4 ms·

My read was similar, I also couldn’t get through Lo and Behold which set off bullshit alarms [0] and just gave me the impression of confidence being used in the

My read was similar, I also couldn’t get through Lo and Behold which set off bullshit alarms [0] and just gave me the impression of confidence being used in the place of actual explanation. It feels like an emperor has no clothes situation. For some reason people think it signals high status or intellectualism to like Herzog so they say they do. I haven’t watched all of his movies so this may be unfairly harsh, but that was my initial impression. Portal podcast also came across that way to me. First interview with Thiel was interesting, but I stopped somewhere after the next couple. Too much “the media doesn’t want us to talk about this” and “the Clintons are a globalist conspiracy against the people”. If you have real arguments then make them. Don’t just confidently state things as fact without backing them up. Thankfully when Sam Harris was on he at least pushed back on some of the bullshit. [0]: https://youtu.be/Bqx6li5dbEY https://youtu.be/Bqx6li5dbEY

baryphonic 6y ago
Okay, I'm curious: why did Ted Nelson set off the BS-meter in Lo and Behold? Project Xanadu may have been the longest vaporware project in history, but Nelson himself is well-respected by many others, some of whom are near-universally respected (e.g. Alan Kay and Woz).
- fossuser 6y ago
  I saw the documentary on Netflix and was excited that it might be about Licklider and that part of computing history which I had read some about. I have a natural aversion when people talk about things in kind of vague mystical ways (the fingers running through the water), or when they confidently state something without stating why (complaining that copy/paste was some disaster to humanity, but not actually saying or explaining anything about it). I like when documentaries or experts love their topic and revel in breaking it down and explaining it clearly. Some of the smartest people I know are also the first to help explain a complicated topic they're interested in to a curious lay person. The documentary did the opposite for me, taking an interesting topic and using confusing non-explanations to make it seems more confusing than it is. This really bothers me because it makes the curious person think it's beyond their understanding, when usually it's the person explaining that's just making it hard to understand. It felt like the director was pushing more complexity because it made it seem more 'magical', but magic is the opposite of clarity. This could be unfairly uncharitable since it's only a short clip (and I don't know much about Ted Nelson - though I have read a lot about and respect Kay and Woz), but my impression from this was negative.
  - baryphonic 6y ago
    I enjoyed the film, but it was not what I expected going in. (To be honest, the Ted Nelson scene is one of the few I remember from the movie. Though I do recall he wandered around the National Radio Quiet Zone to meet some eccentric folks, and he also went to the room at UCLA where one of the first ARPANET messages was sent to SRI.) I would ultimately like to see a well-made, intelligently crafted documentary (or even documentary mini-series) about the actual creation of the Internet that does emphasize that it's not some arcane subject that only wizards can understand (though it should portray the people who invented this stuff ex nihilo as the geniuses that they are). I do agree with Ted about copy-paste though. ;) Thanks for sharing!

baryphonic 6y ago

Okay, I'm curious: why did Ted Nelson set off the BS-meter in Lo and Behold? Project Xanadu may have been the longest vaporware project in history, but Nelson himself is well-respected by many others, some of whom are near-universally respected (e.g. Alan Kay and Woz).

fossuser 6y ago
I saw the documentary on Netflix and was excited that it might be about Licklider and that part of computing history which I had read some about. I have a natural aversion when people talk about things in kind of vague mystical ways (the fingers running through the water), or when they confidently state something without stating why (complaining that copy/paste was some disaster to humanity, but not actually saying or explaining anything about it). I like when documentaries or experts love their topic and revel in breaking it down and explaining it clearly. Some of the smartest people I know are also the first to help explain a complicated topic they're interested in to a curious lay person. The documentary did the opposite for me, taking an interesting topic and using confusing non-explanations to make it seems more confusing than it is. This really bothers me because it makes the curious person think it's beyond their understanding, when usually it's the person explaining that's just making it hard to understand. It felt like the director was pushing more complexity because it made it seem more 'magical', but magic is the opposite of clarity. This could be unfairly uncharitable since it's only a short clip (and I don't know much about Ted Nelson - though I have read a lot about and respect Kay and Woz), but my impression from this was negative.
- baryphonic 6y ago
  I enjoyed the film, but it was not what I expected going in. (To be honest, the Ted Nelson scene is one of the few I remember from the movie. Though I do recall he wandered around the National Radio Quiet Zone to meet some eccentric folks, and he also went to the room at UCLA where one of the first ARPANET messages was sent to SRI.) I would ultimately like to see a well-made, intelligently crafted documentary (or even documentary mini-series) about the actual creation of the Internet that does emphasize that it's not some arcane subject that only wizards can understand (though it should portray the people who invented this stuff ex nihilo as the geniuses that they are). I do agree with Ted about copy-paste though. ;) Thanks for sharing!