3 ms·

The impression I got is that he is more of a technology philosopher than an actual technologist. He dreams up things, but he doesn't realize them and he hasn't

by bborud 8y ago

The impression I got is that he is more of a technology philosopher than an actual technologist. He dreams up things, but he doesn't realize them and he hasn't managed to convince others to implement his vision either. In terms of software there is precious little to show for 50 years of thinking about this. And it isn't like this is some recent brainwave. By the time the web rolled around he'd had 30 years to do something. And as the web came into being he had an excellent chance to make it a vehicle for his ideas, but he didn't. One thing I remember from a (longish) chat I had with him is that some elements of his ideas exist today, but perhaps not where you would think about them. For instance in non-destructive media editing software you have concepts that remind me of some of his ideas. I think the one key takeaway I got from his talk and the chat afterwards is that only what you do really counts. Ideas really are worth less though not worthless.

AndrewKemendo 8y ago
only what you do really counts. Ideas really are worth less though not worthless. It's a matter of degree right? So for example Erdos didn't actually do anything - in the sense that we're talking - such as creating products or works of physical art. His mathematics are ideas. Which people then used, but critically referenced Erdos as their originator. From what I can tell of Ted Nelson, the design and cybernetics ideas were obvious enough that many other people thought of them also, or were not so obscure as to be canonical. So like many ideas without fathers, it's whomever can create a product around them which get the credit. So for example "Steve Jobs invented the iPhone." Anyone with even a shallow historical understanding of handheld computing knows that this statement isn't true in any concrete sense, but because Apple, under Jobs' management, popularized the smartphone the attribution goes as such. Many people thought of, and wrote about or made in science-fiction the smart phone - so it was an obvious enough idea (by then) that execution is what mattered. Interestingly, if you push all the way back to writers like HG Wells, they predicted much of the technology we see today including smartphones, but they aren't credited with "inventing" them or even being important in their development really. So the right time, right place, right idea is still the combination needed to stand out.
- hindsightbias 8y ago
  > So the right time, right place, right idea is still the combination needed And the right people.
- bborud 8y ago
  > So for example Erdos didn't actually do anything He most certainly did. In his field, doing the work which is then published in papers _is_ doing something. However, just having an idea for how to work out a mathematical proof, but not doing it would represent, well, not doing it. I don't see how this would be unclear.

by bborud 8y ago

AndrewKemendo 8y ago

only what you do really counts. Ideas really are worth less though not worthless. It's a matter of degree right? So for example Erdos didn't actually do anything - in the sense that we're talking - such as creating products or works of physical art. His mathematics are ideas. Which people then used, but critically referenced Erdos as their originator. From what I can tell of Ted Nelson, the design and cybernetics ideas were obvious enough that many other people thought of them also, or were not so obscure as to be canonical. So like many ideas without fathers, it's whomever can create a product around them which get the credit. So for example "Steve Jobs invented the iPhone." Anyone with even a shallow historical understanding of handheld computing knows that this statement isn't true in any concrete sense, but because Apple, under Jobs' management, popularized the smartphone the attribution goes as such. Many people thought of, and wrote about or made in science-fiction the smart phone - so it was an obvious enough idea (by then) that execution is what mattered. Interestingly, if you push all the way back to writers like HG Wells, they predicted much of the technology we see today including smartphones, but they aren't credited with "inventing" them or even being important in their development really. So the right time, right place, right idea is still the combination needed to stand out.

hindsightbias 8y ago
> So the right time, right place, right idea is still the combination needed And the right people.
bborud 8y ago
> So for example Erdos didn't actually do anything He most certainly did. In his field, doing the work which is then published in papers _is_ doing something. However, just having an idea for how to work out a mathematical proof, but not doing it would represent, well, not doing it. I don't see how this would be unclear.