4 ms·

So he shames people that are clueless with a computer but at the end admits he's the same with his car. The truth is nobody can master everything so there's no

So he shames people that are clueless with a computer but at the end admits he's the same with his car. The truth is nobody can master everything so there's no reason to feel superior to someone that is clueless in your domain.

zeehr0 10y ago
You gotta be fucking kidding me! Did you skip the fucking Cameron section? Or the fucking "technologies that shape our future"? This is not some new-age crap. We are talking about things which are leading our lives. We are teaching our kids to be puppets of "tech savy masters". Worst of all, people who legislate about it know shit about computers, and they're probably repeating everything a corporate cocksucker told them to say. So, it's not shaming people about "you're no master at this field", it's about "you sold your fucking life for a few commodities". And sorry about the fucking vote up in your comment, I'm drunk as hell, couldn't click the fucking right button.
Neliquat 10y ago
You bring up a good point. What is the social expectation of competence in these areas? In the USA it is assumed a man can change a tire, do basic handyman stuff, etc. But is there a social equivelent in tech? At what point are techs just keyboard moneys to the masses like mechanics are now? Its odd, as the two share much. The average modern mechanic now knows hex, rom flashing, checksums, and some basic networking, in addition to metalurgy, gas/vapor flow, and customer service. The complexity has increased dramatically, but social respect has not.
- SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
  I expect people to be able to connect devices, since the ports are labeled and shape matched. (And often color coded, too.) I expect people to be able to perform slightly-nontrivial Google searches ('site:' and similar tags; Boolean operators). I expect people to have the equivalent of "electrons flow in copper" (electricity) or "explosions push the pistons" (ICEs) level of understanding of what's in a computer and what it does, what the internet is and how traffic flows across it. Now, the reasons some of these don't happen is poor teaching materials, but I think we need to get to that point -- where everyone knows at least those things -- before we can sanely discuss technology as a society. Democracy will break down -- is breaking down -- because most of the electorate refuses to know even the basics of one of the major social forces.
- awfgylbcxhrey 10y ago
  But is there a social equivelent in tech? If anything, in tech, "anyone who doesn't know exactly what I know is an idiot" send to be the dominant attitude. And management generally sees anyone in tech as a socially stunted weirdo who is overhead rather than an investment. like mechanics are now? Where are you that mechanics are so disrespected?
tritosomal 10y ago
Did he "shame" people, or write an article about the vapidity of common computer use? At this point people who remain willfully clueless will suffer serious disadvantages, as computers start to make decisions for them, before they decide for themselves. We pretend that machine learning has only good intentions and is pure of heart. It may seem like that now, but it won't last forever. Not every artificial learning system will play nice.
- SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
  It's not even true now. Facebook has psychologists on staff seeking to manipulate your emotions for Facebook's benefit using ML and other tech.
- tps5 10y ago
  Explain to me how this line of reasoning doesn't apply to your car. Or flying in an airplane. Or doing your taxes. Or a million other things. By living in a "modern society," we're trusting in so many things that we do not thoroughly understand. In some way, this is the principle that makes human "progress" possible. If every individual had to be competent in a given area in order to benefit from/take part in that area then things would move much more slowly. Of course there are clear disadvantages to taking part in activities that we do not fully understand. We will make sub-optimal decisions because of our ignorance. But in sum, this isn't a problem. In sum, we gain a lot by organizing things this way. Ignorance isn't good. It isn't ideal. But it's a necessary feature of human societies, and articles like this just come off as nasty and mean spirited.
  - tritosomal 10y ago
    I think "this time it's different" for reasons that aren't clear yet, but for technical people, has been an ominous fear for some decades. It comes to this: Computer Systems aren't simply inert turing machines we can pull the plug on anymore. We are letting them off the leash and they are moving on their own out in the world, and they are making decisions to interact as peers or better within our social structures. The car analogy [0] doesn't work anymore because cars are starting to drive themselves. If you put this into an ecological premise, consider that we've been at the top of the food chain, above all other animals, and we have dominated the biosphere for a million or more years. Now we are introducing machines as peers and they may soon dominate us, if we're not careful. Look at the examples in the article, and consider that malfunctioning wi-fi might illustrate how poorly equipped most people are, to confront machines that don't act in their best interests. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_analogy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_analogy
badsock 10y ago
Cars are vastly less important than computers.
- badsock 10y ago
  To clarify: we're talking about being able to operate things. If you had to choose between being banned from using any computer for the next 20 years, or being banned from operating motor vehicles for the same time period, which do you think would disrupt a typical person's life more? I mean, how would you even apply to anything other than an entry level job without being able to submit your CV online, or use a word processor? Think of all the professions you couldn't do at all: doctor, accountant, etc. Even in places like sub-sarahan Africa, losing access to the computer-that's-a-phone would be a major impediment. In contrast, there's lots of people who haven't driven a car in the last year that are perfectly well integrated into society.
  - recursive 10y ago
    There are also lots of people that don't use computers in the last year that are perfectly well integrated into society. I think you're overestimating the necessity of computers. I can't understand why a doctor would be required to use a computer.
    - aplummer 10y ago
      I don't know about your doctor but mine uses his computer to see my medical records, including before I moved to the city. Also he prints prescriptions.
  - smallnamespace 10y ago
    No, we're talking about being to maintain things. If you can use your computer but don't know how to fix things when they break, then you pay someone to fix it for you. That's what this article is complaining about: people who don't know how to fix issues with their computer, or don't use it in the most 'optimal' way.

zeehr0 10y ago

You gotta be fucking kidding me! Did you skip the fucking Cameron section? Or the fucking "technologies that shape our future"? This is not some new-age crap. We are talking about things which are leading our lives. We are teaching our kids to be puppets of "tech savy masters". Worst of all, people who legislate about it know shit about computers, and they're probably repeating everything a corporate cocksucker told them to say. So, it's not shaming people about "you're no master at this field", it's about "you sold your fucking life for a few commodities". And sorry about the fucking vote up in your comment, I'm drunk as hell, couldn't click the fucking right button.

Neliquat 10y ago

You bring up a good point. What is the social expectation of competence in these areas? In the USA it is assumed a man can change a tire, do basic handyman stuff, etc. But is there a social equivelent in tech? At what point are techs just keyboard moneys to the masses like mechanics are now? Its odd, as the two share much. The average modern mechanic now knows hex, rom flashing, checksums, and some basic networking, in addition to metalurgy, gas/vapor flow, and customer service. The complexity has increased dramatically, but social respect has not.

SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
I expect people to be able to connect devices, since the ports are labeled and shape matched. (And often color coded, too.) I expect people to be able to perform slightly-nontrivial Google searches ('site:' and similar tags; Boolean operators). I expect people to have the equivalent of "electrons flow in copper" (electricity) or "explosions push the pistons" (ICEs) level of understanding of what's in a computer and what it does, what the internet is and how traffic flows across it. Now, the reasons some of these don't happen is poor teaching materials, but I think we need to get to that point -- where everyone knows at least those things -- before we can sanely discuss technology as a society. Democracy will break down -- is breaking down -- because most of the electorate refuses to know even the basics of one of the major social forces.
awfgylbcxhrey 10y ago
But is there a social equivelent in tech? If anything, in tech, "anyone who doesn't know exactly what I know is an idiot" send to be the dominant attitude. And management generally sees anyone in tech as a socially stunted weirdo who is overhead rather than an investment. like mechanics are now? Where are you that mechanics are so disrespected?

tritosomal 10y ago

Did he "shame" people, or write an article about the vapidity of common computer use? At this point people who remain willfully clueless will suffer serious disadvantages, as computers start to make decisions for them, before they decide for themselves. We pretend that machine learning has only good intentions and is pure of heart. It may seem like that now, but it won't last forever. Not every artificial learning system will play nice.

SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
It's not even true now. Facebook has psychologists on staff seeking to manipulate your emotions for Facebook's benefit using ML and other tech.
tps5 10y ago
Explain to me how this line of reasoning doesn't apply to your car. Or flying in an airplane. Or doing your taxes. Or a million other things. By living in a "modern society," we're trusting in so many things that we do not thoroughly understand. In some way, this is the principle that makes human "progress" possible. If every individual had to be competent in a given area in order to benefit from/take part in that area then things would move much more slowly. Of course there are clear disadvantages to taking part in activities that we do not fully understand. We will make sub-optimal decisions because of our ignorance. But in sum, this isn't a problem. In sum, we gain a lot by organizing things this way. Ignorance isn't good. It isn't ideal. But it's a necessary feature of human societies, and articles like this just come off as nasty and mean spirited.
- tritosomal 10y ago
  I think "this time it's different" for reasons that aren't clear yet, but for technical people, has been an ominous fear for some decades. It comes to this: Computer Systems aren't simply inert turing machines we can pull the plug on anymore. We are letting them off the leash and they are moving on their own out in the world, and they are making decisions to interact as peers or better within our social structures. The car analogy [0] doesn't work anymore because cars are starting to drive themselves. If you put this into an ecological premise, consider that we've been at the top of the food chain, above all other animals, and we have dominated the biosphere for a million or more years. Now we are introducing machines as peers and they may soon dominate us, if we're not careful. Look at the examples in the article, and consider that malfunctioning wi-fi might illustrate how poorly equipped most people are, to confront machines that don't act in their best interests. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_analogy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_analogy

badsock 10y ago

Cars are vastly less important than computers.

badsock 10y ago
To clarify: we're talking about being able to operate things. If you had to choose between being banned from using any computer for the next 20 years, or being banned from operating motor vehicles for the same time period, which do you think would disrupt a typical person's life more? I mean, how would you even apply to anything other than an entry level job without being able to submit your CV online, or use a word processor? Think of all the professions you couldn't do at all: doctor, accountant, etc. Even in places like sub-sarahan Africa, losing access to the computer-that's-a-phone would be a major impediment. In contrast, there's lots of people who haven't driven a car in the last year that are perfectly well integrated into society.
- recursive 10y ago
  There are also lots of people that don't use computers in the last year that are perfectly well integrated into society. I think you're overestimating the necessity of computers. I can't understand why a doctor would be required to use a computer.
  - aplummer 10y ago
    I don't know about your doctor but mine uses his computer to see my medical records, including before I moved to the city. Also he prints prescriptions.
- smallnamespace 10y ago
  No, we're talking about being to maintain things. If you can use your computer but don't know how to fix things when they break, then you pay someone to fix it for you. That's what this article is complaining about: people who don't know how to fix issues with their computer, or don't use it in the most 'optimal' way.