4 ms·

A long review of the social network that digresses into the hacker sensibility

51 points by alextp 16y ago

nl 16y ago
Wow. 25,000+ words, and yet he missed what I think would be a much more compelling argument to support his thesis; ie: Apple is the perfect storm of Hacker plus Artistic culture. As a company it operates as a native in both the artistic and technological spheres, and that cross cultural influence gives it great power in both spheres.
- grovulent 16y ago
  Yeah - I had stuff to say there - but the article was already way too long - as you point out. But I don't believe Apple represents the desired fusion - it leans too much on the artistic ideology side imo. But I think that would be much more the controversial claim and more difficult to support - it's another 25k word topic in itself.
- prodigal_erik 16y ago
  They're making exceptionally tinkerer-hostile products. Maybe that culture exists inside Apple, but they're doing as much as they can to smother it among the general public.
  - nl 16y ago
    MacBooks are pretty tinkering friendly (from the software point-of-view anyway). iOS devices aren't so much. But I think that spectrum of tinkerability shows the complete range of influences within the company, and could be a strength.
rudiger 16y ago
Great article. I haven't had time to read the whole thing, but I disagree with the characterization of Jaron Lanier as an artist who can't speak technically (as the author of this article surmises from a choice quotation). Mr. Lanier is a rather gifted hacker.
- grovulent 16y ago
  I think my characterisation of his overall understanding is perhaps not generous enough. I think I was a bit too incensed at the particular argument of his I was focusing on at the time. But the particular argument of his I was addressing is extremely poor. Perhaps this is more of a result of a lack of understanding about non-technologically related things like art etc... as opposed to his understanding of tech itself.
endlessvoid94 16y ago
This is an excellent piece. I'm afraid it's too long for most folks to read, which is really a shame. The whole time I was reading, I kept wondering how the web has affected our ability to focus and read, for example, long articles. 25000 words? Or a top 10 list? Hack the planet. Also, I think Richard Feynman is relevant here. In one of his Messenger Series lectures (I think it was the one about the distinction of past and future), he talks about how he believes the deepest understanding of humanity, and the universe in general comes from examining every aspect, no matter how distant from your own experience. The entire width of human experience tends to yield the most informed results -- breadth is better than depth, so to speak. Jack of all trades, and all that. We'll see.
- grovulent 16y ago
  I appreciate the compliment. I kinda knew it would not be read by many because of its length - so I didn't even bother to submit it to hacker news. But I was pleasantly surprised today to see it on the front page. I have been thinking about breaking it up into smaller articles - but something in me has resisted. The most important point requires the reader to stitch together a great number of different threads - and would be largely intelligible without the background. I tried to explain the idea over at esr's blog - because I thought the crowd there might be interested and might get it. Amusingly esr let loose at me (called me a sloppy thinker no less!) - and I realised it just couldn't be articulated in small bytes of info. But yeah - intimacy comes at a great cost of time - the time spent really getting to know a person through great chats and extended exploration. This article assumes intimacy with the world because of the time required to invest in it. But if just a few people like yourself get a chance to look at it - and maybe even refine some of the ideas (which they certainly need) - then that's good enough for a first effort.
  - endlessvoid94 16y ago
    Splitting it up would definitely detract from the point. I doubt many would discern the irony in it. One thing that's relevant: very few "hackers" obtain really good, close friends early in life. I've been lucky to have found a few very, very good friendships in middle and high school, and very few since. It continually amazes me how shallow and disconnected most people remain for most of their lives -- I find myself coming back to old friendships constantly (in terms of thinking about how we relate to each other). For example, playing in a band in high school was educational. Being so intimate (in certain ways) with my friends to a point where we could play musically and make mistakes and recover through mere eye contact was quite an experience. It's something that's difficult to replicate, especially in a field that's so disconnected from human contact. I really appreciated this article because it articulated something I've felt for a long time but haven't been disciplined enough to accurately reflect upon.
wazoox 16y ago
Hum. Completely artificial distinction. I'm both an artist and an hacker, and so are countless other peoples. Was Leonardo Da Vinci an artist, or a hacker? The most preposterous part is when he conflates "philosophers" with artists, this is ridiculous. Was Descartes an artist? Leibniz? Newton? Overall, this is an irrational, artistic piece, and too long with that :)
- grovulent 16y ago
  Just because someone like you is both and artist and hacker doesn't mean the analysis of the two as distinct tendencies does not have any validity. Part of what is frustrating about your reply (which I received a lot over at esr's blog) is that we're actually on the same side. While I'm invoking the distinction you're deriding - nevertheless I'm arguing that those who embody more one side than the other should try to balance their approach... and in fact become more like you - should you in fact be someone that has fused those tendencies in a balanced way. So what are you arguing against here exactly? As for the conflation between artists and philosophers - it was a necessary simplification because I don't have another hundred thousand words worth of time to explicate the commonalities and the differences as I see them. I'm doing a phd in analytic philosophy - so I have some understanding. For the purposes of this article one can assume that the important commonality between the two is that they both have a tendency toward the production of ideology in one form or another. If you want to disagree with that claim - go ahead. But for me to care you'll have to do more than simply claim that I'm ridiculous. Pony up with an argument or be silent.
  - wazoox 16y ago
    > For the purposes of this article one can assume that the important commonality between the two is that they both have a tendency toward the production of ideology in one form or another. I'd say that Philosophy, like science, produces narratives to explain the world. This is very different from art, which never pretended to provide any explanation. As such, I don't think that non-verbal art generally produces an ideology. An artist, usually does, though, but not through his/her art, through additional, parallel works or discourses. See for instance, Dali's or Berlioz' books; or simply talk about music or painting with a musician, or a painter. The art narrative definitely is outside the scope of art itself. I suppose most verbal art (litterature, poetry, etc) can carry an ideology. I don't know if the idea system is part of art itself, though. We could debate that an artist' impressions are used to utter his/her idea system without being part of it per se. I suppose here a strict formalist approach to art. Some people would disagree, however I don't think any other approach to be mainstream nowadays. Your description of art and artists strangely rely upon obsolete 19th century notions, I don't know if it's an elaborate trick or a lack of knowledge of modern art, but it hampers your dissertation; these "romantic views" were more or less dead in 1917 both with Duchamps' fountain and dodecaphonism. > But for me to care you'll have to do more than simply claim that I'm ridiculous. Pony up with an argument or be silent. Sorry to have hurt you. I couldn't resist the urge to cry with the trolls. The writing of this piece is way too much casually conversational and magazine-y to be taken too seriously.
thret 16y ago
But I want you to know from the bottom of my hearth that this won’t be true. *heart (ahah, yes. There is my contribution) I like both Wordsworth and The Dark Crystal, but your thesis is drowning in prose. The majority of your intended audience cannot swim.
- grovulent 16y ago
  I agree - the artist in me wrote it for me - selfish creatures that we are. I really never expected anyone to read it - let alone see it on the front page of hn. But I'm sincere about the efforts to change my ways. I'm writing much less and coding a lot more. ;)
  - stuhacking 16y ago
    A collection of essays like this would make a very nice book. It's taking me a while to read in short bursts during work ("It's compiling.") but I'm determined to finish.

51 points by alextp 16y ago

nl 16y ago

Wow. 25,000+ words, and yet he missed what I think would be a much more compelling argument to support his thesis; ie: Apple is the perfect storm of Hacker plus Artistic culture. As a company it operates as a native in both the artistic and technological spheres, and that cross cultural influence gives it great power in both spheres.

grovulent 16y ago
Yeah - I had stuff to say there - but the article was already way too long - as you point out. But I don't believe Apple represents the desired fusion - it leans too much on the artistic ideology side imo. But I think that would be much more the controversial claim and more difficult to support - it's another 25k word topic in itself.
prodigal_erik 16y ago
They're making exceptionally tinkerer-hostile products. Maybe that culture exists inside Apple, but they're doing as much as they can to smother it among the general public.
- nl 16y ago
  MacBooks are pretty tinkering friendly (from the software point-of-view anyway). iOS devices aren't so much. But I think that spectrum of tinkerability shows the complete range of influences within the company, and could be a strength.

rudiger 16y ago

Great article. I haven't had time to read the whole thing, but I disagree with the characterization of Jaron Lanier as an artist who can't speak technically (as the author of this article surmises from a choice quotation). Mr. Lanier is a rather gifted hacker.

grovulent 16y ago
I think my characterisation of his overall understanding is perhaps not generous enough. I think I was a bit too incensed at the particular argument of his I was focusing on at the time. But the particular argument of his I was addressing is extremely poor. Perhaps this is more of a result of a lack of understanding about non-technologically related things like art etc... as opposed to his understanding of tech itself.

endlessvoid94 16y ago

This is an excellent piece. I'm afraid it's too long for most folks to read, which is really a shame. The whole time I was reading, I kept wondering how the web has affected our ability to focus and read, for example, long articles. 25000 words? Or a top 10 list? Hack the planet. Also, I think Richard Feynman is relevant here. In one of his Messenger Series lectures (I think it was the one about the distinction of past and future), he talks about how he believes the deepest understanding of humanity, and the universe in general comes from examining every aspect, no matter how distant from your own experience. The entire width of human experience tends to yield the most informed results -- breadth is better than depth, so to speak. Jack of all trades, and all that. We'll see.

grovulent 16y ago
I appreciate the compliment. I kinda knew it would not be read by many because of its length - so I didn't even bother to submit it to hacker news. But I was pleasantly surprised today to see it on the front page. I have been thinking about breaking it up into smaller articles - but something in me has resisted. The most important point requires the reader to stitch together a great number of different threads - and would be largely intelligible without the background. I tried to explain the idea over at esr's blog - because I thought the crowd there might be interested and might get it. Amusingly esr let loose at me (called me a sloppy thinker no less!) - and I realised it just couldn't be articulated in small bytes of info. But yeah - intimacy comes at a great cost of time - the time spent really getting to know a person through great chats and extended exploration. This article assumes intimacy with the world because of the time required to invest in it. But if just a few people like yourself get a chance to look at it - and maybe even refine some of the ideas (which they certainly need) - then that's good enough for a first effort.
- endlessvoid94 16y ago
  Splitting it up would definitely detract from the point. I doubt many would discern the irony in it. One thing that's relevant: very few "hackers" obtain really good, close friends early in life. I've been lucky to have found a few very, very good friendships in middle and high school, and very few since. It continually amazes me how shallow and disconnected most people remain for most of their lives -- I find myself coming back to old friendships constantly (in terms of thinking about how we relate to each other). For example, playing in a band in high school was educational. Being so intimate (in certain ways) with my friends to a point where we could play musically and make mistakes and recover through mere eye contact was quite an experience. It's something that's difficult to replicate, especially in a field that's so disconnected from human contact. I really appreciated this article because it articulated something I've felt for a long time but haven't been disciplined enough to accurately reflect upon.

wazoox 16y ago

Hum. Completely artificial distinction. I'm both an artist and an hacker, and so are countless other peoples. Was Leonardo Da Vinci an artist, or a hacker? The most preposterous part is when he conflates "philosophers" with artists, this is ridiculous. Was Descartes an artist? Leibniz? Newton? Overall, this is an irrational, artistic piece, and too long with that :)

grovulent 16y ago
Just because someone like you is both and artist and hacker doesn't mean the analysis of the two as distinct tendencies does not have any validity. Part of what is frustrating about your reply (which I received a lot over at esr's blog) is that we're actually on the same side. While I'm invoking the distinction you're deriding - nevertheless I'm arguing that those who embody more one side than the other should try to balance their approach... and in fact become more like you - should you in fact be someone that has fused those tendencies in a balanced way. So what are you arguing against here exactly? As for the conflation between artists and philosophers - it was a necessary simplification because I don't have another hundred thousand words worth of time to explicate the commonalities and the differences as I see them. I'm doing a phd in analytic philosophy - so I have some understanding. For the purposes of this article one can assume that the important commonality between the two is that they both have a tendency toward the production of ideology in one form or another. If you want to disagree with that claim - go ahead. But for me to care you'll have to do more than simply claim that I'm ridiculous. Pony up with an argument or be silent.
- wazoox 16y ago
  > For the purposes of this article one can assume that the important commonality between the two is that they both have a tendency toward the production of ideology in one form or another. I'd say that Philosophy, like science, produces narratives to explain the world. This is very different from art, which never pretended to provide any explanation. As such, I don't think that non-verbal art generally produces an ideology. An artist, usually does, though, but not through his/her art, through additional, parallel works or discourses. See for instance, Dali's or Berlioz' books; or simply talk about music or painting with a musician, or a painter. The art narrative definitely is outside the scope of art itself. I suppose most verbal art (litterature, poetry, etc) can carry an ideology. I don't know if the idea system is part of art itself, though. We could debate that an artist' impressions are used to utter his/her idea system without being part of it per se. I suppose here a strict formalist approach to art. Some people would disagree, however I don't think any other approach to be mainstream nowadays. Your description of art and artists strangely rely upon obsolete 19th century notions, I don't know if it's an elaborate trick or a lack of knowledge of modern art, but it hampers your dissertation; these "romantic views" were more or less dead in 1917 both with Duchamps' fountain and dodecaphonism. > But for me to care you'll have to do more than simply claim that I'm ridiculous. Pony up with an argument or be silent. Sorry to have hurt you. I couldn't resist the urge to cry with the trolls. The writing of this piece is way too much casually conversational and magazine-y to be taken too seriously.

thret 16y ago

But I want you to know from the bottom of my hearth that this won’t be true. *heart (ahah, yes. There is my contribution) I like both Wordsworth and The Dark Crystal, but your thesis is drowning in prose. The majority of your intended audience cannot swim.

grovulent 16y ago
I agree - the artist in me wrote it for me - selfish creatures that we are. I really never expected anyone to read it - let alone see it on the front page of hn. But I'm sincere about the efforts to change my ways. I'm writing much less and coding a lot more. ;)
- stuhacking 16y ago
  A collection of essays like this would make a very nice book. It's taking me a while to read in short bursts during work ("It's compiling.") but I'm determined to finish.