4 ms·

Right conclusion, wrong rationale. The oppressiveness of computers comes from the fact that they can only exist through mass production techniques. Much of the

by jl6 4y ago

Right conclusion, wrong rationale. The oppressiveness of computers comes from the fact that they can only exist through mass production techniques. Much of the cost-efficiency of computing comes from operating fabs at ever increasing economies of scale. Our current set of devices couldn’t exist without hundreds of millions of people coming together to work on the common purpose of producing those devices and their supply chains. When you become dependent on mass industry, your own wants and needs become subservient to the needs of the masses. The reason why you can’t buy a premium phone with a headphone jack is because the masses (markets, customers and corporations together) collectively decided not to make one, and you can’t afford $10bn to build your own parallel manufacturing line. Today, advancement in computer technology means building ever bigger, ever more complex manufacturing capability, far beyond the human-scale. When you use a computer, you are signing up to be part of that mass scale industrial complex - the machine that builds the machines. (And by the way, this is the machine you were supposed to be raging against, not your phone). It doesn’t necessarily have to be this way. We could develop local manufacturing techniques that could be controlled and operated by individual people. But it’s hard to see how we climb down to that level from where we are.

Santosh83 4y ago
> It doesn’t necessarily have to be this way. We could develop local manufacturing techniques that could be controlled and operated by individual people. But it’s hard to see how we climb down to that level from where we are. How would that work? Unfortunately computers depend on a slew of mining industries plus advanced lithography, all heavily protected by IP. No existing player is incentivised to open up their techniques or make them more accessible. I could however imagine that it's fairly simple to build 1970s level computers today by any significant private or nation state entity. Sadly they'd be totally outcompeted by modern systems and won't be able to peer with them, and won't be attractive to the general public.
prooper 4y ago
> The reason why you can’t buy a premium phone with a headphone jack is because the masses (markets, customers and corporations together) collectively decided not to make one, and you can’t afford $10bn to build your own parallel manufacturing line. These design and manufacturing decisions are made by a very small number of people. Consumers buy the items that are successfully marketed to them by advertisers, not because they en masse collectively requested something. This is an oligarchy, not a democracy.
sokoloff 4y ago
You can’t afford a premium (new) phone with a headphone jack under mass production. I argue that most people couldn’t afford a premium phone with a headphone jack if mass customization was the dominant industrial paradigm and basically no one could afford it if full customization was the way we went. Cars, appliances, electronics, books, and clothing have become wildly cheaper (and therefore more accessible) because of society’s mass adoption of industrial production. It’s not that we couldn’t revert to local, craft-based production; it’s that the relative inefficiency would make that unattractive to the vast majority of people.
Karrot_Kream 4y ago
> It doesn’t necessarily have to be this way. We could develop local manufacturing techniques that could be controlled and operated by individual people. But it’s hard to see how we climb down to that level from where we are. By utilizing older processes that have become more commoditized. A large part of why creating computers requires so much centralization is that the R&D (not just theoretical, but also developments in layout, lithography, air filtration, etc, etc.) necessary is expensive so development costs must be kept low through centralization to pay R&D costs back. This isn't the case for older processes who have had their R&D paid back through massive runs. This is why you have so many crowdfunded hardware platforms targeting more niche usecases that use older chipsets, boards, and processes. As usual, the answer lies in either trying to work in the current landscape to bring the change you want or to fund the creators that are doing this. I'd love to see a fab run and operated by a small company or cooperative specializing in working with more bespoke firms creating products for smaller audiences. Costs would be a bit higher as these runs would lack the economies of scale and labor centralization that occurs with current flagship chip designs, but it's a small price to pay (pun not intended) for variety.
- trinsic2 4y ago
  This is a good point. There are people that want decisions around computer technology to be humane. They form groups that change this landscape for the better, and if its revolutionary, the rest follow suit. I think that the Framework Laptop is a good example of redefining technology to improve the impact on our environment and create more freedom for people who want there devices more repairable. Its not perfect, as we are still living in a world of propitiatory hardware, but this project has the capability to change that landscape as well, where its needed. Consider support Frameworks mission
  - Karrot_Kream 4y ago
    100%. Framework and the MNT Reform were what I had in mind writing the comment.

by jl6 4y ago

Santosh83 4y ago

> It doesn’t necessarily have to be this way. We could develop local manufacturing techniques that could be controlled and operated by individual people. But it’s hard to see how we climb down to that level from where we are. How would that work? Unfortunately computers depend on a slew of mining industries plus advanced lithography, all heavily protected by IP. No existing player is incentivised to open up their techniques or make them more accessible. I could however imagine that it's fairly simple to build 1970s level computers today by any significant private or nation state entity. Sadly they'd be totally outcompeted by modern systems and won't be able to peer with them, and won't be attractive to the general public.

prooper 4y ago

> The reason why you can’t buy a premium phone with a headphone jack is because the masses (markets, customers and corporations together) collectively decided not to make one, and you can’t afford $10bn to build your own parallel manufacturing line. These design and manufacturing decisions are made by a very small number of people. Consumers buy the items that are successfully marketed to them by advertisers, not because they en masse collectively requested something. This is an oligarchy, not a democracy.

sokoloff 4y ago

You can’t afford a premium (new) phone with a headphone jack under mass production. I argue that most people couldn’t afford a premium phone with a headphone jack if mass customization was the dominant industrial paradigm and basically no one could afford it if full customization was the way we went. Cars, appliances, electronics, books, and clothing have become wildly cheaper (and therefore more accessible) because of society’s mass adoption of industrial production. It’s not that we couldn’t revert to local, craft-based production; it’s that the relative inefficiency would make that unattractive to the vast majority of people.

Karrot_Kream 4y ago

> It doesn’t necessarily have to be this way. We could develop local manufacturing techniques that could be controlled and operated by individual people. But it’s hard to see how we climb down to that level from where we are. By utilizing older processes that have become more commoditized. A large part of why creating computers requires so much centralization is that the R&D (not just theoretical, but also developments in layout, lithography, air filtration, etc, etc.) necessary is expensive so development costs must be kept low through centralization to pay R&D costs back. This isn't the case for older processes who have had their R&D paid back through massive runs. This is why you have so many crowdfunded hardware platforms targeting more niche usecases that use older chipsets, boards, and processes. As usual, the answer lies in either trying to work in the current landscape to bring the change you want or to fund the creators that are doing this. I'd love to see a fab run and operated by a small company or cooperative specializing in working with more bespoke firms creating products for smaller audiences. Costs would be a bit higher as these runs would lack the economies of scale and labor centralization that occurs with current flagship chip designs, but it's a small price to pay (pun not intended) for variety.

trinsic2 4y ago
This is a good point. There are people that want decisions around computer technology to be humane. They form groups that change this landscape for the better, and if its revolutionary, the rest follow suit. I think that the Framework Laptop is a good example of redefining technology to improve the impact on our environment and create more freedom for people who want there devices more repairable. Its not perfect, as we are still living in a world of propitiatory hardware, but this project has the capability to change that landscape as well, where its needed. Consider support Frameworks mission
- Karrot_Kream 4y ago
  100%. Framework and the MNT Reform were what I had in mind writing the comment.