6 ms·

She's a mind-boggling person and that's why she is so important. When she fist followed me on Twitter, I dismissed her as yet another fake porn account. Then I

She's a mind-boggling person and that's why she is so important. When she fist followed me on Twitter, I dismissed her as yet another fake porn account. Then I saw her builds. She looks like a hooker and she is a terrific hacker. I _knew_ not judge people by their covers _in theory_ - she actually proved it to me in reality, and that was a real experience. She had a direct impact on how my brain forms opinions. And that's with me not even following her stuff (I don't follow people on YouTube, I just watch the video with the info I seek right now. I also still can't fully handle her display, which makes me constantly question myself. Can I not take women seriously when they dress like that? Why?)

peteretep 8y ago
> Can I not take women seriously when they dress like that? Why? Sounds like you take her plenty seriously. However, she _does_ sexualize her appearance, and the majority of men are either conditioned or born to have a significant response to that. She's aware of that fact. I think you'd struggle as much as a gay man with the cast of the Chippendales running the same videos naked.
- yetihehe 8y ago
  "However, she _does_ sexualize her appearance, and the majority of men are either conditioned or born to have a significant response to that. She's aware of that fact." I don't follow her very regularly, but it looks like she is a hacker in every sense of this word, she is interested not only in technology hacking but also in psychology/sociology hacking. She knows how people see her and she knows what she is doing by looking and acting the way she does. Just because she is a female, many people think she doesn't know what she does (like Make magazine editor). But when you grok jargon file and see what she does from bigger perspective, it all makes sense.
whoistimaz 8y ago
She is in fact not a terrific hacker. Have a look at my other comment about timaz. Dig up his old posts/pictures on archive and compare the equipment with hers. He is in fact a great maker. She..who knows. But she definitely needs to be upfront about his involvement with her work. Also her diction in writing far exceeds that of someone who learnt english watching videos and the like.
- turbinerneiter 8y ago
  BS. She is always upfront about getting help. Everybody knows she has her English proof-read. Hell, the Medium post has a "message from the editor" at the front.
  - whoistimaz 8y ago
    She absolutely has not been. She got banned from Patreon for doxxing peoples addresses. Does that look like something someone with integrity does?
    - yayana 8y ago
      Given that she discusses that in the article, I'd say everyone should form their own opinion on that.
belorn 8y ago
Its a good reaction to question oneself. Most youtube personalities has unique style and aspects and while her focus seems to be about hacking aspects of wearables and diy she does this under the theme of sexy cyborg. One can appreciate the work and skill she has on the topic while being uncertain if the theme is more distracting than contributing. Personally I find that aspect to be a minor part of her videos and more of a "hook" than the meat, so it doesn't take anything away from it. Could it be that this is actually about nudity that you find problematic as a theme for youtube videos. What would your reaction be to a male DIY maker that also happened to be a nudist and had that as his youtube theme?
dosy 8y ago
I'm not so happy about the comment "she looks like a hooker". Nor about sub-comments purporting to know the reasons she has in mind for her dress choice, and she knows how she affects people by it. Also want to say, as preface, that of course hookers can be hackers, and one reason I'm taking the following slant on it is the surprise expressed in this comment, I take to indicate the (limited) assumption that they cannot coexist. I think I've got two main issues with these comments. The first is: Why do you think you can speak for her? Why do you think you get it? The second is: Why do you think she can speak for you? Why do you assume she knows how she is affecting people by her dress? The second is the same as the first, you can't assume her mind, she can't assume the viewer's mind. Knowing the mind of the other / empathy is a good thing, but when you assume it to fit a particular narrative or impose a particular limiting idea, as I see the case is here, I think that's not a good thing. Another way to say all this is, people are free to dress in whatever individuated ways they want, for whatever individuated reasons/feelings they have for that, and viewers are free to respond/feel whatever individuated responses they have for that. The narrative where we assume the intent of the viewed and the viewer, and use that assumption we impose, to then fill in / construct a negative / discriminatory / fake narrative of the viewer or the viewed is not only flat out morally wrong, it's also logically incorrect I think. For the record, I think the "sexualization" is imposed by the interpretation of the commenters, not by the choice of dress. Also I don't find the dress looks "like a hooker". I think it's more nuanced than that, if you pay more attention to the details, her choice of shots, her expression. I understand people might differ in their conclusion / label of the dress, but realize that, probably, if you reach a superficial conclusion such as this, you are likely only limiting yourself and possibly limiting the discourse / way you can think about someone else. It doesn't matter what the effect intended by her is, it matters what your response is. That's one way I think about this. I think people need to upgrade / nuance-out their discourse about these sorts of topics.
- turbinerneiter 8y ago
  You are basically denying people's right to interpret art, because they could interpret art wrong. I don't speak for Wu. I'm merely talking about how her art affected my thinking. > Also want to say, as preface, that of course hookers can be hackers, and one reason I'm taking the following slant on it is the surprise expressed in this comment, I take to indicate the (limited) assumption that they cannot coexist. I quite literally said that her work helped me overcome this prejudice, so I'm not sure what you are getting at.

peteretep 8y ago

> Can I not take women seriously when they dress like that? Why? Sounds like you take her plenty seriously. However, she _does_ sexualize her appearance, and the majority of men are either conditioned or born to have a significant response to that. She's aware of that fact. I think you'd struggle as much as a gay man with the cast of the Chippendales running the same videos naked.

yetihehe 8y ago
"However, she _does_ sexualize her appearance, and the majority of men are either conditioned or born to have a significant response to that. She's aware of that fact." I don't follow her very regularly, but it looks like she is a hacker in every sense of this word, she is interested not only in technology hacking but also in psychology/sociology hacking. She knows how people see her and she knows what she is doing by looking and acting the way she does. Just because she is a female, many people think she doesn't know what she does (like Make magazine editor). But when you grok jargon file and see what she does from bigger perspective, it all makes sense.

whoistimaz 8y ago

She is in fact not a terrific hacker. Have a look at my other comment about timaz. Dig up his old posts/pictures on archive and compare the equipment with hers. He is in fact a great maker. She..who knows. But she definitely needs to be upfront about his involvement with her work. Also her diction in writing far exceeds that of someone who learnt english watching videos and the like.

turbinerneiter 8y ago
BS. She is always upfront about getting help. Everybody knows she has her English proof-read. Hell, the Medium post has a "message from the editor" at the front.
- whoistimaz 8y ago
  She absolutely has not been. She got banned from Patreon for doxxing peoples addresses. Does that look like something someone with integrity does?
  - yayana 8y ago
    Given that she discusses that in the article, I'd say everyone should form their own opinion on that.

belorn 8y ago

Its a good reaction to question oneself. Most youtube personalities has unique style and aspects and while her focus seems to be about hacking aspects of wearables and diy she does this under the theme of sexy cyborg. One can appreciate the work and skill she has on the topic while being uncertain if the theme is more distracting than contributing. Personally I find that aspect to be a minor part of her videos and more of a "hook" than the meat, so it doesn't take anything away from it. Could it be that this is actually about nudity that you find problematic as a theme for youtube videos. What would your reaction be to a male DIY maker that also happened to be a nudist and had that as his youtube theme?

dosy 8y ago

I'm not so happy about the comment "she looks like a hooker". Nor about sub-comments purporting to know the reasons she has in mind for her dress choice, and she knows how she affects people by it. Also want to say, as preface, that of course hookers can be hackers, and one reason I'm taking the following slant on it is the surprise expressed in this comment, I take to indicate the (limited) assumption that they cannot coexist. I think I've got two main issues with these comments. The first is: Why do you think you can speak for her? Why do you think you get it? The second is: Why do you think she can speak for you? Why do you assume she knows how she is affecting people by her dress? The second is the same as the first, you can't assume her mind, she can't assume the viewer's mind. Knowing the mind of the other / empathy is a good thing, but when you assume it to fit a particular narrative or impose a particular limiting idea, as I see the case is here, I think that's not a good thing. Another way to say all this is, people are free to dress in whatever individuated ways they want, for whatever individuated reasons/feelings they have for that, and viewers are free to respond/feel whatever individuated responses they have for that. The narrative where we assume the intent of the viewed and the viewer, and use that assumption we impose, to then fill in / construct a negative / discriminatory / fake narrative of the viewer or the viewed is not only flat out morally wrong, it's also logically incorrect I think. For the record, I think the "sexualization" is imposed by the interpretation of the commenters, not by the choice of dress. Also I don't find the dress looks "like a hooker". I think it's more nuanced than that, if you pay more attention to the details, her choice of shots, her expression. I understand people might differ in their conclusion / label of the dress, but realize that, probably, if you reach a superficial conclusion such as this, you are likely only limiting yourself and possibly limiting the discourse / way you can think about someone else. It doesn't matter what the effect intended by her is, it matters what your response is. That's one way I think about this. I think people need to upgrade / nuance-out their discourse about these sorts of topics.

turbinerneiter 8y ago
You are basically denying people's right to interpret art, because they could interpret art wrong. I don't speak for Wu. I'm merely talking about how her art affected my thinking. > Also want to say, as preface, that of course hookers can be hackers, and one reason I'm taking the following slant on it is the surprise expressed in this comment, I take to indicate the (limited) assumption that they cannot coexist. I quite literally said that her work helped me overcome this prejudice, so I'm not sure what you are getting at.