* do harm to the project.
>
>
> I find that the language that you use is completely inappropriate to
> treat backers of the idea.

 ok, let's look first at the facts, then we go over them, then you can
let me know how i *should* have presented it, so that i can learn how
to make it clear.

 but in doing so i am going to ask you one very simple thing: that you
accept the facts AS the facts, ok?

 the facts are that removing money from the first batch *actively*
does harm.  i'll go over them again below.


> Julie and others, including me, *do not actively intend to harm the EOMA
> project*.  They, or we, just don't feel comfortable with the turn of the
> story that you are going to make, or just made, so they lost confidence
> that it's a project worth backing.  At most we want to *actively* remove
> us from the equation, not *actively* harm EOMA.

 unfortunately, it does *active* harm if the money from the first
batch is removed.  i have made this clear a number of times.

 * the amount of money available is only sufficient to pay components,
shipping etc. (i.e. not living expenses)
 * therefore if an amount is SUBTRACTED from that total, it must,
logically, mean that the total number of units manufactured is REDUCED
 * in many cases i have ALREADY PURCHASED COMPONENTS.  1500 JAE DC3
connectors.  2000 PCMCIA cases.  2000 PCMCIA sockets
 * if i talk to the factory and say "i'm sorry, the numbers to be
manufactured are now 800 not 1000" their reaction will be as follows:

  (1) they will never trust me to place an order with them ever again
  (2) as a knock-on effect all the contracts that THEY have arranged
will also have to be re-negotiated (to LOWER values)
  (3) the factory's reputation with those suppliers will be
IRREPARABLY HARMED as a result
  (4) the workers on the factory's assembly line will also be harmed.



> It's you who is *actively* changing the rules

 of course!  i'll change anything that's needed - without sacrificing
any of the underlying ethical principles - trying and testing out
absolutely anything that stands a chance of working towards the goal.

 that's *how* you succeed.

 again, can i refer to Simon Sinek's talk and invite you to go back,
fundamentally, to the WHY.

 please answer for me: WHY do you think am i doing what i am doing?

 i do mean, actually answer that question as best you can.  don't
treat it as "rhetorical" in any way.


> and making EOMA
> conditional on coin-mining operations rather than rethink the project
> and deliver less than promised, or do it in a different way, or run
> another campaign.

 i have been talking in ... have you been *reading* the updates at all
over the past year???  fer fuck's sake manuel i've been planning
*multiple* avenues here!  *including* already delivering less!
*including* planning multiple campaigns!




> These suggestions were given by people in this thread, perhaps not the
> best, perhaps not enough, but that's what many people in the "EOMA
> community" expressed.  If you disregard these opinions, well, it's you
> who is going to be the only actor *actively* harming or *boosting* the
> project, whatever end result is going to be.

 pretty much every single update, i clearly state, "this project
succeeds or fails based on your feedback and support".  if you come
back to the "WHY" as Simon Sinek advises that everyone first and
foremost do, and you BELIEVE in that "WHY", then it is ALL our
responsibility to keep an eye on the project and to give feedback.

 i think you are losing sight of that... and also forgetting that the
BTC i mined over 5 years ago - using MY personal money WELL before
this Crowdfunding campaign started - was put in 32 days ago.


> It's maybe nobody's fault that things went this way, but in any case,
> it's not Julie's fault in any way what happend so far and that the money
> is insufficient now, so treating backers in this appalling way is not
> OK.

 tell me: what is "appalling" about describing - truthfully - the
direct consequences of removing money from the first batch?


>
>> if you are part of the first batch, do you intend to do *active* harm
>> to this project if your request for a refund is not met; please kindly
>> answer yes or no, if yes, please outline the extent of the damage that
>> would be your intent to carry out, if any,, and i will be able to make
>> a fully-informed assessment.
>
>
> If you go down this path, not only linking EOMA to the success of a
> coin-mining operation, but blaming people who backed and trusted you, I
> don't think that Julie is the only person who is going to ask for a
> refund.

 i'm not quotes linking EOMA to the success of a coin mining operation
quotes jaezuss, manuel, where did you get the impression that i'm that
fucking stupid _come_ on man.

 i *don't have* full-time jobs like everyone else in the techie field,
i'm too much of a threat to companies for them to employ me.  and, not
to mention, there's the fact that if i *have* a full-time job i CAN'T
FOCUS ON THIS TASK.

 wake up for goodness sake, people.  i've been trying for EIGHTEEN
YEARS to gain full financial independence so that i can focus a
hundred percent on ethical business and people KEEP FUCKING TAKING
ADVANTAGE OF MY GENEROSITY.

 hearing how jeremy allison managed to get his *brother* in on that VA
Linux IPO when he'd *ASSUMED* that the founders would have contacted
me... the list of times where people have either blatantly exploited
my work for significant personal financial gain or blatant outright
embezzled it in one case... i won't go into details because it would
shock you too much.

 so i'm going to ask you a very, very direct question: do you want me
to give up?  do you want me to quit?  go back to the UK and get some
fucking stupid job in walmart or tesco's?  because i can do that if
you prefer.

 or do you want me to continue to try to succeed at the goals i've set?


>
>> sorry for being blunt, i feel it's best to be absolutely up-front
>> about these things.
>
>
> Ditto.

 _great_!  genuinely and absolutely honestly _great_.  that way,
misunderstandings get cleared up.

l.