4 ms·

> All three documents were highly aspirational, in that they pointed to a vision of the world the authors wanted to see, though the specific mechanisms and impl

> All three documents were highly aspirational, in that they pointed to a vision of the world the authors wanted to see, though the specific mechanisms and implications were less than clear You say that as if there is no space for such documents in the world. There clearly are, and setting out aspirations as a way of inspiring people is not a Bad Thing.

dredmorbius 3y ago
Of course there's a place for documents which attempt to make the world a better place. I'm not arguing against the genre, I'm arguing against ineffective application of the genre. If I can try to make clearer what I find dissatisfying about the set of documents I mention: - They rely very strongly on vague concepts and warm sentiments without being specific as to either problems, goals, or solutions.[1] - There's little by way of empirical support for the models or methods suggested. There's a lot of ought and not much is. - Overreliance on an appeal to emotion or sentiment. - Their track record at achieving what vague goals they have specified is ... slim. Again, the contrast I suggest is the GNU Manifesto which, quite arguably, singlehandedly overturned the entire software industry. I'll also note that "Cluetrain" and JPB's "Manifesto" both strongly reflect the personalities of their authors. I've met Doc and John, and in person they're well-intentioned charismatic people. But in providing a foundation for a technologically-grounded cultural and political movement ... less effective than they could have been. ________________________________ Notes: 1. See my Hierarchy of Failures in Problem Resolution here: <https://web.archive.org/web/20230323113746/https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2fsr0g/hierarchy_of_failures_in_problem_resolution/ https://web.archive.org/web/20230323113746/https://old.reddi...>, which I've mentioned numerous times on HN: <https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adredmorbius%20hierarchy%20of%20failure&sort=byPopularity&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...>
pasquinelli 3y ago
part of their value is in seeing how, exactly (with the benefit of hindsight), their authors got it wrong.

dredmorbius 3y ago

Of course there's a place for documents which attempt to make the world a better place. I'm not arguing against the genre, I'm arguing against ineffective application of the genre. If I can try to make clearer what I find dissatisfying about the set of documents I mention: - They rely very strongly on vague concepts and warm sentiments without being specific as to either problems, goals, or solutions.[1] - There's little by way of empirical support for the models or methods suggested. There's a lot of ought and not much is. - Overreliance on an appeal to emotion or sentiment. - Their track record at achieving what vague goals they have specified is ... slim. Again, the contrast I suggest is the GNU Manifesto which, quite arguably, singlehandedly overturned the entire software industry. I'll also note that "Cluetrain" and JPB's "Manifesto" both strongly reflect the personalities of their authors. I've met Doc and John, and in person they're well-intentioned charismatic people. But in providing a foundation for a technologically-grounded cultural and political movement ... less effective than they could have been. ________________________________ Notes: 1. See my Hierarchy of Failures in Problem Resolution here: <https://web.archive.org/web/20230323113746/https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2fsr0g/hierarchy_of_failures_in_problem_resolution/ https://web.archive.org/web/20230323113746/https://old.reddi...>, which I've mentioned numerous times on HN: <https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adredmorbius%20hierarchy%20of%20failure&sort=byPopularity&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...>

pasquinelli 3y ago

part of their value is in seeing how, exactly (with the benefit of hindsight), their authors got it wrong.