3 ms·

Laying the blame for programmers writing crappy software at the feet of the mythical "idiot" user who could never comprehend a "better" system is one of the cor

Laying the blame for programmers writing crappy software at the feet of the mythical "idiot" user who could never comprehend a "better" system is one of the core problems why computers today suck as much as they do. While it is certainly true that many users don't share the enthusiasm for computers many of us have and they may often also be quite unwilling to learn complex systems for small productivity boosts, it is by no means true that they are all just to dumb to be empowered by computers. They do mostly lack the frame of reference what could even be possible with these machines (As do many programmers today) and thus seldom address the big issues they face. Application starting up slow? They all do that and there are some even slower, so computers are just slow, right? Having to click through 15 Menus to activate an often used function? Nobody ever told them there was a convenient shortcut (And since they don't know it and thus never use it, it will get removed in the next version, hooray for telemetry!) This also extends to programmers more and more. Processing 2000 Records takes 20 seconds? That's good! Have you seen this other app! We are fast! That UI is crap! No matter, I will never use it, lets install complexopensourcetoolnotfornoobs. One difference the article also points out is that in the early days of computing, many of these today revered (or sadly forgotten) hackers actually wanted to bring computing power to the masses. They were not satisfied with dumbing it down or building it only for themselves. We need more of this sentiment today. If every developer would use the software they build, it surely would be much more performant, easier to use and powerful under the hood. While it may seem impossible sometimes to get all these at once, we should always strive for better computing and ease of use != dumbing down!

betwixthewires 4y ago
It isn't that the software is crappy (though a lot of it is), it's that it's what people buy. They'll buy a TV that has hardware on it to overlay ads on what they're watching just because it has the YouTube app built in. They'll buy toasters that require OTA updates. The eternal September of the internet began with the invention of the iPhone. I think the OG hackers were overly optimistic, call it solipsism, but we are talking about people who double right click. The address bar now almost universally integrates search functionality because lots of people just couldn't grasp the concept of clicking s different box or going to a search site first. And that's just the bottom of the barrel. There are plenty of smart people reading this right now with 6 figure jobs in silicon valley who have an Alexa in every room. But my comment wasn't about the mythical idiot. It's not about how smart they are. People want what they want. It's not that they're stupid, it's that they're not interested. They'd be watching TV 5 hours a day in 1995, and they're doomscrolling Facebook right now. And if you're not like that, if you don't want to live the lives they do, then you should use other things rather than complain that things designed for them don't work for you.
- Grumbledour 4y ago
  I don't think your dismissive attitude towards people does you many favors and I wonder if it's a lack of empathy on your part or frustration from watching people doing the wrong thing over and over, which I also experience a lot. But if you look at a single being as a person instead of just one sheep, their reasoning is, even if sometimes short-sighted, often sound for their circumstances. There are many pros and cons to decisions and many of the cons concerning surveillance, locked down functionality etc. are often pretty abstract and far away. The problem with many of these technologies is not really what they do today, but rather were it may lead when the become the number one choice and that is much harder for a single person to evaluate or care about. Especially since choice often is an illusion and you can either accept the drawbacks (which in reality will rarely actually affect yourself) or stand out in the rain with your principles intact. The just as mythical market people like to uphold here on hacker news does not serve differences of sensibilities here. Either get a phone/tv/computer with tracking or ads, or get one which can not play online video. Either get a digital assistant that tracks your every move (though you probably will suffer no drawbacks because of this) or get none at all. Those are bad choices and as much as it aggravates me if people just shrug, I also find it often very hard to tell them of an alternative, because the alternative is more often than not not to play at all. (Or, if someone wants to mention the small subset of open source solutions, paying a hefty premium for years out of date hardware and buggy to non functioning software, of course only if you are even aware they exist!) I find it really difficult to fault people for that, unless we take the broader view and fault them for the system itself.
  - betwixthewires 4y ago
    I don't disagree. There's no lack of empathy. My only point is, things are made for people that will use them. If you don't like those things then that means they're not for you, use something else instead of complain about it.
    - Grumbledour 4y ago
      And that is exactly what I try to argue against. I think its a fair assumption here on hacker news, that most users are creators rather than consumers. And as such, the piece of software they "would never use" is very likely one they (or one of their peers) wrote. I don't think it is a particularly good look to write adtech by day and run ublock by night, but even more than that it is also hardly sustainable. The custom solutions we run in our ivory towers and don't share with the plebes get harder and harder to create on bad, locked down platforms we help build for "them". And I also think the assumption, that when it does not serve us, it serves them well, is also a false one. They may not know better, because they are not creators, but I think most folk have realized that computers and software often acts against their users interest. So, who is supposed to change this, if not the people who have the knowledge and do actually build these systems? Just saying "I use something else and its their fault for not doing the same" does only make us accomplices in making the world worse for all.

betwixthewires 4y ago

It isn't that the software is crappy (though a lot of it is), it's that it's what people buy. They'll buy a TV that has hardware on it to overlay ads on what they're watching just because it has the YouTube app built in. They'll buy toasters that require OTA updates. The eternal September of the internet began with the invention of the iPhone. I think the OG hackers were overly optimistic, call it solipsism, but we are talking about people who double right click. The address bar now almost universally integrates search functionality because lots of people just couldn't grasp the concept of clicking s different box or going to a search site first. And that's just the bottom of the barrel. There are plenty of smart people reading this right now with 6 figure jobs in silicon valley who have an Alexa in every room. But my comment wasn't about the mythical idiot. It's not about how smart they are. People want what they want. It's not that they're stupid, it's that they're not interested. They'd be watching TV 5 hours a day in 1995, and they're doomscrolling Facebook right now. And if you're not like that, if you don't want to live the lives they do, then you should use other things rather than complain that things designed for them don't work for you.

Grumbledour 4y ago
I don't think your dismissive attitude towards people does you many favors and I wonder if it's a lack of empathy on your part or frustration from watching people doing the wrong thing over and over, which I also experience a lot. But if you look at a single being as a person instead of just one sheep, their reasoning is, even if sometimes short-sighted, often sound for their circumstances. There are many pros and cons to decisions and many of the cons concerning surveillance, locked down functionality etc. are often pretty abstract and far away. The problem with many of these technologies is not really what they do today, but rather were it may lead when the become the number one choice and that is much harder for a single person to evaluate or care about. Especially since choice often is an illusion and you can either accept the drawbacks (which in reality will rarely actually affect yourself) or stand out in the rain with your principles intact. The just as mythical market people like to uphold here on hacker news does not serve differences of sensibilities here. Either get a phone/tv/computer with tracking or ads, or get one which can not play online video. Either get a digital assistant that tracks your every move (though you probably will suffer no drawbacks because of this) or get none at all. Those are bad choices and as much as it aggravates me if people just shrug, I also find it often very hard to tell them of an alternative, because the alternative is more often than not not to play at all. (Or, if someone wants to mention the small subset of open source solutions, paying a hefty premium for years out of date hardware and buggy to non functioning software, of course only if you are even aware they exist!) I find it really difficult to fault people for that, unless we take the broader view and fault them for the system itself.
- betwixthewires 4y ago
  I don't disagree. There's no lack of empathy. My only point is, things are made for people that will use them. If you don't like those things then that means they're not for you, use something else instead of complain about it.
  - Grumbledour 4y ago
    And that is exactly what I try to argue against. I think its a fair assumption here on hacker news, that most users are creators rather than consumers. And as such, the piece of software they "would never use" is very likely one they (or one of their peers) wrote. I don't think it is a particularly good look to write adtech by day and run ublock by night, but even more than that it is also hardly sustainable. The custom solutions we run in our ivory towers and don't share with the plebes get harder and harder to create on bad, locked down platforms we help build for "them". And I also think the assumption, that when it does not serve us, it serves them well, is also a false one. They may not know better, because they are not creators, but I think most folk have realized that computers and software often acts against their users interest. So, who is supposed to change this, if not the people who have the knowledge and do actually build these systems? Just saying "I use something else and its their fault for not doing the same" does only make us accomplices in making the world worse for all.