3 ms·

Glaring paywall in the article obscuring the actual statement/conclusion aside, I recommend reading "The Chinese Typewriter : A History" by Thomas S. Mullaney (

Glaring paywall in the article obscuring the actual statement/conclusion aside, I recommend reading "The Chinese Typewriter : A History" by Thomas S. Mullaney (ISBN 9780262536103). The book covers a lot about Chinese language(s) adaptation to an Information Age crisis brought by technologies based on primarily Western/Latin alphabets, and how some of these adaptations paved the way for Chinese language's integration into the information technology world of today. I recommend approaching these topics without predetermined judgement on whether a language is inherently superior or inferior. Such biases are the last things we need in today's world full of division and tribalism.

navigate8310 4y ago
I didn't even realize the article was behind a paywall. Have you tried considering the use of extensions that bypass such artificial restrictions, especially scientific journals?
- UncleMeat 4y ago
  The linked article is the ad for the actual article, which requires you to be a paid subscriber to this person's substack. If you read the linked article only, you also didn't bypass the paywall.
  - socialdemocrat 4y ago
    Substack had 7 day free trial which can be canceled at any time
UncleMeat 4y ago
Yep this is the winning strategy. Actual historians rather than random software engineers dabbling in history writing essays with minimal citation. I find it baffling how little the software community seems to care for the expertise of historians. There are so many books written by professionals who have spent thousands and thousands of hours on these topics that are available for access.
socialdemocrat 4y ago
You can read the rest of the article by signing up for a 7-day free trial. You don't have to be a paid member. The article isn't suggesting one language is superior to another, but that one printing technique was a superior to another at some point in time. If one cannot recognize that then we are getting a bit too touchy when discussing history of technology. The point here is to understand why the printing press had such an impact Europe, while existence of movable type in China and Korea did not have the same impact. It is about understanding historical developments.
- ssnistfajen 4y ago
  Nothing touchy about pointing out the risk of misinfo. And the book I mentioned is exactly about historical developments, as some of the most commonly used Chinese typewriters heavily resembled movable type printing press up until they were replaced with computers. A real book with real research instead of a bite-sized paywalled blog article. In a day and age where Chinese language content occupies a significant portion of the Internet, there are still people who claim the non-alphabetical nature of the language is somehow a conspiracy at monopolizing knowledge. What's so touchy about recognizing some people being stuck in 19th century mentalities (not the author of the article, but the crowd these articles inevitably attract) are perhaps not the most credible?
  - socialdemocrat 4y ago
    As the article author I want to point out that my aim is to popularize and present different angles on a variety of topics. I am not trying to do original research and thus I don't think it is fair to compare my writing to that. Also my writing isn't primarily about printing. I am trying to cover more broadly the period from 1500 to 1700 where one saw European powers starting to dominate world affairs. Understanding why Europe rose to prominence requires looking at several different aspects such as development of glass technology, mechanical clocks, navigation, gun powder weapons and printing. If I was writing and publishing a book then that would be my topic. Naturally when printing isn't really the main topic of the book, but part of a larger narrative then you cannot cover that as extensively as a book which is ONLY about printing which is what you are talking about. My writing isn't concerned with Chinese typewriters as that would come at a much later date when Western dominance has already been well established. I didn't actually know that there are people who think Chinese letters are a conspiracy to monopolize knowledge. That is a very bizarre belief indeed. I certainly use slightly tabloid headlines, but they are a reflection of what the article is about and I think it will become clear to anyone reading through the article that isn't meant to be some kind of civilization scorecard or competition. I have seen a MAGA republican retweet the article, but if they follow more of my writing I think they would be rather disappointed. I am generally promoting a fairly leftist view in my writing, so not really what would appeal to conservatives.

navigate8310 4y ago

I didn't even realize the article was behind a paywall. Have you tried considering the use of extensions that bypass such artificial restrictions, especially scientific journals?

UncleMeat 4y ago
The linked article is the ad for the actual article, which requires you to be a paid subscriber to this person's substack. If you read the linked article only, you also didn't bypass the paywall.
- socialdemocrat 4y ago
  Substack had 7 day free trial which can be canceled at any time

UncleMeat 4y ago

Yep this is the winning strategy. Actual historians rather than random software engineers dabbling in history writing essays with minimal citation. I find it baffling how little the software community seems to care for the expertise of historians. There are so many books written by professionals who have spent thousands and thousands of hours on these topics that are available for access.

socialdemocrat 4y ago

You can read the rest of the article by signing up for a 7-day free trial. You don't have to be a paid member. The article isn't suggesting one language is superior to another, but that one printing technique was a superior to another at some point in time. If one cannot recognize that then we are getting a bit too touchy when discussing history of technology. The point here is to understand why the printing press had such an impact Europe, while existence of movable type in China and Korea did not have the same impact. It is about understanding historical developments.

ssnistfajen 4y ago
Nothing touchy about pointing out the risk of misinfo. And the book I mentioned is exactly about historical developments, as some of the most commonly used Chinese typewriters heavily resembled movable type printing press up until they were replaced with computers. A real book with real research instead of a bite-sized paywalled blog article. In a day and age where Chinese language content occupies a significant portion of the Internet, there are still people who claim the non-alphabetical nature of the language is somehow a conspiracy at monopolizing knowledge. What's so touchy about recognizing some people being stuck in 19th century mentalities (not the author of the article, but the crowd these articles inevitably attract) are perhaps not the most credible?
- socialdemocrat 4y ago
  As the article author I want to point out that my aim is to popularize and present different angles on a variety of topics. I am not trying to do original research and thus I don't think it is fair to compare my writing to that. Also my writing isn't primarily about printing. I am trying to cover more broadly the period from 1500 to 1700 where one saw European powers starting to dominate world affairs. Understanding why Europe rose to prominence requires looking at several different aspects such as development of glass technology, mechanical clocks, navigation, gun powder weapons and printing. If I was writing and publishing a book then that would be my topic. Naturally when printing isn't really the main topic of the book, but part of a larger narrative then you cannot cover that as extensively as a book which is ONLY about printing which is what you are talking about. My writing isn't concerned with Chinese typewriters as that would come at a much later date when Western dominance has already been well established. I didn't actually know that there are people who think Chinese letters are a conspiracy to monopolize knowledge. That is a very bizarre belief indeed. I certainly use slightly tabloid headlines, but they are a reflection of what the article is about and I think it will become clear to anyone reading through the article that isn't meant to be some kind of civilization scorecard or competition. I have seen a MAGA republican retweet the article, but if they follow more of my writing I think they would be rather disappointed. I am generally promoting a fairly leftist view in my writing, so not really what would appeal to conservatives.