#we were all clocking in to the 'become valuable to capitalism' center like that was all we were ever meant for | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

alittlelessalone · 5 years ago

Text

Backsliding - a Winston Billions fanfiction

Characters: Winston and Taylor

For some reason, I can’t post links on tumblr and still have the tags work, so I just decided to post this here. It’s also on ao3 if it’s easier to read there (the fic’s name is the same and I’m ArabellaTurner).

Also, Winston doesn’t have a last name, so I gave him one. Make what you want of it, but don’t feel the need to read into it unless you want to. Anyways, here we go:

Taylor rubbed the back of their neck and sighed. It had been a long day and they were happy to finally be heading home. Ever since they had joined back up with Axe Capital, Taylor’s days seemed to just be one headache after another.

Today had been worse than most. With every day Taylor continued their charade of being allies with Axe, they could feel his grip tightening just a little bit more around them. Yet it was still too soon to betray him. There were still too many moving pieces and unknowns.

As Taylor made their way through the desolate office, they were relieved at least that everyone else seemed to have gone home already. Lauren had offered to wait up, but Taylor had sent her home a few hours earlier. There was no reason why she had to sit around waiting just for Taylor’s sake.

Taylor was immensely grateful for the support, but they were not going to ask too much of their employees anymore. They had dragged everyone unfairly into battle before and this time they planned on being more careful.

Lost in their thoughts, Taylor almost missed the dim light coming from the southern stairwell. Those stairs lead down to the the quant work area, or quant dungeon as they knew Winston had taken to calling it.

Taylor frowned at the electricity wastage. Winston usually knew better than to leave the lights on when he left. Although Winston did have Math Meetup on Thursdays, so perhaps he wasn’t the last one out that day.

Taylor made their way over to the stairwell to turn the lights off, but froze when they heard noises coming from below. There was no way that anyone was still down there, was there?

Taylor squared up their shoulders before heading downstairs. It would not do to show any signs of fear, especially in their own office.

“Hello?” they called out. “Is someone down there?” They were greeted in response by a startled yelp.

“Winston?” Taylor asked, recognizing the voice and heading down the stairs. “Shit. You scared me. I guess I sort of got into the zone and lost track of the time,” Winston responded.

He stood up to greet Taylor as they got to the bottom of the steps. “What are you still doing here at...” Winston paused to look at the clock on his computer.

“Holy shit. What are you still doing here at 1:30am?” Winston asked, looking at Taylor with concern.

“I was taking care of some things,” Taylor responded vaguely. “Why are you still here?” they countered. “I was coding,” Winston responded, a little defensively.

Taylor made a mental note of Winston’s tone as they gave him a once over. He looked tired and defeated. “Don’t you have Math Meetup on Thursdays?” Taylor asked gently. Winston shook his head.

“Not anymore,” he replied miserably. He slumped back into his chair and stared dejectedly up at the ceiling.

Taylor frowned slightly. “What happened?” they asked. Winston sighed. “Well, you know how I’m an asshole?” he began. Taylor felt the corners of their mouth twitch, but refused to smile and Winston’s self deprecating comments.

“I know how you can be somewhat abrasive,” they replied diplomatically. Winston let out a slight chuckle at this. “Yeah, well, apparently they don’t want ‘abrasive’ people there,” he admitted.

Any degree of amusement Taylor was feeling before instantly disappeared. They though back to how Winston’s eyes lit up whenever he talked about Math Meetup. It was clearly something that meant a lot to him. Losing it like this was surely a painful blow.

Taylor stared at Winston’s sad eyes for a moment before making a decision. They quickly grabbed a chair and sat down next to him. “Did I ever tell you about my times as a child poker star?” they asked. Winston shook his head.

“Well, back when I was younger, I discovered the world of online poker. It was an amazing experience, really. I was just a kid, but I was already playing against and beating adults at that point. And I won quite a bit of money too. I felt like I ruled the world.

Only my rein was short lived. Eventually the other players grew tired of my success and rebelled. They kicked me out of the server and refused to let me back in. And even if I made a new account and pretended to be a different person, it was clearly only a matter of time before that one was banned as well.

They took something that I, just a kid at the time, loved and ripped it away from me. And even today it still hurts to think about,” Taylor concluded, their face more open and vulnerable than they had intended to get.

Winston blinked in surprise and let out a small exhale of breath. “Shit. That sucks ass,” he responded. Despite it all, Taylor felt the corners of their mouth twitched up again as they let out a slight chuckle.

“Yes,” they replied. “It does, as you so elegantly put it, suck ass. It really turned me off from the whole concept of poker for a long time. In fact, it wasn’t until Axe signed me up for the poker tournament that I was willing to play again. It was one of the few positive impacts that man has had on my life.”

Winston cocked his head and smiled at his boss. “So you’re saying that I shouldn’t let being kicked out of Math Meetup stop me from doing what I love?” he asked.

Taylor only raised an eyebrow mysteriously. “I’m simply telling you a tale about myself. What you take away from it is up to you,” they replied.

Winston stared at them for a second, then suddenly started to laugh. He continued to laugh until tears streamed down his cheeks. Only the tears continued even as the laughter died away.

“It was the one place I felt I truly belonged,” Winston admitted. “It wasn’t just about the math or the code. I felt like I had friends there. I saw those people all the time. Sometimes we would all even order food in during the meetup and eat together. Do you know how many other people willing eat together with me?”

Winston stared sadly at Taylor. “Without Math Meetup, what do I still have? All I’m good at is math, programming, and making stupid and inappropriate comments. I just lost the people who accepted me for the first two because of the third.

I feel like I’m backsliding so far. I promised I would become a better person, but here I am, months later, and nothing has changed. I’m still the same asshole I always was, only now I have less to show for it. If my skills can’t outshine my shitty personality, then what hope do I have for my future?”

Taylor stared at the sobbing boy for a few seconds before holding out their arms to him. Winston paused for a moment before realizing what Taylor was offering and sinking into them.

Taylor winced a little at the warm, wet form collapsing into their chest, but wrapped their arms around him regardless.

“You still have us, you know,” Taylor said gently. “You asked what you still have, and you still have this. You are an important part of the team here at Mase Cap and that’s not about to change.”

“But only because you don’t care about my personality,” Winston protested. “You are willing to overlook flaws in exchange for skill, but what if the other employees eventually can’t? I’ve already driven people away. What if I keep making that mistake?”

Taylor felt a small pang in their chest and let their arms wrap a little tighter around Winston’s body. “You’re wrong about that,” they admitted. “I didn’t hire you despite your personality at all. Your personality was one of your selling points.”

Winston sat up in surprise. “What?” he asked in confusion. “But you rejected me because of it! Then you only offered to let me try again if I stopped being such a piece of shit. And you only let my backsliding slide because my algorithm was so good.”

Taylor shook their head. “I reached out to you because I needed someone with passion and drive. I needed someone who was able to take risks and wasn’t afraid to challenge me. You were always so much more than just your code.”

Winston felt his body start to tremble. Was he really more to Taylor than just some extremely talented code monkey?

“Just recently you helped me realize how dangerous the path I was walking truly was. I lost sight of my goals, my values, and myself, but you helped guide me back. And sure, you were a little self-centered and abrasive in your words, but your anger was well-founded. And only you had the courage and passion to take me on.

There is a reason why you come to all my executive meetings and it isn’t because of your code. You are a valuable part of this company. You, Winston Kleinman, are the resource I was after when I hired you, the incredible code you produce is just a side effect.

And I’m sorry if you never realized that. It was my job to make you feel welcome and I guess I failed to do that.” Taylor looked around at the quant room. It was easy to see why Winston called it a dungeon.

“And you are important to me. Me, personally. Even if you were not my valuable employee, you would still be my friend,” Taylor concluded. Their body grew a little more rigid now that the words were out there. These were not words easily uttered, but they were completely true.

For his part, Winston was in a daze. He honestly couldn’t believe his ears, but he know better than to ask Taylor to repeat themselves. These were midnight words, he determined. They were the sort of words that were only uttered late at night while alone together in a windowless room.

Yet they caused Winston’s heart to swell. He had a friend. There was somewhere where he belonged, somewhere where he was wanted.

“Thank you,” he whispered. There was nothing else he could think to say. Taylor simply patted him awkwardly on the back.

Winston got up and moved back to his own chair. Taylor’s arms were a warm and safe place, but he didn’t want to overstay his welcome.

The pair stared at each other in silence for a few minutes. The tears in Winston’s eyes had dried up and the pain had faded from his eyes, but there was still uncertainty and fear there.

“Have you eaten?” Taylor finally asked, breaking the silence. Winston’s eyes widened and he shook his head. “I completely forgot to,” he admitted.

“There’s not much open at this hour,” Taylor continued, but there is a 24 hour diner not too far away from here. They have some decent enough vegan options there and you could use something in your system. Want to join me for a late night meal?”

Winston was once again rendered speechless, but as Taylor stood up and held out a hand, Winston found himself taking it. Wordlessly, he followed Taylor up the stairs, absentmindedly flicking the light off as he climbed the last one.

“I thought you always turned that off when you left,” Taylor remarked when they noticed Winston’s actions. “What?” Winston asked, startled a little by Taylor’s voice suddenly filling the air. “I almost without you left earlier,” Taylor explained. “But I saw the light was on and wanted to see what was going on. I’m glad I did.”

Winston felt his cheeks grow warm. He had thought that Taylor’s compliments would be limited to the confines of the quant dungeon, but they were on the main floor now.

“I’m glad you did too,” Winston agreed. “You should look for a new programming group to join,” Taylor suggested. “I’m sure there are plenty of others out there.” Winston nodded reluctantly. He knew that Taylor was right, but he was still scared.

“Once you find it, let me know the meeting dates. Then we can plan our dinners around them,” Taylor concluded, a smile once again tugging at the corners of their mouth.

Winston nearly tripped on a desk. “Our dinners?” he inquired. Taylor nodded. “You implied earlier that you wanted to eat dinner with friends from time to time, so I thought you might want to grab a bite with me sometimes after work. If I’m wrong then...”

Winston shook his head empathetically, cutting Taylor off. “I would love to grab dinner with you,” he assured them. “I’m just still getting over the fact that you want to spend time with me outside work.”

“Well, I do,” Taylor replied. “And I bet others do too. Have a little bit more faith in yourself, okay. Backsliding isn’t just about how you treat others. Treat yourself kindly too.”

Winston nodded. The tears were back in the corners of his eyes, but this time they weren’t from sadness. “Okay,” he agreed. “No more backsliding. This time I’m going to get it right. Just you watch! Winston Kleinman is ready to face the world! Nothing can stop him now!”

As his excitement grew, so too did the volume of Winston’s words. On the last ones, he jumped in the air, pumping his fists. And Taylor couldn’t help themselves. They laughed, bright and clear. And then Winston laughed too. The entire ride down the elevator was filled with the joyous sound.

And as they stepped into the cool night air, Taylor realized they weren’t stressed anymore. Their problems had not gone away, but they seemed so much smaller in the moment.

Taylor shot a quick text to Lauren informing her that they had left the office and were going to grab a bite before heading home. They then slipped the phone back into their pocket and turned back to Winston.

“Shall we?” they asked. Winston nodded and grinned. “We shall,” he replied. He then jumped up once more and did another fist pump. “Lead the way, my friend!” he declared, enjoying the sound of his voice echoing throughout the city. And with another smile, Taylor did.

#winston billions #taylor mason #billions #fanfic

4 notes · View notes

cyberneticpeoplespolis · 6 years ago

Text

Marxism and Privilege Theory

Privilege Theory and Marxism don’t get along. Just look at any one of the several thousand think-pieces on how identity politics is ruining the left, or driving people to the right, or alienating the white working class. Not only do these arguments frequently conflate a very broad set of both liberal and radical ideas, but they also often miss the point about what draws people to Privilege Theory in the first place.

Privilege discourse is not some liberal conspiracy to muddy the waters around class warfare, in fact the majority of people I’ve known who talked about privilege were very genuine about wanting to emancipate themselves and their friends from intersecting oppressions. The problem was that their only experience of Marxism was through some equally earnest “Anti-Identitarians” who were worried that focusing on identity would lead to movements that succumb to infighting and a lack of focus on class consciousness. What is instead needed is a constructive dialog between Marxism and Privilege Theory, without compromising on our critique of its fundamentally liberal and undialectical nature.

Is Privilege Theory Materialist? A good starting point for understanding privilege theory is to look at what makes it appealing as a means of understanding oppression. It is no coincidence that Social Privilege entered mainstream discourse in the aftermath of a crisis - the 2008 GFC. Use of the common terms of Privilege Theory skyrocketed between 2008 and the early 2010s - a time when material analysis was desired by oppressed people to explain their post-crisis situation, but the preceding two decades of socialist retreat meant a dialectical understanding of oppression was unlikely. Critics of Privilege Theory who point out its lack of focus on material reality miss the point: Privilege Theory became popular at this time precisely because oppressed people sought a material explanation of poverty and repression, and the language of liberal sociology (ie. separate categories of race, class, and gender privilege) was a much better means of understanding this reality than other areas of liberal thought. From the outset, Privilege Theory took on the appearance of a radical force - precisely because of a radical focus on material reality. We cannot afford to make the mistake of thinking racialised and feminised oppression and the ‘lived-experience’ of this is somehow outside of materiality.

Accurate but Limited

To put it in Marxist terms: Privilege Theory offered an accurate view of a select area of the superstructure. This window into the superstructure is often particularly focused on the most oppressed people in society and their intersecting identities. The interrelationship between people and forces within this window may be very accurately described - and the conclusions we can draw from these relationships may be very valuable points of introspection and critique. However problems start to build when Privilege theory is presented as a holistic understanding of oppression. It accurately describes the relationship between people in that select area of the superstructure, but how do we fundamentally change these relationships? How did these privileges arise and who granted them in the first place? This is usually where Privilege Theory has to be stretched beyond its intended scope. A snapshot of the superstructure cannot meaningfully engage with the base. The other issue is that Privilege Theory starts from oppression and works backwards. Privilege becomes an additive process, and the discourse is firmly centred on the question of who has privilege. A better way of understanding this would be a subtractive process - starting from a historical point where all humans were equally privileged, and looking at how they were then deprived of it. The question then becomes “Who took our rights away?” rather than “Who has more rights than us?”

Critics of Privilege Theory again miss the point by attacking it for unfairly victimising the white working class. The problem is not that it makes an enemy of white people or men, but that Privilege Theory has no clear enemy. We are left disconnected from the base, floating in a void where all that is left to do is introspect or examine interpersonal relationships. This is important, but without a clear historical agent that stripped free people of their rights, we are unable to effectively direct blame for oppression. Another consequence of the disconnect from the base, is that Privilege Theory presents as holistic truth a reality that is extremely specific. In striving for accuracy while attempting to create a unified theory of oppression, Privilege Theory has succeeded in missapplying lessons learnt in a specific, often US-centered context, to the whole world. There is not one universal white privilege but rather an infinite number of mutations of the superstructure that act to uphold colonial institutions, and ensure a stratified labor force. These oppressions arise in order to maintain the base - the material relations of society - and they can continue to transform and mutate into new forms of oppression as long as capitalism survives. In this sense, Privilege Theory is trapped on a stopped clock, it is unable to mutate along with the systems of oppression it critiques, as it doesn’t engage with the forces that drive that mutation.

The question becomes: are we always victims of history? Or are we agents who can transform it?

Irony and Catharsis

Since Privilege Theory has no clear enemies, this must be reconciled with the unjustness of oppression. Every adherent of Privilege Theory knows that someone is to blame but the only real conclusion they can draw is that Privileged people form a sort of oppressor class in their own right. In this way, being less oppressed by the ruling class becomes the same as directly profiteering from the misery of oppressed people. This conclusion has an aspect of material analysis to it because of the very real wage difference between a Privileged and an Oppressed person, but out of sight is the surplus value of both these people’s labor being siphoned off to the Virgin Islands. Concluding that Privileged people are an oppressor class usually comes with a degree of cognitive dissonance. Usually the adherent of Privilege Theory knows a couple of decent cishet white men and they become exceptions to the rule. This conclusion also contradicts bourgeois morality by acknowledging the existence of an oppressor class or structural inequality, and we can see the conflict between Privilege Theory and the forms of bourgeois morality that preceded it in online discourse every day (in hashtags like #notallmen). Privilege Theory alone can’t overcome bourgeois morality because it can’t transform the material relations that created it, and at the same time, the conclusions of Privilege Theory are too repugnant to bourgeois morality to be reconciled with it.

For these reasons, the conclusions of Privilege Theory often take the form of irony. It’s within irony that we can often see the most radical conclusions of ideology. A degree of distance is required between a person and their ideology in order for radical conclusions to be reconciled with morality, and Privilege Theory is no exception. It’s common in progressive spaces to hear “kill all men,” or “kill all hets,” or “kill all whites.” Generally this is an ironic joke, a cathartic bonding moment between oppressed people where they can signal to each other that they are unrestrained and free. The reason this irony is so cathartic is because it touches at the material conclusions of Privilege Theory, without suggesting that a person would actually follow through and violate bourgeois morality. Therein lies the radical potential of Privilege Theory as a whole - imagine if this cathartic, anti-hegemonic energy was directed at transformation of the conditions which enable both bourgeois morality and the structures which oppress all of us?

Since privilege theory cannot provide a class enemy (a group that creates a system of relative deprivation, rather than one that merely passively experiences privilege), it cannot transform the base, and so it cannot overcome bourgeois morality. The most radical thing it can provide us is catharsis, which is valuable to survival but not victory.

What use is Privilege Theory?

If we acknowledge that Privilege Theory is rooted in a genuine desire by oppressed people to analyse their oppression materially, it becomes clear that what we need isn’t complete rejection but a constructive dialog that can overcome limitations of Privilege Theory, while taking into account the need for intersectional understandings of oppression.

Privilege Theory is a relatively modern phenomenon built on a political adoption of the language of liberal sociology, but it is frequently conflated with the more radical tradition of intersectionality by leftists who see the limitations of the former and wrongly reject both. As Sharon Smith claims in A Marxist case for Intersectionality, there exists two types of intersectionality; a Postmodern Intersectionality founded on undialectical understandings of power, and a Black Feminist Intersectionality that arose from Marxism. Advocating for an Intersectional Marxism is not only a way to build on understandings of Privilege Theory, but it also offers analysis that is more true to the lived experiences of oppressed identities than either Privilege Theory or Class Reductionism. Constructive engagement by Marxists with focus on the Intersectionality of the Black Feminist tradition leads to something beyond Privilege Theory: a transformative rather than descriptive system.

We can’t afford to completely reject adherents of Privilege Theory as ‘Liberals’ or ‘Identitarians,’ nor can we offer imprecise criticisms of liberal ideologies that fail to see the reason behind their appeal. Complete rejection will at first appear to be a dog-whistle for reactionary values. Believers in Privilege Theory are also right to be suspicious of Marxist rejection of their thought when so much of Marxist ‘anti-identitarianism’ is genuinely reactionary, and constitutes a desire for a simpler time when there was a mythic, homogeneous white working class to organise within, dispensing with the need for understanding complex oppression.

Socialism is a redemptive process that seeks out useful aspects of bourgeois thought, and makes them transformative theories through the application of the dialectic. In the process, bourgeois ideology is both redeemed and preserved through its synthesis with the transformative qualities of Marxism.

We need constructive dialog, leading to redemption, rather than complete rejection.

#marxism #privilege #male privilege #white privilege #feminism #intersectionality

2 notes · View notes

rpgsandbox · 7 years ago

Link

This Kickstarter project is to fund the development and production of Hack The Planet, a tabletop roleplaying game that is Forged in the Dark, meaning it uses the Blades in the Dark system by John Harper of One Seven Design. While using the Blades' foundation, the setting is all about people living on the fringes of society in cyberpunk climate fiction, rather than scoundrels in an industrial-fantasy city.

What does that mean? Think of a novel like The Water Knifeand short fiction like Loosed Upon The World, then marry the concepts with cyberpunk fiction—high tech and low life contextualized. The impetus of this design was reading Heavy Weather, a cyberpunk novel where a storm troupe pursues extremely dangerous storm fronts and tornadoes across an America scarred by this heavy weather (something like a futuristic Twister).

As our climate became radicalized, it resulted in more than just heavy weather—earthquakes, tornadoes, rising sea water, and the changes in rainfall, to name a few. This shift resulted in destabilized governments and banks, and the halting of technological progress on a massive scale (typically seen in the genre). The Internet was destroyed, causing huge amounts of data loss. The landscape was altered irrevocably and continues to be reshaped by nature, creating a future where technological progress was stymied. The only progression seen is to acclimate humanity to a new way of surviving.

In Shelter 1, a massive facility created for climate refugees, corporations and the superrich have slowly been changing the shelter into a megacity that serves their purposes.

You play a character who has had enough of the status quo in Shelter 1. What they do to change the norm is up to you and your crew. Will you fly beyond the shelter’s safety, dropping from airships to salvage valuables, or be mercenaries who destabilize the corporations by assassinating the emerging players in Shelter 1? Play to take control back because you want it, or to wrest control away from the corporations before history repeats itself.

In Hack The Planet you'll create a character that wants to see change happen. You’ll choose a playbook, containing a loose character archetype, that walks you through deciding what they look like, their background and heritage, and what they are focused on doing in the fiction.

At the onset of the Kickstarter, we have 7 playbooks ready to go with the possibility of more being unlocked via stretch goals. Blades in the Dark fans should have no trouble picking up and playing a playbook.

Cybernetics play a big role and can change a character's dynamic at a cost, as they can be used to substitute a starting pool of resources for a permanent increase in an ability—a whole new way to push your luck.

Once all of the players have their characters made, it is time to pick a crew. Each option shifts the lens on the setting fairly dramatically and telegraphs to everybody what you are interested in exploring.

Your crew gets its own separate sheet, just like your character. Your crew levels up and changes just as your character does!

After choosing a crew you'll also choose a starting option unique to Hack The Planet which describes how you interact with Acts of God; massive, extreme weather events. The climate hasn't gotten any better. Storms and tornadoes are just a few things that people have to contend with. So how will you deal with them?

Do you use tech to kill the weather? Have you created tech that enables you to outrun Acts of God? Maybe you hack them, extracting data or components for fuel or substances distilled for other more... nefarious purposes.

Using a unique clock as a timer reserved solely for Acts of God, you'll have to contend with various phenomena. Unlocking a unique mission when the clock is filled, your interactions and choices on these special missions will impact everyone in the fiction, not just you. Just like pulling off heists and scores, completing these events also yield your characters something worthy of the task.

Whichever crew you choose, the game is always centered around pulling off scores. In most Forged in the Dark games (like this one), and Blades in the Dark itself, scores are broadly categorized to facilitate all kinds of play. From deception and stealth to assault missions and making new social connections, each score is meant to get you something you want.

To do this, the game places you right in the action. No need to be bogged down in planning or hours of preparation. The system takes care of that with flashbacks in an effort to empower the characters and to show them as hyper-competent people of action. The characters have a stress track they use to help others and lead group actions, highlighting teamwork. They can resist the consequences of rolls and pay to do special actions, and they can push their luck. Stress is used in all sorts of ways to differentiate how you want to play your character and to spotlight them doing amazing things.

Welcome to The Reach. Welcome to Shelter 1.

Quickly becoming a megacity and diverging from its intended purpose, this melting pot city is filled to the brim with climate refugees. However, it is controlled by the superrich 1% that evacuated in time and corporations that managed to establish themselves in the city. Slowly but surely, the status quo that led to all our problems is returning.

If an arm were splayed out and placed atop the globe, the hand's grasp is where the shelter is. The rest, below the Shelter, is the current known world, peppered with settlements and people eking out their own existence.

The setting is cyberpunk merged with climate fiction, integrating factions that highlight various aspects of cli-fi. Recontextualizing certain tropes and staples of cyberpunk to breathe some fresh, new life into elements that might now be considered retro-futuristic.

Both within and outside of Shelter 1 are set pieces that touch on some of the more interesting notions from cli-fi. From gene-hacking farmers and engineers to communities building massive carbon sinks, there has never been a cyberpunk game quite like this one.

In Hack The Planet there are agents known as Tracers. Evocative of Blade Runner, these agents are complicit in the system that continues to benefit the rich. They hunt for those who may have contributed to the massive climate shift and who are still doing so. Judge and executioner, people who decide to become Tracers have cybernetics enabling them to be some of the few hooked up to what information and data was recovered. Of course, corporations and the rich are beyond such persecutions.

Only the privileged and well-off can afford to live in a hyper-efficient arcology. The rest of society deals with the scarcity of water by eating gene-hacked food modified to grow in areas once fertile.

The massive seed bank is treasured and is the lifeblood of Shelter 1. Capitalism has ostensibly fallen, but there are other, new commodities peddled as the times have changed. Powered by human labor, devices called Joules are imbued with energy that powers Shelter 1 and most technology.

Fishers and captains of titanic vessels now hunt for icebergs detached from the ice caps now melting. Harpooning them and using giant mirrored blankets to bring them into the city for currency before they melt, shrinking their profit.

Some sides of The Reach have water careening against it. The ocean grows taller, threatening to eventually pour over the constructed walls created to hold it at bay. Will the cisterns, funnels, and water plaza hold? It's a new world.

The book will contain a list of factions ready to insert into your story. As your characters achieve their goals and make their way through the fiction, they'll be getting in good with some of them and antagonize others. You'll have some notable non-player characters and locations to jump you right into the action, and you'll have the benefit of a realized setting with plenty of spaces to fill in.

Because this is some pretty esoteric fiction, the Blades in the Dark system where you have all of this at your fingertips is well-suited to Hack The Planet.

Hack The Planet is going to be softcover, approximately 400 pages, full colour, graphic-novel sized product with a wraparound cover. We almost always do graphic-novel size because it's the largest format that is still easily viewable from electronic devices such as phones and tablets.

With all of our Kickstarter projects we subsidize shipping and we make it cheaper than what the product will retail for after the Kickstarter. Without you we wouldn't have a product at all and to thank you for this, we give you the best deal possible and make sure you are the first people to get the book. Only after backers get their book do we make the book available for purchase. You get it cheaper, faster, and you get a credit in the book as someone who made this possible.

All the art will be done by Fabio Comin, who did the cover as well as the other artwork featured on this Kickstarter page. In the final product, please know that we are committed to having diverse representation and are utilizing Fabio's back catalog to give you an idea what to expect in the final product. Some of these pieces may not be used or need to be modified before being placed in the final product of the book.

Kickstarter campaign ends: Sun, April 1 2018 4:59 AM BST

Website: Samjoko Publishing

#RPG #kickstarter #Hack the Planet #Samjoko Publishing

26 notes · View notes

junker-town · 6 years ago

Text

Patriots’ 8 Super Bowls with Tom Brady have all been instant classics

Super Bowl 53? Yep, gonna be awesome.

The New England Patriots will play in their ninth Super Bowl under head coach Bill Belichick on February 3. It will not be boring.

How do I know? Because the Patriots are incapable of playing a boring Super Bowl — and history will back me up on this.

Last year’s eight-point loss to the Eagles in Super Bowl 52 was the largest margin of victory any team has had in an NFL championship game involving Belichick as head coach. Before that, it was a six point win over the Falcons in Super Bowl LI — a game that featured a 25-point comeback and the first overtime period in Super Bowl history.

Every other Super Bowl the Patriots have played in under the future Hall of Fame coach was decided by three or four points. Two came down to field goals with fewer than 10 seconds left on the clock. One came down to an end zone interception with 20 seconds to play. In 2017, victory was served on the game’s final play when the Pats capped the greatest comeback in Super Bowl history with a two-yard scoring plunge.

Tom Brady’s inclusion in the Super Bowl has been a boon for advertisers stuck with fourth quarter time slots. Every time the Patriots play for an NFL title, the final 15 minutes of the game becomes appointment viewing. The four-time Super Bowl MVP has been the catalyst behind 77 fourth quarter and overtime points with the franchise.

Sorting the franchise’s biggest games by order of watchability is a tall task, but a valuable exercise in clutch plays on both sides of the ball. Here’s the definitive list of New England Super Bowls, ranging from nap material to late game rallies that induce more sweat and panicky breathing than a bottle of Blair’s Death Sauce.

10. Super Bowl XX: Bears 46, Patriots 10 9. Super Bowl XXXI: Packers 35, Patriots 21

Two boring remnants from the pre-Belichick era sandwich a wasteland of terrible football. We remember No. 9 because a 300-pound defensive lineman scored a touchdown. We remember No. 8 because Desmond Howard ripped out the hearts of Patriots fans with a 99-yard kickoff return touchdown in the third quarter. Ultimately, these were bad games, no matter what Chicago and Green Bay fans say.

8. Super Bowl XXXIX: Patriots 24, Eagles 21

The fact Terrell Owens isn’t in the Hall of Fame is proof this game remains the most easily forgotten of New England’s Super Bowl wins. The outspoken wide receiver made a stunning recovery from a broken leg to catch nine passes for 126 yards. Unfortunately, that wasn’t enough to overcome Brady and his own coach’s bizarre clock management.

Philadelphia trailed 24-14 with just under six minutes to play when it got the ball back on its own 21-yard line. Rather than execute a hurry-up offense, Andy Reid took a more relaxed approach. By the time Greg Lewis’ 30-yard touchdown catch made this a one-possession game, the two-minute warning had come and gone. A failed onside kick pretty much sealed this one, though the aborted rally did give us the urban legend of Donovan McNabb puking during the most important game of his life.

7. Super Bowl XLVI: Giants 21, Patriots 17

New York overcame a 17-9 second half deficit thanks in part to Mario Manningham’s over-the-shoulder, tiptoe catch down the sideline. However, this game was slightly boring, featuring only four touchdowns but cementing Eli Manning’s status as the only man who can derail the Patriots’ dynasty.

6. Super Bowl XXXVIII: Patriots 32, Panthers 29

This game went from boring to bananas extremely quickly, and the fact it’s only ranked fifth is a testament to how great the rest of these games are. No one scored for the first 26:55 before the floodgates opened. The two teams combined for 24 points in the final three-plus minutes, took the third quarter off, and then blew up for 37 more in a bonkers fourth.

An 85-yard bomb from Jake Delhomme to Muhsin Muhammad gave Carolina its first lead of the game with 6:53 left, but a two-yard pass to linebacker/touchdown machine Mike Vrabel put the Pats up by seven with fewer than three minutes to play. Delhomme ran a masterful two-minute drill to knot this game back up and kick off a million “no Super Bowl has ever gone to overtime” talking points.

But like the Rams two years prior, the Panthers gave Brady and Adam Vinatieri too much time to counterpunch. John Kasay’s ensuing kickoff went out of bounds, leaving a short field for Brady, who calmly drove his offense 37 yards to set up Vinatieri’s game-winning 41-yard kick.

Also, we saw Janet Jackson’s nipple, and it was wearing armor like a tiny Spartan soldier, which was neat.

5. Super Bowl XXXVI: Patriots 20, Rams 17

The game that made Brady a star and got thousands of New England fans telling John Madden to shut his fat mouth. New England was a two-touchdown underdog thanks to the unheralded second-year quarterback behind center and a roster that weighed heavily both young, unproven players (Brady, Richard Seymour, Kevin Faulk) other team’s castaways (Vrabel, Antowain Smith, Otis Smith). Across the sideline were the Rams, led by a Hall of Fame quarterback and The Greatest Show on Turf.

The Patriots were able to grind their way to a 17-3 fourth-quarter lead, but 2002 Kurt Warner was not a force to be contained for long. He rallied St. Louis to two late touchdown drives that made the Rams’ ascension to mini-dynasty a foregone conclusion. When New England got the ball back on its own 17-yard line with 1:21 to play, Madden implored the team to play for overtime rather than risk losing.

Instead, Brady did what he does best, turning anonymous players into stars en route to a jaw-dropping win. He completed passes to Troy Brown, J.R. Redmond, and Jermaine Wiggins to set up Vinatieri’s 48-yard game winning field goal. The ball dropped through the uprights as time expired, and the Patriots earned their first-ever NFL championship.

4. Super Bowl XLII: Giants 17, Patriots 14

New England’s 19-0 season was chewed up and spit out by a Giants defense that adjusted masterfully after giving up 38 points to Brady and his offense in the final game of the regular season. The Patriots were 12.5-point favorites, but scored the fewest points they had all season in a stunning defeat.

Those 14 points were nearly enough to win, too. The Patriots took a 14-10 lead late in the fourth quarter on a six-yard touchdown toss to Randy Moss, then looked to have the game wrapped up when an Eli Manning pass wound up in the hands of All-Pro cornerback Asante Samuel. But Samuel couldn’t corral the ball, and his drop gave New York new life. The opportunity led to this display of all-time wizardry from Manning and David Tyree.

Four plays later, an end zone fade route to Plaxico Burress gave the Giants a dramatic win and erased New England’s bid to be the greatest team of all time.

3. Super Bowl LII: Eagles 41, Patriots 33

It looked like the Patriots were going to pull off a classic late-game comeback. New England took their first lead of the game with just over nine minutes left to play. But the underdog Eagles, led by backup quarterback Nick Foles, were relentless. They took a 38-33 lead back with just over two minutes remaining, then forced a rare Tom Brady fumble and recovered it. The Eagles turned that into three more points, taking a 41-33 lead, and held off the Patriots offense to get the first Super Bowl win in franchise history.

2. Super Bowl XLIX: Patriots 28, Seahawks 24

Malcolm Butler had a bad game against the Falcons on Sunday. He could have stood at midfield singing campfire songs for 60 minutes and it still would have been a net win for New England. The undrafted cornerback’s end zone interception of Russell Wilson preserved the Patriots’ fourth Super Bowl win and may be the most clutch play in Super Bowl history.

Butler’s play is the headliner, but Brady’s ability to drive his team back from a 10-point fourth-quarter deficit was the true difference maker. The veteran quarterback had played poorly early, even taking points off the scoreboard with an ill-advised interception in the end zone. Then, with the game on the line, he completed 14 of his final 16 passes to lead New England to a pair of touchdowns and set up Butler’s heroic pick.

No Super Bowl has ever swung so wildly on a single play.

1. Super Bowl LI: Patriots 34, Falcons 28 (OT)

Didn’t think anything could top Butler’s dramatic interception? It turns out you’d need a game that tied or set 31 different Super Bowl records to do so. Brady looked like garbage in the first half; his passes came in soft and were strangely inaccurate for the legendary passer. A bullying Falcons pass rush kept him from getting comfortable and doing Brady things, even capitalizing on a misread for an 82-yard Robert Alford pick-six.

That changed in the second half. The Patriots shored up the holes in their offensive line and Brady went to work. A 28-3 deficit shrunk like plastic in the oven, aided by some questionable playcalling from Atlanta offensive coordinator Kyle Shanahan. As the clock wound down on an “everything has to go right” situation, every outcome came up New England.

As if the fates weren’t telegraphing the outcome enough, the Patriots even got their own version of Tyree’s helmet catch.

Brady kept completing passes, finding holes in the Atlanta secondary en route to a record 462 passing yards. James White, the unheralded third-down back who spent the season overshadowed by LeGarrette Blount and Dion Lewis, set his own title game record with 14 receptions. A defense that was gashed for 28 points in a 15:17 span went the final 27 minutes of the game without surrendering a single point.

No team in the NFL has ever done what the Patriots did in Super Bowl LI. At this juncture, those record breaking, sweaty-palmed, beer gripping performances are becoming the standard for which New England Super Bowls have become known.

The top Super Bowl plays for the Patriots

0 notes

douchebagbrainwaves · 6 years ago

Text

A NEW FUNDING LANDSCAPE

Another is when you have to find users and measure their responses. The same way they decide what counts as a university for student visas. It was High Technology Innovation: Free Markets or Government Subsidies? This connection adds more brittleness than strength, however: people don't watch what's on at 10 because they want to watch the news afterward.1 The sixth largest center for oil, or finance, or publishing?2 But openness to new ideas has to be tuned just right. So was the Apple I when Woz first started working on it.

About twenty years ago people noticed computers and TV were on a collision course and started to speculate about what they'd produce when they converged. After software, the most valuable antidote to schlep blindness is Stripe, or rather Stripe's idea. Statistically, if you could get the Intel and Microsoft stickers off the front. Don't companies realize this is a sign that something is broken? How much should you take, though? What's missing or broken in your daily life? Who do I find myself quoting? For Trevor, that's par for the course. When you decide what infrastructure to use for a project, you're not just making a technical decision.

It's much easier to fix problems before the company is a good bet statistically. But they're still dragging their heels. It was kind of a trick question.3 Bill Gates knows this. The more versatile the tool, the less sense it makes for everyone to get the most out of them, you won't just have fewer great hackers, and they tend to write it anyway, so in the worst case you won't be wasting your time. If you raised five million and ran out of money, you get to work on a Java project won't be as committed; they'll need to be told what to do; they'll start to engage in office politics. Which usually means that you have to love it. They only just decided what to use, so why wouldn't they?

Yech. Indeed, the more they expend on appearances to compensate. Presumably it killed just about 100% of the startups we've funded have had a founder leave. TV networks will fight these trends, because they don't have sufficient flexibility to adapt to them. You want them to feel this way about the operating system. But Google pushed this idea further than anyone had before. Whether they like it or not, big changes are coming, because the Internet dissolves the two cornerstones of broadcast media: synchronicity and locality.4 That's pretty alarming, because his friends are the ones that put users first.5 When we were making the rounds of venture capital firms in the 1990s, several told us that software companies didn't win by writing great software, but through brand, and dominating channels, and doing the right deals. Like having more than one founder, like Oracle, usually turn out to have more. Fortunately you can combat all of them by the simple expedient of forcing yourself to launch something fairly quickly.

As one VC who spoke at Y Combinator said, Once you take several million dollars of my money, the clock is ticking.6 The hackers who become famous tend to become famous by random accidents of PR. Which will tend to put them in the position of service providers rather than publishers. But it's certainly possible to do things that make you stupid, and if you aren't one of them. Foreword to Jessica Livingston's Founders at Work. I recommend is to take yourself out of the blocks, and spend the rest of the company will be able to get into the deals they want.7 This was supposed to be able to get smart people to work for people with high standards. It's only a year old, but already everyone in the Valley is watching them. Do the founders want it? Which puts us in a weird situation: we don't know who our heroes should be. What I learned from meeting Sama is that the business guys choose people they think are good programmers it says here on his resume that he's a Microsoft Certified Developer but who aren't.

Notes

The amusing thing is, because they actually do, just that they're really works of anthropology. He was off by only about 2% of the breach with Rome, where you currently are.

SFP applicants: please don't assume that not being accepted means we think we're as open as one could do as some European countries have done well if they'd survived. The Baumol Effect induced by the Corporate Library, the whole story. Since they don't.

We have no way of calculating real income statistics calculated in the world of the causes of failure would be unfortunate. For example, if you suppress variation in wealth over time.

It's sometimes argued that kids who went to Europe. But it is to carry a beeper? The reason only 287 have valuations is that the most famous example. In fact, we love big juicy lumbar disc herniation as juicy except literally.

If it failed. Writing college textbooks are not very well connected. As always, tax receipts as a result a lot of time. If by cutting the founders' salaries to the hour Google was founded, wouldn't offer to invest in so many people's eyes.

Xxvii. When I use the phrase the city, they sometimes describe it as a whole is becoming less fragmented, and the hundreds of thousands of small and then using growth rate as evolutionary pressure is such a brutally simple word is that if there were already lots of type II startups neither require nor produce startup culture. Certainly a lot of successful startups get started in New York. A termsheet with a walrus mustache and a little too narrow than to confuse everyone with a potential acquirer unless you see them much in their graves at that.

Surely no one knows how many of the kleptocracies that formerly dominated all the investors. The New Yorker. When we work with the same thing—trying to deliver because otherwise you'd be surprised if VCs' tendency to push founders to try your site. This would penalize short comments especially, because investing later would probably a real idea that could be adjacent.

Thanks to Garry Tan, Trevor Blackwell, and Stan Reiss for sharing their expertise on this topic.

0 notes

josidel · 7 years ago

Text

Broadcom Wants Qualcomm, But Would Takeover Strangle Innovation?.

For well over a decade, Qualcomm has been the research and development engine driving advances in cellular wireless. By making big bets on technologies years ahead of time, it created inventions that now enable streaming video, street-by-street directions, photo sharing, longer battery life and a host of other features found on nearly every smartphone on the planet.

If Broadcom succeeds with its bold $103 billion takeover bid to acquire Qualcomm, would it continue the practice of pursuing long-term research on the next big innovation that pushes the mobile technologies forward?

An increasing number of analysts don't think so. It is not the way Broadcom Chief Executive Hock Tan has run his companies over the years.

"He optimizes everything around efficiencies," said Jim McGregor, principal analyst with Tirias Research. "He is an investor. The philosophy he is taking is: We don't invest in research and development. We buy it."

Broadcom's effort to acquire Qualcomm -- which could be headed for a hostile proxy fight for control of Qualcomm's board of directors -- would attempt to meld it to very different business models and cultures around innovation, say analysts.

"You have the risk takers, and then you have the ones that let the market play out and then go in," added McGregor. "It's a more conservative approach. I'm not saying it's bad. It just doesn't help with innovation. It doesn't drive the market."

Making that marriage work without destroying what makes Qualcomm valuable could be difficult. It would be like attempting to build a clock with two completely different sets of parts -- one geared toward turning the hands clockwise and the other designed to spin the hands in the opposite direction, said Olivier Blanchard, senior analyst at Futurum, a technology strategy and research firm.

"Qualcomm invests in stuff that doesn't have to be profitable for a while," he said. "They're not going quarter by quarter. They have a bigger strategy.

"Whereas Broadcom is super good at cutting costs and being a financially driven company," he continued. "That is great for investors quarter to quarter but doesn't necessarily have the focus to want to build things for the long term."

While the companies may not be a perfect cultural or business model match, they certainly make a compelling pair financially.

After cost cutting and assuming completion of Qualcomm's $38 billion pending acquisition of Dutch chip maker NXP Semiconductors, the combined companies would create a juggernaut with $51 billion in revenue and a $22 billion annual operating profit -- trailing only Intel and Samsung in the semiconductor industry.

The conglomerate would own a leading market position in nearly every high-value chip inside smartphones.

Earlier this month, Broadcom offered $70 a share for Qualcomm in cash and stock, representing a 28 percent premium in its share price the day before rumors of the offer made headlines.

Qualcomm's shares were trading at low levels because of its fierce legal battle with Apple and global antitrust regulators over patent fees. Qualcomm executives have preached patience -- noting that it has favorably resolved patent licensing battles with Nokia and others before.

With its stock price down 18 percent over the past year, patience from hedge funds, mutual funds and other institutional investors that make up 78 percent of Qualcomm's investor base may be wearing thin.

Broadcom's takeover offer is far from a done deal, however. There's considerable risk that global regulators would block the sale. Qualcomm rejected Broadcom's offer Monday as dramatically undervaluing the company.

But Broadcom's bid is serious. It could pursue a proxy battle to win board seats to push the deal through. It also could to boost the offer price into the high $70s to low $80s per share range, said RBC Capital Markets analyst Amit Daryanani in a research note.

Such a move would force Qualcomm's shareholders to decide "can Qualcomm's management, which has overseen severe underperformance and been unable to resolve key disputes, turn the ship; or should shareholders put faith in Hock Tan and take the exit?" wrote Daryanani. "We think status quo isn't a feasible option anymore, especially if Broadcom were to raise the offer" heading into a proxy battle.

Tan has been very successful at growing his core company, Avago Technologies, through a series of acquisitions. His largest to date was Irvine-based Broadcom, which Avago bought for $37 billion in 2016 and took the Broadcom name.

The company is strong in Wi-Fi/Bluetooth, broadband infrastructure and data center networking chips. Tan has been a master at absorbing the companies he acquires -- delivering strong financial performance. Broadcom's share price has surged nearly 61 percent over the past 12 months.

In an interview with the U-T, Tan contends Broadcom is a technology company that invests in research and development. He views the firm as a portfolio of market leading product lines, which he calls sustainable franchises.

"We identify the strong businesses in the companies we acquire, and in the case of Qualcomm, undoubtedly it's their roots," said Tan. "Their roots trace back to cellular wireless. That is what attracts and excites me about the company. It is the leader -- engineering, technology and market leader -- in cellular wireless. We see that as a very sustainable franchise."

When Avago bought Broadcom, it began to sell off product lines that it didn't see as sustainable franchises. They included its Internet of Things business and wireless infrastructure backhaul division, among others.

"Let's say Broadcom acquired Qualcomm tomorrow -- putting aside regulatory hurdles and all that," said Blanchard of Futurum. "I think Broadcom would have a tendency to get rid of all the business units and projects that aren't going to be very quickly profitable."

Qualcomm, on the other hand, invests in technologies that are years from producing a return on investment. It has been working on 5G, which aims to deliver fiber-optic like speeds to mobile devices, for a decade, even though 5G technology isn't expected to start generating a return on investment until 2019.

"While start-ups are good innovators, you still need companies that have the staying power, the investment capabilities and everything else to build a market, build an ecosystem," said McGregor of Tirias Research. "That is why you need companies that are risk takers and have that investment capability like a Google, an Intel, a Qualcomm, etc."

This strategy, however, can create tension between the company and shareholders -- particularly when operating expenses rise and the stock price lags peers.

In an interview last week, retired Qualcomm co-founder Irwin Jacobs, said the balancing act of making long-term investments while keeping shareholders happy is not easy.

"Perhaps what's a little bit different than when I was running Qualcomm is there is a lot more institutional ownership," said Jacobs, 84, who is no longer actively involved with the company. "Sometimes the institutions might not look at things quite the same way as you do on different business issues."

While Broadcom has amassed an impressive technology portfolio, its lack of cellular chips is a big hole in its product line-up, said Geoff Blaber of industry research firm CCS Insight.

"It is clear Broadcom needs Qualcomm far more than Qualcomm would benefit from the tie-up," said Blaber. "This underlines the strength of Qualcomm's position. The gap in Broadcom's portfolio will become a mounting problem" as more far-flung gadgets are equipped with high-speed cellular connectivity and computing power.

For its part, Qualcomm sees future growth potential with the upcoming roll out of ultra-fast 5G networks -- where it is believed to have a technology lead -- and the expansion of cellular technologies into cars, health care devices, the Internet of Things gadgets and other industries.

The company has been expanding smartphone products to include radio frequency chips used near antennas. Moreover, the acquisition of NXP, which makes automotive and security chips, would help ease Qualcomm's reliance on the slowing smartphone market.

During its 2017 fiscal year ending in September, the company took in $3 billion of its $22.3 billion in revenue from non-smartphone customers. That is a 25 percent increase from the prior year.

In addition, its chip making division -- which pulls in most of its revenue -- has boosted profit margins for six straight quarters. Its patent licensing business, which accounts for most of its profits, struggled as Apple and another large smartphone maker stopped paying royalties for using Qualcomm's patented cellular technologies.

"It's not like Qualcomm is bad at making money," said Blanchard of Futurum. "They understood how to monetize 3G. They understood how to build and monetize 4G. Now they are doing it with 5G and already working on technology beyond that. They are a long bet company."

via Blogger http://ift.tt/2AaYG7F

0 notes

trendingnewsb · 7 years ago

Text

It’s time to accept that workaholism sidelines great talent

Image: Getty Images/Ikon Images

There’s a debate raging in Silicon Valley this week that you should really know about.

Though it may look like just a few heated Twitter exchanges and at least one scathing blog post, it’s really a high-profile fight over who gets to decide how we value work in the 21st century.

SEE ALSO: Why ‘Handmaid’s Tale’ costumes are the most powerful meme of the resistance yet

We can probably all agree that dedicated, diligent employees are essential for any workplace, but some people argue for more they want you to become a workaholic, singularly obsessed with achieving the company’s mission.

This is no small difference, and you probably feel the repercussions in your everyday life. You may be an industrious soul, devising creative solutions for whatever problems come your way, and are happy to devote your talent and time to your employer. But you might also resent the fact that your days are long so long that you rarely get to wind down with a bike ride, see close friends, or even spend time with your kids.

On Monday, Blake Robbins, an associate at the venture capital firm Ludlow, gave voice to such experiences, daring to challenge the culture of workaholism that pervades the startup world.

Not hanging with friends and family because you’re working isn’t “cool.” Burning out isn’t “cool.”

Blake Robbins (@blakeir) May 29, 2017

“When I first got into tech. I thought it was ‘cool’ to work on the weekends or holidays,” Robbins tweeted. “I quickly realized that’s a recipe for disaster.” In a follow-up post he added, “I promise you…your competition isn’t beating you because they are working more hours than you. It’s because they are working smarter.”

The remarks were sensible personal observations, but an hour later entrepreneur and investor Keith Rabois issued a two-word rebuttal: “Totally false.”

At first, the thread launched a conversation among male entrepreneurs mostly on the merits of nonstop work, and soon more skeptical people, including women, started to weigh in. Some clearly felt invested in the status quo, while others were alarmed by it.

@blakeir Totally false.

Keith Rabois (@rabois) May 29, 2017

The workaholism at the center of this debate demands that you take an endless string of sacrifices in stride as if a full-tilt obsession with work, to the exclusion of all else, is the only path to success. It ignores the reality that a person can be passionate, persistent, and hard-working and also find fulfillment in other aspects of life. Indeed, that satisfaction probably enhances their vision in ways that are difficult to quantify. The overbearing philosophy of workaholism, which is rooted in macho stereotypes about what hard work should look like, also conveniently leaves out some difficult facts.

First, that model of work in corporate America was pioneered by white men whose wives, often with aid from domestic workers, took care of running a household. Without such an arrangement, it would be literally impossible to work long hours or around the clock and have any caregiving responsibilities. And yet we continue to pretend that a “strong” work ethic requires nothing but your own iron will.

Second, workaholism is costly, even if you think the brute force of racking up hours in the office or on the road will inevitably yield innovation and success. What often happens instead is burnout, which can become an expensive problem for a company. A culture that promotes relentless work also sidelines a lot of talented women. They may feel that in order to be competitive with their male peers they must leave their kids in daycare for nine hours so that a nanny or grandparent (if they even have that support) can put them to bed, and decide that worshipping at the altar of workaholism isn’t for them.

@susanthesquark @sarahcuda Also essentially sidelines people with caregiving responsibilities, who tend to be women.

Rebecca Ruiz (@rebecca_ruiz) May 30, 2017

A work culture that values how many hours you put in above all else also sets up the perverse expectation that men, by nature, won’t care as much about spending quality time with their children, that it’s expendable if the money or opportunity is right. And, hey, it might be for some men and women, but this is exactly how we end up with a less-than-diverse workforce.

Women of color, in particular, are effectively penalized twice by a philosophy of professional work created by white men. That myopic vision about which candidates are a good “culture fit” often leave women of color out of the picture, and when they do break through that barrier, they must still reckon with the practical challenges of having a family or a personal life at a company that thinks both of those things should come second to your work. This isn’t just a personal matter: Research has found that a more diverse staff is more likely to produce better financial returns.

This old-fashioned approach to productivity and creativity rests on a laundry list of assumptions about who you’re hiring and who’s holding down the home front. And even if someone’s wife or partner has her own job, the societal expectation is that she’ll drop off and pick up the kids, take them to their doctor’s appointments, and volunteer for field trips.

Workaholism perpetuates a macho vision of what the most valuable efforts should look like: grueling, never-ending, and capable of destroying your competition. These ideas didn’t just materialize from the ether. They’re engrained in how we’re taught to value the work that men and women do, but they’re also a special feature of the startup world.

Helpful to be precise what you expect: hard work or kill yourself? https://t.co/Qokgt48zGQ

Sarah Lacy (@sarahcuda) May 30, 2017

As David Heinemeier Hansson, cofounder and chief technology officer of Basecamp, pointed out in his blog post about workaholism, venture capital “money men” set these expectations by trying to “compress a lifetime’s worth of work into the abbreviated timeline of a venture fund.”

While Silicon Valley companies like Facebook and Google fret about how to increase the number of women in their ranks, few leaders in tech would suggest shortening the work day for the same pay. Such a strategy probably looks like an invitation to employees to take their jobs less seriously, even if it might help attract and retain more diverse talent.

“The status quo survived in tact with some modifications. Those concessions make it easier, but you still work the same, if not longer, hours.”

People should be offended, angry even, that they have to defend their desire to spend even a few hours a day with their loved ones. For single or childless workers, the burden is different but still punishing: Without the borderline acceptable excuse of missing a meeting or coming in late because they needed to tend to a child, they instead feel the pressure to have no personal life at all.

That parents haven’t revolted against an average work day that’s getting longer and now stands at 8.8 hours is worth reflecting on. While it may not seem like a long day, it’s certainly longer than most school days and day care availability when you also factor in the time it takes to commute.

The silence about this logistical nightmare probably has something to do with the long shadow of the Great Recession, which gave companies more power to wield over employees nervous about being laid off.

Yet there’s also the long march of white women entering the professional workforce during the 1970s and ’80s; to challenge the length of a work day widely accepted by one’s males peers would be to admit defeat in the hoary “can she have it all?” debate.

Instead, the women who stayed in those jobs found individual workarounds to spend time with their family, or simply decided not to be as present as they once hoped. The status quo survived in tact with some modifications, like remote work and flex-scheduling. Those concessions make it easier, but you still work the same, if not longer, hours.

Honestly shocked at the response that this tweet has gotten. It’s extremely interesting to hear everyone’s perspective and thoughts. https://t.co/DNtn4U7CEX

Blake Robbins (@blakeir) May 30, 2017

The truth is that our system for valuing work and appraising the contributions of talented, dedicated employees is broken because it places so much emphasis on time. What we need are companies and business leaders open to the idea that a macho work culture actually holds them back and may even hurt their long-term chances for success. (See Travis Kalanick’s Uber troubles, if you need more convincing.)

We need businesses that are willing to experiment with new ways of measuring creativity and productivity. Most of all, we desperately need senior leaders and mid-level managers to show their employees every day that it’s acceptable even encouraged for them to have outside pursuits, including families. Defending workaholism at this point demonstrates a tremendous lack of imagination about what people can achieve when they’re fulfilled at both work and home.

Also, as an employee, it’s important to understand what you are working for. Most are working to fulfill someone else vision or dreams.

Blake Robbins (@blakeir) May 29, 2017

But there’s something arguably more sinister happening beneath the surface of that apologism. People who justify workaholism often can’t admit that many of America’s favorite heroes renowned for their relentless work ethic built their achievements and empires on the backs of women and domestic workers, not to mention the innumerable sacrifices of employees who might not have been paid fairly and spent far too much time away from their families.

If that sounds quaint or naive, it’s time to rethink why you work so hard in the first place. Sure, it feels good to dedicate yourself to a mission or calling, and great if you can make money while doing so. But if we happily comply with the idea that gifted visionaries are within their rights to ask us to forgo our full humanity in pursuit of their fame and fortune, that ultimately means we trade in countless precious moments with our loved ones so that someone else can become a legend.

It’s long past time to strike a better bargain for ourselves.

WATCH: Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales is waging a war on fake news