6 ms·
> Computers, being machines of will, equalise us all that way. It's _complicated_. I mean, almost everything in society is complicated: it's like sphagetti cod
by annabellish 8y ago
> Computers, being machines of will, equalise us all that way.
It's _complicated_. I mean, almost everything in society is complicated: it's like sphagetti code written by millions of people with no single coherent goal.
There's a degree to which what you say is true, and a degree to which it is false. The most obvious way in which it is false is that learning how to use a computer well requires a) access to a computer (obviously), b) time you can dedicate to learning how to use it, c) resources to assist with learning (this one is mostly solved by ubiquitous internet connections _today_, but that was much less solved even fifteen to twenty years back, when many of the current self-taught mid/senior experienced people around today were learning), and so on.
Tech is not a pure meritocracy, because not everyone has had access to the same resources or opportunities. I think that's getting a lot better - as this article flags up, the modern open source community is extremely accessible, and sufficient equipment to be competitive with the best is cheaper than it has ever been. With just a cheap laptop and a relatively inexpensive internet connection you're not _that_ far away from having the same tooling available as a rich professional, today. That doesn't mean that problems a and c are _solved_ by any means, but they're certainly better than they used to be.
Point b may not be something we can solve with improving technology, though, nor the thousands of tiny factors involved in whether people unconciously gain an attraction towards programming or pass it by. These are really hard problems to solve.
So, like, generally, I think we're _doing better_ than we were twenty years ago, but we still have a long way to go before we can unironically call tech a meritocracy where those with the will to thrive succeed and those without fail. Life is just more complicated than that.
- malvosenior 8y agoTech is more of a meritocracy than any other field. If you are a good developer, you will succeed. You are correct that access to technology and learning resources has greatly increased. People who wanted it bad enough could make it work though. I couldn’t afford a computer growing up so I would find ways to access the crappy Apple IIes my school had just to get some programming time. The library had books on Basic and magazines (which I would read for free in the grocery) used to have code in them. I don’t buy the lack of time argument though. Life is about prioritizing. Millions of poor people have substantial time to invest in football, basketball, TV, video games.. Learning to program just takes putting it above those less productive activities. The real issue (imho) is that very few people are cut out to be developers. This push to turn everyone into an engineer makes about as much sense to me as encouraging everyone to be a pro-basketball player. It’s great money, everyone should do it!
- annabellish 8y agoI think you might be confusing "wanting it bad enough" with "going to a sufficiently well-funded school" to a point there. Some schools had that kind of equipment available for the students to use, but it certainly wasn't universal. I imagine it's a lot closer now, but poor schools are still underfunded to the point of teachers having to buy pen and paper from their own money, so it's possible that that still may not be available. As for time, I think the suggestion that the choice is between "learning to program" or "watching sports" is extremely reductive and not accurate to a lot of people's experiences.
- malvosenior 8y agoMy school was extremely poor and underfunded. I was using Apple IIs in the late 90s. If my school had them I’m sure 99% of all schools in the US have at least early 80s computers available. > I think the suggestion that the choice is between "learning to program" or "watching sports" is extremely reductive and not accurate to a lot of people's experiences. I strongly disagree. That’s exactly what other people were doing while I was learning to master technology. We were all very poor. I’m not anymore, the vast majority of people I knew who didn’t use their time wisely still are.
- JanisL 8y agoIronically some of those older machines seem like they might have been good to learn to code on. I remember the first code I wrote was on some really old Apple computer with basic (I think it was Chipmunk Basic) and it was really quite straightforward compared with some of the things I deal with now. I don't know how favorably I would have responded to something like C++ or Java some other professional-oriented language that was starting to get popular at the time. Clearly as a professional I wouldn't use that now but having a low barrier to entry at that point in life seemed quite fortunate.
- sitkack 8y agoAnd the Apple II the parent is talking about aren't connected to the net. The singular purpose and tasking of loading Logo into machine like that is liberating. No distractions, one path forward, the keyboard, the screen, the manual and you.