Regarding the quote about the British East India Company, it's worth noting that employees of the company had notoriously poor pay and were half-expected to set up their own personal ventures while in India to support themselves. The company was also poorly administered, and there was almost certainly a great deal of embezzlement going on (in response to the poor pay). So while the expected mathematics was probably comparatively simple, the numbers probably didn't add up (which is the kind of thing we'd expect a Commons committee to inquire into).
It was naked looting. Not just in India by individuals working for the company, but as official acts of the East India Company itself back home in England. A quote:
"In 1767 the company bought off parliamentary opposition by donating £400,000 to the Crown in return for its continued right to govern Bengal. But the anger against it finally reached ignition point on 13 February 1788, at the impeachment, for looting and corruption, of Clive’s successor as governor of Bengal, Warren Hastings. It was the nearest the British ever got to putting the EIC on trial, and they did so with one of their greatest orators at the helm – Edmund Burke.
"Burke, leading the prosecution, railed against the way the returned company “nabobs” (or “nobs”, both corruptions of the Urdu word “Nawab”) were buying parliamentary influence, not just by bribing MPs to vote for their interests, but by corruptly using their Indian plunder to bribe their way into parliamentary office: “To-day the Commons of Great Britain prosecutes the delinquents of India,” thundered Burke, referring to the returned nabobs. “Tomorrow these delinquents of India may be the Commons of Great Britain.”
The revolving door between government and the corporations it was supposed to regulate, was also spinning:
"Lord Cornwallis, the man who oversaw the loss of the American colonies to Washington, was recruited by the EIC to oversee its Indian territories."
The above quotes are from "The Anarchy" by William Dalrymple.
This is why so many early computing machines' names ended in "AC" for Automatic Calculaor or Automatic Computer. EDVAC, EDSAC, UNIVAC, though not ENIAC.
I wonder what we’ve lost, with the loss of human computers. It seems like it would be a nice job that rewards diligence and intelligence. Nowadays pretty much all intellectual work rewards creativity, almost exclusively… the machines are infinitely diligent, so it doesn’t provide much value add when the human is too.
I dunno. It just seems kind of sad, in a way, like we’ve dropped a whole entire way of being seen as intelligent.
A large part of accounting is intellectual work that rewards diligence and intelligence, but not creativity so much. A lot of QA/certification jobs are like this too. It's important stuff that involves a lot of "checking".
Regarding the quote about the British East India Company, it's worth noting that employees of the company had notoriously poor pay and were half-expected to set up their own personal ventures while in India to support themselves. The company was also poorly administered, and there was almost certainly a great deal of embezzlement going on (in response to the poor pay). So while the expected mathematics was probably comparatively simple, the numbers probably didn't add up (which is the kind of thing we'd expect a Commons committee to inquire into).
> half-expected to set up their own personal ventures while in India to support themselves
"ventures" like a small business or is that a euphemism for taking bribes or said embezzlement?
It was naked looting. Not just in India by individuals working for the company, but as official acts of the East India Company itself back home in England. A quote:
"In 1767 the company bought off parliamentary opposition by donating £400,000 to the Crown in return for its continued right to govern Bengal. But the anger against it finally reached ignition point on 13 February 1788, at the impeachment, for looting and corruption, of Clive’s successor as governor of Bengal, Warren Hastings. It was the nearest the British ever got to putting the EIC on trial, and they did so with one of their greatest orators at the helm – Edmund Burke.
"Burke, leading the prosecution, railed against the way the returned company “nabobs” (or “nobs”, both corruptions of the Urdu word “Nawab”) were buying parliamentary influence, not just by bribing MPs to vote for their interests, but by corruptly using their Indian plunder to bribe their way into parliamentary office: “To-day the Commons of Great Britain prosecutes the delinquents of India,” thundered Burke, referring to the returned nabobs. “Tomorrow these delinquents of India may be the Commons of Great Britain.”
The revolving door between government and the corporations it was supposed to regulate, was also spinning:
"Lord Cornwallis, the man who oversaw the loss of the American colonies to Washington, was recruited by the EIC to oversee its Indian territories."
The above quotes are from "The Anarchy" by William Dalrymple.
This is why so many early computing machines' names ended in "AC" for Automatic Calculaor or Automatic Computer. EDVAC, EDSAC, UNIVAC, though not ENIAC.
I wonder what we’ve lost, with the loss of human computers. It seems like it would be a nice job that rewards diligence and intelligence. Nowadays pretty much all intellectual work rewards creativity, almost exclusively… the machines are infinitely diligent, so it doesn’t provide much value add when the human is too.
I dunno. It just seems kind of sad, in a way, like we’ve dropped a whole entire way of being seen as intelligent.
A large part of accounting is intellectual work that rewards diligence and intelligence, but not creativity so much. A lot of QA/certification jobs are like this too. It's important stuff that involves a lot of "checking".
We have a word for that: Lawyers!
the other blog posts are pretty interesting too