3 ms·

Forgive me if I come off as idealistic and aggressive, but this question is useless and dumb. The first question that should be answered is: "What can we do to

Forgive me if I come off as idealistic and aggressive, but this question is useless and dumb. The first question that should be answered is: "What can we do to actually fix the problem?" Not cover up the gangrene and pretend like something's being done. What you can do as a person who can't is contribute to discussions on practically solving the issue, to inspire those who can.

spraak 10y ago
I think you're fighting the superficial. The parent poster asked essentially the same questions you've posited, and I don't see any concrete answers from you, either.
- stagbeetle 10y ago
  In denotation, but not connotation. > "What can we as hackers do" Implies a limited scope of vision and lack of initiative to fix the problem. Instead it's a half-baked plea to quench one's emotions. I'll reshape my answer: If you believe that all you can do is donate your time or money, you are in the "can't" category of doers. As harsh as it is, the best position for you to fill is, for lack of a better title, the "idea guy." By promoting discourse and idea generation, you may be able to aide those who "can" -- make an impact on the problem -- and contribute to a more important solution. What you can do as a person, and not the abstract and non-existent "hacker," is the above.
  - mercer 10y ago
    Perhaps this is the growing interest in zen buddhism talking, or perhaps it's something else, but I've grown more and more weary of this kind of reasoning. It's not that I disagree, it's more that it strikes me as a too-rational approach that doesn't really fit with what I learned about human behavior. All else being equal, theoretically, obviously taking on the 'big questions' and being an 'idea guy' is probably better than volunteering in a soup kitchen. But more often than not, based on my own thinking and conversations with friends, talking about the big picture leads to 1) a kind of analysis paralysis, and 2) the issue being too abstract for us to push through this paralysis. There are so many paths I can think of that lead a person to bigger, more structural 'idea' solutions via, as you put it, the "can't" type approach: frustration over 'mopping with the tap open', a friendship with an addict, homeless person, etc. Furthermore, by skipping the small stuff, we might end up coming up with 'idea guy' solutions that are not based on a proper understanding of the problem. I've seen a lot of that kind of non-solution in particular from 'idealistic highly-educated, idea-focused' people who sometimes even make the situation worse by not having spent enough time 'in the trenches'. Now to be fair I've also experienced the other end of the spectrum: a particular one that comes to mind is 'volunteer tourism' in developing areas that severely upset more structural efforts but made the tourist feel like they did something. But than even that end, looking back, serves a purpose. These 'tourists' often provided an optimistic energy that we 'non-local locals' had lost over time. I guess my point is that I think anything is better than nothing, but if you're gonna start somewhere, start with the thing that activates your emotion and only then put in effort to optimize for effect. Because I think the primary problem for many of us idea-people is that we don't care enough, or don't know what to care about, not a desire to 'do good'.

spraak 10y ago

I think you're fighting the superficial. The parent poster asked essentially the same questions you've posited, and I don't see any concrete answers from you, either.

stagbeetle 10y ago
In denotation, but not connotation. > "What can we as hackers do" Implies a limited scope of vision and lack of initiative to fix the problem. Instead it's a half-baked plea to quench one's emotions. I'll reshape my answer: If you believe that all you can do is donate your time or money, you are in the "can't" category of doers. As harsh as it is, the best position for you to fill is, for lack of a better title, the "idea guy." By promoting discourse and idea generation, you may be able to aide those who "can" -- make an impact on the problem -- and contribute to a more important solution. What you can do as a person, and not the abstract and non-existent "hacker," is the above.
- mercer 10y ago
  Perhaps this is the growing interest in zen buddhism talking, or perhaps it's something else, but I've grown more and more weary of this kind of reasoning. It's not that I disagree, it's more that it strikes me as a too-rational approach that doesn't really fit with what I learned about human behavior. All else being equal, theoretically, obviously taking on the 'big questions' and being an 'idea guy' is probably better than volunteering in a soup kitchen. But more often than not, based on my own thinking and conversations with friends, talking about the big picture leads to 1) a kind of analysis paralysis, and 2) the issue being too abstract for us to push through this paralysis. There are so many paths I can think of that lead a person to bigger, more structural 'idea' solutions via, as you put it, the "can't" type approach: frustration over 'mopping with the tap open', a friendship with an addict, homeless person, etc. Furthermore, by skipping the small stuff, we might end up coming up with 'idea guy' solutions that are not based on a proper understanding of the problem. I've seen a lot of that kind of non-solution in particular from 'idealistic highly-educated, idea-focused' people who sometimes even make the situation worse by not having spent enough time 'in the trenches'. Now to be fair I've also experienced the other end of the spectrum: a particular one that comes to mind is 'volunteer tourism' in developing areas that severely upset more structural efforts but made the tourist feel like they did something. But than even that end, looking back, serves a purpose. These 'tourists' often provided an optimistic energy that we 'non-local locals' had lost over time. I guess my point is that I think anything is better than nothing, but if you're gonna start somewhere, start with the thing that activates your emotion and only then put in effort to optimize for effect. Because I think the primary problem for many of us idea-people is that we don't care enough, or don't know what to care about, not a desire to 'do good'.