4 ms·
1. I agree with your general argument about the need for deep research. 2. Which means you're making assumptions about what I'm thinking. 3. Please don't labe
by cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
1. I agree with your general argument about the need for deep research.
2. Which means you're making assumptions about what I'm thinking.
3. Please don't label others on the Internet with words like "Neoliberal", etc. We are all same people and there may be misunderstanding but we are not fundamentally different species.
4. My point was not to say these not-for-profit research is useless, but that if you're in this field, you should own it. If people build things that are mediocre and you know a better way, why not build one and show it for yourself? He hasn't done that because he doesn't know either. And by "Knowing" I mean actually knowing to build a product that people will use without any problem. It is easy to criticize implementation, it's not easy to actually do it yourself. With all due respect, prototyping and actually turning it into a product that general public can use are completely different ball games.
- loup-vaillant 9y agoHe didn't call you a neo-liberal. Your whole argument however does rely on the now widespread (and false) assumption that anything worthwhile can be made profitable with the current economic system. By the way, Alan Kay has built stuff people can actually use. Scratch, for instance is so usable that even children can learn it. Ah. Learning. I don't want to assume, but it looks like you missed the part where Alan Kay wants the general public to learn about computers, and stops viewing them as magic golems. This is a completely different ball game from merely making a popular consumer device.