4 ms·

Can someone do an executive summary or tl,dr please, I honestly tried to read it but found it impenetrable.

nickthemagicman 10y ago
The author is a poet/twine author/programmer at Columbia? She's upset that some guys appeared immature back in the day towards a female programmer, and attempts to deconstruct the hacker manifesto and suggest a replacement that can be summarized as: "Be aware of your actions".... Along the way she posits that because technology can't capture the analog infiniteness of our infinite universe due to it's digital nature that "Technology is forgetting". She uses examples like: loss in converting audio to digital, and compression loss of uneeded information to support this theory....
- thescribe 10y ago
  I don't think I get deconstruction at a reasonable level. Every time it's brought I feel like I can't follow the argument. Thank you for your summary.
- generic_user 10y ago
  That is an admirable job, thank you. I may or may not have gained some new insight. But I feel unqualified to decide one way or the other. But I did enjoy the pictures.
ComodoHacker 10y ago
Аuthor points out that part of the hacker ethics always was unethical (to many) "the end justifies the means". And she warns the wannabes to think twice before accepting that. Also she reminds that there are always live world and live people behind any computer or mathematical model, and all models are incomplete by definition.
anonemouse145 10y ago
The phrase "Toward a new..." is very nearly a sure sign of relativism at work. I don't know why so many quacks pick it. I guess they think they're revolutionizing the world. This article pushes for an ethics and feelings based redistribution of programming effort. That's bad. Because resources remain finite, we won't lose less data, we can only shuffle around what we lose. What we need to make this decision, is not feelings or vague ethical codes. We need hard data, especially in an age of big data and machine learning where the detailed pieces involved in making a deep statistical analysis may well be out of the realm of human comprehension. For example, this article targets the evil gender binary. If only we would think more carefully about our choices. Meanwhile, clinics are scratching their heads trying to figure out how to map rates of ovarian cancer to "demisexuals", or how a local rise in "non-binary asexuals" might affect rates of testicular cancer, and what should be done about funding for screenings. We lose data because we come from an era where space was limited, and cycles were counted. Sure we made some dumb mistakes like 2 digit years, but 2 digit years still work in a broad array of cases so we still use them all over the place today. They are sometimes good to use, sometimes bad, sometimes they're superfluous and unused anyway. By all means rethink what fields should be compressed or expanded based upon business needs. But do it based on data and business use cases, not on feelings and someone's personal bias- even if that person promises their ethics are better than the old ones.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- dwaltrip 10y ago
  I think the essay was more about double checking the assumptions and particular world views we bring with us when we write code. Even the most mundane software can distinctly embody specific views that some might take for granted, not acknowledging that others have genuine reasons for viewing that specific dynamic differently. We need to be willing to explore the assumptions, known or unknown, that we carry with us when we create software. Software doesn't exist in a vacuum. It is part of a rich, ever changing context of culture, social systems, and all the messiness of being human. Each human action is the expression of a complex set of viewpoints, and technology is not perfectly neutral. I think, occasionally, some (not all) hackerish types are less interested in exploring this side of things and think they can avoid it by sticking with software. The essay was trying to remind people that you can't truly avoid expressing viewpoints with your actions, even in software.
  - webmaven 10y ago
    > We need to be willing to explore the assumptions, known or unknown, that we carry with us when we create software. Hear, hear. I have two other longstanding favorite examinations-of-assumptions pieces: "Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Names"[0], and "Five Geek Social Fallacies"[1] [0] https://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-believe-about-names/ https://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-... [1] http://www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html http://www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html
- mjg59 10y ago
  > Meanwhile, clinics are scratching their heads trying to figure out how to map rates of ovarian cancer to "demisexuals", or how a local rise in "non-binary asexuals" might affect rates of testicular cancer, and what should be done about funding for screenings. This is a great case in point! Simply classing people as male or female already loses data that's therapeutically relevant. The important thing in determining whether someone's at risk of ovarian or testicular cancer isn't whether they're male or female - it's whether they have ovaries or testes. Some people have both, some people have neither and some people do not have the set you'd expect from their gender. Assuming that "Male" or "Female" accurately describes this is exactly the kind of "forgetting" discussed in the article, and people lose out on appropriate healthcare as a result.
jack9 10y ago
The hacker ethic was born of tacit misogyny and not subscribed to, by the original hackers (i.e. pre-80s). Most of development is about lossy processes. All of the original hacker ethics should be changed; revised. She posits an example and attempts to break down the strategy used.
- kahrkunne 10y ago
  Explain to me how playful cleverness, open access to computers and being measured by skill over appearance is misogynist. Unless of course you think women aren't clever or skillful...
  - jack9 10y ago
    What are you talking about? Did you even read the OP? I was SUMMARIZING the talk (as per the request). > The mention of Margaret Hamilton in this passage is one of maybe three instances in the entire book in which a woman appears who is not introduced as the relative or romantic interest of a man. And even in this rare instance, Levy’s framing trivializes Hamilton, her work, and her right to the facility. She was “a beginner programmer” who was “officially sanctioned” but also just “showed up.” And she “complained” about it, leading to repercussions and reprimands. Levy is all but calling her a nag. I don't know what other way to characterize that as a focused topic (tacit misogyny). It was not further discussed. I think you (along with a bunch of other people debating some nonsense about feminism) are having some weird kneejerk because you choose to interpret that part of the talk differently. The meaning was clear to me.
    - kahrkunne 10y ago
      Sorry, your post was quite a ways down from the parent so I didn't realize you were summarizing. My fault.
      - jack9 10y ago
        I also apologize for my tone, it was unwarranted.
devnonymous 10y ago
It's amusing to see the loss of information going on in these summaries itself. My take away from the article was we as programmers (hackers?) need to go beyond the tl;dr to really understand what it is we are doing and be conscious of the fact that what we do affects things beyond the those that we presume our work will affect.

The author is a poet/twine author/programmer at Columbia? She's upset that some guys appeared immature back in the day towards a female programmer, and attempts to deconstruct the hacker manifesto and suggest a replacement that can be summarized as: "Be aware of your actions".... Along the way she posits that because technology can't capture the analog infiniteness of our infinite universe due to it's digital nature that "Technology is forgetting". She uses examples like: loss in converting audio to digital, and compression loss of uneeded information to support this theory....

thescribe 10y ago
I don't think I get deconstruction at a reasonable level. Every time it's brought I feel like I can't follow the argument. Thank you for your summary.
generic_user 10y ago
That is an admirable job, thank you. I may or may not have gained some new insight. But I feel unqualified to decide one way or the other. But I did enjoy the pictures.

ComodoHacker 10y ago

Аuthor points out that part of the hacker ethics always was unethical (to many) "the end justifies the means". And she warns the wannabes to think twice before accepting that. Also she reminds that there are always live world and live people behind any computer or mathematical model, and all models are incomplete by definition.

anonemouse145 10y ago

The phrase "Toward a new..." is very nearly a sure sign of relativism at work. I don't know why so many quacks pick it. I guess they think they're revolutionizing the world. This article pushes for an ethics and feelings based redistribution of programming effort. That's bad. Because resources remain finite, we won't lose less data, we can only shuffle around what we lose. What we need to make this decision, is not feelings or vague ethical codes. We need hard data, especially in an age of big data and machine learning where the detailed pieces involved in making a deep statistical analysis may well be out of the realm of human comprehension. For example, this article targets the evil gender binary. If only we would think more carefully about our choices. Meanwhile, clinics are scratching their heads trying to figure out how to map rates of ovarian cancer to "demisexuals", or how a local rise in "non-binary asexuals" might affect rates of testicular cancer, and what should be done about funding for screenings. We lose data because we come from an era where space was limited, and cycles were counted. Sure we made some dumb mistakes like 2 digit years, but 2 digit years still work in a broad array of cases so we still use them all over the place today. They are sometimes good to use, sometimes bad, sometimes they're superfluous and unused anyway. By all means rethink what fields should be compressed or expanded based upon business needs. But do it based on data and business use cases, not on feelings and someone's personal bias- even if that person promises their ethics are better than the old ones.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
dwaltrip 10y ago
I think the essay was more about double checking the assumptions and particular world views we bring with us when we write code. Even the most mundane software can distinctly embody specific views that some might take for granted, not acknowledging that others have genuine reasons for viewing that specific dynamic differently. We need to be willing to explore the assumptions, known or unknown, that we carry with us when we create software. Software doesn't exist in a vacuum. It is part of a rich, ever changing context of culture, social systems, and all the messiness of being human. Each human action is the expression of a complex set of viewpoints, and technology is not perfectly neutral. I think, occasionally, some (not all) hackerish types are less interested in exploring this side of things and think they can avoid it by sticking with software. The essay was trying to remind people that you can't truly avoid expressing viewpoints with your actions, even in software.
- webmaven 10y ago
  > We need to be willing to explore the assumptions, known or unknown, that we carry with us when we create software. Hear, hear. I have two other longstanding favorite examinations-of-assumptions pieces: "Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Names"[0], and "Five Geek Social Fallacies"[1] [0] https://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-believe-about-names/ https://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-... [1] http://www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html http://www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html
mjg59 10y ago
> Meanwhile, clinics are scratching their heads trying to figure out how to map rates of ovarian cancer to "demisexuals", or how a local rise in "non-binary asexuals" might affect rates of testicular cancer, and what should be done about funding for screenings. This is a great case in point! Simply classing people as male or female already loses data that's therapeutically relevant. The important thing in determining whether someone's at risk of ovarian or testicular cancer isn't whether they're male or female - it's whether they have ovaries or testes. Some people have both, some people have neither and some people do not have the set you'd expect from their gender. Assuming that "Male" or "Female" accurately describes this is exactly the kind of "forgetting" discussed in the article, and people lose out on appropriate healthcare as a result.

jack9 10y ago

The hacker ethic was born of tacit misogyny and not subscribed to, by the original hackers (i.e. pre-80s). Most of development is about lossy processes. All of the original hacker ethics should be changed; revised. She posits an example and attempts to break down the strategy used.

kahrkunne 10y ago
Explain to me how playful cleverness, open access to computers and being measured by skill over appearance is misogynist. Unless of course you think women aren't clever or skillful...
- jack9 10y ago
  What are you talking about? Did you even read the OP? I was SUMMARIZING the talk (as per the request). > The mention of Margaret Hamilton in this passage is one of maybe three instances in the entire book in which a woman appears who is not introduced as the relative or romantic interest of a man. And even in this rare instance, Levy’s framing trivializes Hamilton, her work, and her right to the facility. She was “a beginner programmer” who was “officially sanctioned” but also just “showed up.” And she “complained” about it, leading to repercussions and reprimands. Levy is all but calling her a nag. I don't know what other way to characterize that as a focused topic (tacit misogyny). It was not further discussed. I think you (along with a bunch of other people debating some nonsense about feminism) are having some weird kneejerk because you choose to interpret that part of the talk differently. The meaning was clear to me.
  - kahrkunne 10y ago
    Sorry, your post was quite a ways down from the parent so I didn't realize you were summarizing. My fault.
    - jack9 10y ago
      I also apologize for my tone, it was unwarranted.

devnonymous 10y ago

It's amusing to see the loss of information going on in these summaries itself. My take away from the article was we as programmers (hackers?) need to go beyond the tl;dr to really understand what it is we are doing and be conscious of the fact that what we do affects things beyond the those that we presume our work will affect.