Or, the quick and the not so quick.
The startup I worked for called it ramping up — the amount of time and effort to effectively perform a job or task. To give you a sense how steep this ramp was, a non-industry professional told me her ramp time was two years. That’s when she expected her hires to perform autonomously without feedback. Startup ramp times, in the mid-90s, hit the burn rate, and 90 days was too slow.
There are a variety of computer language, development, and testing ideologies. Rapid Application Development (RAD) = burn on steroids. Development “throws” code over the wall, like a volleyball, with QA spiking it back with a bug. Showstoppers create the necessary QA interrupt when a development trajectory gets hopelessly tangled. Then, things got hashed out, face-to-face, with lots of whiteboard.
QA Lead, on my first and one and only testing project, created a strange, weird timing sequence. My Dev team on RAD and the rest of the developers — well, we’ll just call it slower. Very much slower.
Samsung is RAD on steroids, mainlining burn rate. Right after reading Eichenwald, got a text message from a brand new Samsung Galaxy.
Livejournal got bought by a Russian media company. Except for DDoS attack downtimes and needing an American Cyber Embassy to translate my Russian spam, haven’t noticed that much different. Things, however, get interesting when bodies reside in nation-states, and debit cards span the globe with strategically placed fulfillment hubs.
Deterritorialization, one of the most powerful concepts Deleuze and Guattari came up with together, is understood as a generalizable thrust or basic tendency of life itself. It is the performative desire to move from fixed necessity to mobile flux, from cohesive organicity or structurality to molecular disintegration. This impulse is read and affirmed across a wide variety of social, philosophical and scientific phenomena, and is finally equated with the quest for and the production of freedom itself. Deterritorialization can certainly not be confused with the utopian mechanism as a producer of predictable, desired effects, or with the utopian voyage away from corrupt reality into an idealized state. What I am arguing rather is that the Deleuze-Guattarian concept shares with the utopian motifs a kind of inevitable propensity, an unambiguous capacity for creating the desired state — a state that could, for simplicity’s sake, be called freedom. Deterritorialization, infallibly — even axiomatically — produces incalculable and unharnessable liberation, ecstatic lines of flight. Reterritorializations may follow on the heels of deterritorializations, fascist desire may haunt revolutionary desire, but these counter-revolutionary tendencies are, precisely, neatly separated from the pure flux of desire by designating them as reactionary and attributing them to the nefarious forces of anti-production. “[L]e désir n’est jamais trompé” [“Desire is never deceived”], they write in L’Anti-Oedipe (Deleuze / Guattari, 1972: 306). And while most deterritorializations are, as it were, brought back down to earth, reterritorialized in some way, the authors insist on an “absolute deterritorialization” that is beyond any reactionary reduction to a particular territory. A more conventional utopia might think in terms of the ultimate or final territory; Deleuze and Guattari postulate a complete absence of territory, the ultimate freedom from all territorial restraints, a total lack of fixity, what they call flux. This conjuration of a pure state of detachment is frequently accompanied by explicitly political formulations, evoking, for instance, “une nouvelle terre, (…) un nouveau peuple” [“a new earth, a new people”] (1991: 95). While the authors consistently insist that this new earth is here and now, not in some elusive future or in some unattainable locale, it is the investment of a particular function with the capacity for producing absolute freedom that has them participating in the “utopian imaginary”. When in L’Anti-Oedipe, the authors accuse psychoanalysis of misunderstanding the fact that reterritorializations occur onto people and places, whereas deterritorializations occur onto machines (Deleuze / Guattari, 1972: 378), it is evident that, for them, not all objects are subject to the potential ossification of a reterritorialization, but that, as befits the “utopian imaginary”, certain kinds of objects are immune from reactionary coding. It remains then a matter of identifying or deploying these objects or forces to achieve the desired ends, no matter how much the authors polemicize against any kind of determinism or calculability. Their incalculability, I’m suggesting, is calculable.