3 ms·

Of course I think you have it wrong here (and I don't really appreciate being told that I have a lack of comprehension, nor having my argument misrepresented in

by shawnz 5y ago

Of course I think you have it wrong here (and I don't really appreciate being told that I have a lack of comprehension, nor having my argument misrepresented in such a way. Perhaps try to consider the counterarguments being made in this thread more charitably). I think Nelson's point was that the computer is a strict superset of those previous forms of writing. It doesn't need to replace every single instance of pen and paper, or Rolodex, or secretarial staff, but there's no reason why it shouldn't in any case where the cost is low enough. I think that the argument that the smartphone's UI is more synchronous than those past technologies is true in some ways but it's a weak one: that's easily solved by just having multiple computers, or multiple terminals (or most likely a desktop and a smartphone). If that is not yet cheap enough, that's still fine, because you could simply continue to use the smartphone together with a notepad or secretary until it is cheap enough (as many do today). If people are choosing to forgo those past technologies in exchange for a more synchronous UI today, I don't think it's because they are not imaginative enough to understand that notepads can still be used. It is simply because they are willing to accept a somewhat more synchronous interface in exchange for a vastly more efficient ability to execute those tasks synchronously. Or, perhaps they simply don't find it to be too synchronous: after all, we only have two ears and two eyes, so there is a limit to the advantage of having multiple channels, and perhaps modern smartphone users are just very effective at maximizing the bandwidth of that interface (considering how many have pointed out here that there are many options for multitasking on smartphones).

dredmorbius 5y ago
Again: That really is a favourite interview. I'm familiar with Nelson's work. I agree with many of his views, differ strongly on others. I also stand by what I said: it's easy to focus on what you know, and to ignore or discount foreign experiences, whether local or distant, or future or past. One of Nelson's problems is that he's not an effective communicator when talking to the general public. He has advanced ideas. He certainly feels strongly about them. Some are valid, though I suspect others ... not quite so much. In particular he falls into one of the classic technologist's fallacies: seeing the potential benefits of a tool, process, or technology, but not its drawbacks. Most especially the emergent drawbacks. If you look at the contemporary litany of complaints about technology (spam, advertising, censorship, propaganda, surveillance, manipulation, clickbait, adware, attention fragmentation, an ever-expanding security attack surface and threat model, platform complexity, an obsolescence treadmill, fragile systems, business-model / monetisation challenges, etc., etc.), I think you'll find that Nelson didn't anticipate them, and even now doesn't much address them. These are inherent to the type and level of technology we've adopted. By contrast, the limits of paper reduce much of that. The limits of paper do pose numerous other challenges. This is a trade-off. But that is my point: to consider the specific affordances and drawbacks of each approach, to look closely at the overall structure and system, and to think critically about which of those aspectare truly valuable, and which constitute blocks too true value (to the end-user, as opposed to value-extraction by a hardware vendor or service provider). My comment above does have its cheeky aspect. But I'm completely serious about the overall point: that there's a blindness to the unfamiliar, and that it works both ways. Maybe in another 20--30 years you'll have a better understanding of this.

by shawnz 5y ago

dredmorbius 5y ago

Again: That really is a favourite interview. I'm familiar with Nelson's work. I agree with many of his views, differ strongly on others. I also stand by what I said: it's easy to focus on what you know, and to ignore or discount foreign experiences, whether local or distant, or future or past. One of Nelson's problems is that he's not an effective communicator when talking to the general public. He has advanced ideas. He certainly feels strongly about them. Some are valid, though I suspect others ... not quite so much. In particular he falls into one of the classic technologist's fallacies: seeing the potential benefits of a tool, process, or technology, but not its drawbacks. Most especially the emergent drawbacks. If you look at the contemporary litany of complaints about technology (spam, advertising, censorship, propaganda, surveillance, manipulation, clickbait, adware, attention fragmentation, an ever-expanding security attack surface and threat model, platform complexity, an obsolescence treadmill, fragile systems, business-model / monetisation challenges, etc., etc.), I think you'll find that Nelson didn't anticipate them, and even now doesn't much address them. These are inherent to the type and level of technology we've adopted. By contrast, the limits of paper reduce much of that. The limits of paper do pose numerous other challenges. This is a trade-off. But that is my point: to consider the specific affordances and drawbacks of each approach, to look closely at the overall structure and system, and to think critically about which of those aspectare truly valuable, and which constitute blocks too true value (to the end-user, as opposed to value-extraction by a hardware vendor or service provider). My comment above does have its cheeky aspect. But I'm completely serious about the overall point: that there's a blindness to the unfamiliar, and that it works both ways. Maybe in another 20--30 years you'll have a better understanding of this.