9 ms·
Unfortunate, but I guess with any new tech there will always be luddites. Many HN folks probably already know the etymology, but for those that aren't familiar
by FreakyT 8y ago
Unfortunate, but I guess with any new tech there will always be luddites.
Many HN folks probably already know the etymology, but for those that aren't familiar, the word "luddite" itself comes from "English textile workers in the 19th century [who] destroyed textile machinery as a form of protest" [1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite
- stochastic_monk 8y agoIn what way is this threatening their livelihood? I would call it neo-Luddism, in the broader sense that it’s driven by dislike and fear toward technology, but I wouldn’t assign Luddism. The key quote for me: “They didn’t ask us if we wanted to be part of their beta test,” added his wife, who helps run the business.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- FreakyT 8y agoI was more going for "fearing new technology and therefore destroying it" angle.
- vvanders 8y agoI was ready to jump on the bandwagon of people hating new technology until I hit this section: > The trouble started, the couple said, when their 10-year-old son was nearly hit by one of the vehicles while he was playing in a nearby cul-de-sac. > “They said they need real-world examples, but I don’t want to be their real-world mistake,” said Mr. O’Polka, who runs his own company providing information technology to small businesses. I can see the perspective where if you've experienced an issue like this you might see them as more than an idle threat.
- Jach 8y agoReading that I wondered whether the 10 year old might have been throwing rocks at the car -- the car was just trying to defend itself... More seriously, cars of any sort are dangerous to children, self-driving or not, going on a crusade against self-driving cars for nearly hitting (or actually hitting) your boy makes as much sense as the same against the normal cars where that happens every day.
- ericd 8y agoI would actually be very happy if all cars, human driven and self-driving alike, were outlawed from our city center, and forced to just drive and park around the periphery. Some European cities are starting to do this. It completely changes the nature of the streets, from dangerous and noisy places that make you feel uneasy to walk near, into places that are safe for everyone to enjoy. So, bring on the crusades against cars.
- tfha 8y agoI'm all for creating cities where there are no cars, it's a big long term interest of mine to live in such a city. But I don't like the phrasing 'crusades against cars', because it makes it seem like cars are the bad guys. Cars are an incredibly important underpinning of society today, and we should remember that as we innovate certain parts of society to function better without them. We definitely want cars, and we definitely like cars. But we also like city centers that don't have cars, because it seems like that part of society functions better without them.
- ericd 8y agoMany people definitely don’t like or want cars in their current form, especially in the younger generations...
- CamperBob2 8y agoHere's an idea -- why don't you move to a place where your opinion prevails, rather than dictating your preferences to the rest of us? Whenever I argue for less regulation on something, I get told to move to Somalia. Shouldn't this work both ways?
- village-idiot 8y agoI think there are some legitimate fears that are worth exploring. Safety and economic effects are not trivial matters to dismiss. I also think that those concerned are doing themselves no favors here. Drunken shenanigans, brandishing of firearms and blunt weapons, and vandalism make it very easy to smear them as luddite cranks who should be sidelined as quickly as possible, even if the fears are legitimate.
- stcredzero 8y agoUnfortunate, but I guess with any new tech there will always be luddites. Some programmers are some of the worst luddites out there! When compilers came in, there were programmers who insisted writing the machine language themselves was better. Then there are programmers who are just as bad because they're too much the opposite of luddites.
- whatshisface 8y agoIn the very early history of compilers it was not very hard to beat them by writing assembly by hand. Over time it has gotten harder and harder to beat the compiler, and now handwritten assembly survives only in the tightest inner loops where unique instructions are used.
- stcredzero 8y agoYes, but don't go and write your business CRM web app in assembly, or in ones and zeros, or only in zeros.
- rkeene2 8y agoMaybe YOU don't... yet... https://2ton.com.au/rwasa/ https://2ton.com.au/rwasa/ :-)
- stallmanite 8y agoHoly shit! Thanks for the link
- kamaal 8y ago>>Some programmers are some of the worst luddites out there! Pretty much all the programmers. Just see what treatment Lisp got/gets in the industry. Programmers hate meta programming with a passion.
- pdkl95 8y agoUnfortunately, there is a common misconception that Luddites were against technology. That's incorrect: they were skilled textile workers that used technology similar to any other skilled profession. From the first paragraph of the wiki page: > The group was protesting the use of machinery in a "fraudulent and deceitful manner" to get around standard labour practices. There is a lot of similarity with modern tech companies (Uber is the canonical example) working around labor in a way that concentrates wealth. As an early form of labor fighting back against capital abusing the amplifying effect of technology, I agree with the Luddites. Learn from them, or - as described in this article - we will see their violent methods again.
- diminoten 8y agoIt's beyond "misconception", as "luddite" now means someone who dislikes new technology. The word has been redefined.
- shitloadofbooks 8y agoI think that's a very totalitarian/utilitarian view though. Some of the people in the article have "valid" reasons for their hatred/distrust: > The trouble started, the couple said, when their 10-year-old son was nearly hit by one of the vehicles while he was playing in a nearby cul-de-sac. > "They didn’t ask us if we wanted to be part of their beta test" We all know self-driving cars are going to be safer, but very few people would sacrifice their own loved ones to make self driving cars reality.
- diydsp 8y agoMoving the responsibility away from humans for accidents to a faceless corporation where we can all anticipate no one will be sufficiently accountable means we would have no more justice, which may be more important to us than safety. After all, we're humans with emotions, not robots with spreadsheets. We may not actually want safer. We may actually want more just. With 37,000 auto deaths last year in the U.S., what if Waymo perfected the self-driving car, such that they killed no one, but instead senseless slaughtered 1000 random people on the streets. Would they be justified? Of course not, because even though they would have made it safer, they would have made it less just.
- Nasrudith 8y agoWould that actually qualify as more just? They are deciding that more people must die just because they don't want to give up their illusion of control. Since you can die just as well due to a driver legally in the right in an accident with nothing you can do to stop it. Just because it may be consensus doesn't make it remotely rational or right. I mean mobs lynching every suspect would ensure more people are held accountable but mean more innocents would die as well.
- emiliobumachar 8y agoYou might want to take into account that severe punishment for car accidents is the exception, reserved to the most egregious cases. You are unlikely to get justice when a human driver kills, unless they are drunk or try to flee. As for the hypothetical, I would definitely take the senseless, unpunished death of one close family member over the properly punished deaths of 37 close family members. But I agree that less extreme numbers could put me in doubt.
- drugme 8y agoUnfortunate, but I guess with any new tech there will always be luddites. And in the face of any significant protest against the dystopian future we are being dragged into -- there will always be those making ill-informed comparisons to past historical events.
- aaron695 8y agoI also assume HN fokes know the Luddites got fucked. So what's the point? People getting fucked will fight back but you have to fuck people to move forward? It is what you need to do I guess but I'm not so sure it's what I want society to believe and follow through. Do you want advertising exec's to fuck people over, do you need great ad's at the expense of people? But I do want medical people to fuck people over, we need better medicine. Complicated.
- DoreenMichele 8y ago"Better the devil you know." Without exception, there's always a downside to everything. Familiar pitfalls are easier to cope with than unfamiliar ones. It's often only well after the fact -- like after you are dead and gone in many cases -- that the full scope of the cost gets recognized. In the course of her work, Marie Curie was exposed to high levels of radiation. She had no understanding of the danger involved. We have some idea now, but it probably wasn't well understood within her lifetime. Now, we have standard protections for handling radioactive materials. But those protections were developed at the cost of lives and much suffering. Progress involves "Eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil" and all that. (IIRC) In the Bible, this was the introduction of sin and the cause of the fall from grace. I generally think if the Bible as full of excellent metaphors for general principles of this sort. (No, I'm not up for debating the Bible, actually.)
- no-s 8y agoAlso not particularly religious here but the Bible is certainly full of useful source material.
- newer_guy 8y agoThe semantics of that word are endlessly talked about and debated. It’s completey irrelevant to anything and everything besides English literature people. It’s so frustrating to see so many people spinning their wheels on it, wasting energy that could be used for meaningful discussion. What is also frustrating is the use of that word to put people down. Anyone who thinks that automation is bad is a “Luddite.” Those “luddites” actually have an increasingly good point.