5 ms·

I think this is a parody?

rjkennedy98 6y ago
> In this way the heavy burden of guilt can be lifted from the shoulders of the numerous project managers that have subconsciously devoted their careers to ensuring that projects rarely, if ever, succeed. Was totally thinking the same thing when I read this article. How could the above line be written seriously - PMs don't have guilt about destroying projects!
readarticle 6y ago
Some may misinterpret this article as satire. Surely it is not really desirable for software projects to fail. But the facts speak for themselves. Quite fun to read regardless!
segfaultbuserr 6y ago
No. I think he's serious. The same author also advocates that the manufacturing and distribution of high-performance processors should be outlawed and regulated as nuclear weapons in order to save humanity from a potential AI singularity [0]. Also, since the computing power we currently have may already be sufficient to run an AGI via distributed computing, destroying existing computers may be necessary. Finally, since he concluded that software projects don't really improve social productivity (in this article), that (high-performance) computers isn't a good idea to humanity in general, therefore, reverting back to the early 90s and asking everyone to use 10 MHz computers is an acceptable solution - you also solve the problem of software bloat simultaneously. In addition, he also suggested that patent trolls might actually be the saviors since they slow down the development of computing and AI. Later he extended these ideas to an entire book [1]. The author's ideas are highly unconventional, but I won't say it's unreasonable or even uncommon in tech - Bill Joy's Why The Future Doesn't Need Us shares similar concerns, the author simply took a much stronger position. [0] https://berglas.org/Articles/AIKillGrandchildren/AIKillGrandchildren.html https://berglas.org/Articles/AIKillGrandchildren/AIKillGrand... [1] http://computersthink.com/ http://computersthink.com/
- Joeri 6y ago
  I saw it more as a challenge. As with zeno’s paradox the reader is challenged to find the flaw in the logic. Maybe they are right. I often wonder about the point of building another CRUD form. We’ve taken paper forms and digitized the process, but haven’t really figured out how to avoid needing the form in the first place. Massive digital bureaucracies exist that are all about pushing around digital paperwork. It’s as if there was a twist of history that caused the development of mechanical horses pulling rubber tired carriages, instead of just inventing cars.
  - ClikeX 6y ago
    > but haven’t really figured out how to avoid needing the form in the first place. Most forms get digitized, then reworked later. Many digital agencies try to think beyond just forms and try to create smarter ways of getting data. Naturally this is done for clients that spend ludicrous amounts of money to get there. So you'll never see them in governments.

> In this way the heavy burden of guilt can be lifted from the shoulders of the numerous project managers that have subconsciously devoted their careers to ensuring that projects rarely, if ever, succeed. Was totally thinking the same thing when I read this article. How could the above line be written seriously - PMs don't have guilt about destroying projects!

readarticle 6y ago

Some may misinterpret this article as satire. Surely it is not really desirable for software projects to fail. But the facts speak for themselves. Quite fun to read regardless!

segfaultbuserr 6y ago

No. I think he's serious. The same author also advocates that the manufacturing and distribution of high-performance processors should be outlawed and regulated as nuclear weapons in order to save humanity from a potential AI singularity [0]. Also, since the computing power we currently have may already be sufficient to run an AGI via distributed computing, destroying existing computers may be necessary. Finally, since he concluded that software projects don't really improve social productivity (in this article), that (high-performance) computers isn't a good idea to humanity in general, therefore, reverting back to the early 90s and asking everyone to use 10 MHz computers is an acceptable solution - you also solve the problem of software bloat simultaneously. In addition, he also suggested that patent trolls might actually be the saviors since they slow down the development of computing and AI. Later he extended these ideas to an entire book [1]. The author's ideas are highly unconventional, but I won't say it's unreasonable or even uncommon in tech - Bill Joy's Why The Future Doesn't Need Us shares similar concerns, the author simply took a much stronger position. [0] https://berglas.org/Articles/AIKillGrandchildren/AIKillGrandchildren.html https://berglas.org/Articles/AIKillGrandchildren/AIKillGrand... [1] http://computersthink.com/ http://computersthink.com/

Joeri 6y ago
I saw it more as a challenge. As with zeno’s paradox the reader is challenged to find the flaw in the logic. Maybe they are right. I often wonder about the point of building another CRUD form. We’ve taken paper forms and digitized the process, but haven’t really figured out how to avoid needing the form in the first place. Massive digital bureaucracies exist that are all about pushing around digital paperwork. It’s as if there was a twist of history that caused the development of mechanical horses pulling rubber tired carriages, instead of just inventing cars.
- ClikeX 6y ago
  > but haven’t really figured out how to avoid needing the form in the first place. Most forms get digitized, then reworked later. Many digital agencies try to think beyond just forms and try to create smarter ways of getting data. Naturally this is done for clients that spend ludicrous amounts of money to get there. So you'll never see them in governments.