4 ms·

One thing Ive realized after working in software for a while is that software itself has very little ability to be applied in a way that is directly transformat

One thing Ive realized after working in software for a while is that software itself has very little ability to be applied in a way that is directly transformative to the human condition. By and large software is a tool to carry out an existing process or idea in a more efficient way, and in this regard it is a job-destroyer ready to eat the work of anyone who performs non-creative or intellectual tasks. This is what software does and the reason it can be so profitable - you can effectively capture the cost savings of automating very large processes. In fact the majority of startups when you strip them of their branding and buzzwords are just this ... they provide increased efficiency around an existing process whether it be social or business or otherwise. There is nothing inherently wrong with this in that it is the business of software. Additionally it also absolutely does not mean that these companies do not matter or are inconsequential but if you are looking for the true way software is transformational to the human condition, I think many are looking through the wrong lense completely... The way software is truly transformational to the human condition is by freeing more and more of us from doing mindless tasks that only feel good to some due the distortions our current educational system and perverted social incentives. We should be celebrating the destruction of automatable jobs so more of us can be free to live better in whatever way that may mean. This doesn't happen in reality because our current system gives little to no rewards for doing other things like living, experiencing, helping, or learning - what actually happens to those people is that they go without another job and flounder. There are very few ladders to guide anyone displaced and thats a shame because their energy could be used in an endless number of ways for society.

marquis 14y ago
>software itself has very little ability to be applied in a way that is directly transformative to the human condition I have to disagree on at least the area of communications. I travel all the time and if I'd have been doing this in the 90s I'd either have a hefty phone bill or I'd not be able to keep in touch with my family. More than likely, I'd not keep in touch with my friends and keep my friends, and know my place in this world through my friends. I agree, a lot of software is just convenience, such as better flight search that replaced my travel agent, or the ability to pay my bills online so when I get do home the power is still on. >The way software is truly transformational to the human condition is by freeing more and more of us from doing mindless tasks I also celebrate the destruction of the mindless job. I can't remember where I read this yesterday, but someone mentioned imagine you are having a conversation with yourself from 100 years ago: the amount of free time we have because of automation is astounding and I can only hope it gets better. I like to be creative on my free time, but the paradox is that I need a lot of free time to be creative. I find myself spending time on programming or thinking about the automating of tasks instead of just doing them once a week. I hope to find a balance over time and I do jump on anything that can save me from mundane activities.
michaelochurch 14y ago
I have a love/hate relationship with software. First of all, the idea that it's not "transformative" is nuts. Fifty years ago, I would have been a jaded businessman or attorney or investment banker and probably hate my work. Instead, I'm learning how to use pure logic to solve hard, important problems and have a more fulfilling life, because I have a real shot at getting so good that I can earn a living (a) decently and (b) without making obscene sacrifies. I'm training a neural network how to play a game at 7:30 on a Friday night on a fucking train. That's cool. The problem is that 90 percent of software is just bad. Really bad. Unusable code, horrific UIs, bad decisions that have calcified and cannot be reversed. So bad that much of our industry's total person-power is devoted to maintaining legacy messes and deciphering shitty code.
- moocow01 14y ago
  Probably should have been more explicit about the first statement - I agree that the profession can be transformative by the opportunities it creates for those involved. My first statement is meant to say that I think it is unlikely that an individual piece of software is going to be tansformative to the overall human condition in its application. Many will argue that Google, Facebook, etc. are counter examples - I agree with that to some extent in that there is probably some truth and some non-truth to that viewpoint depending on the perspective.
  - michaelochurch 14y ago
    A lot of it is about multiplier effects, which can be subtle. Google and Github make people better at their jobs (especially software engineers, who don't have to read horribly-written manuals for shitty commercial software, because they can now use excellent open-source tools and search for what they need). This speeds economic growth and innovation by making people more productive. Multiplier-dom (for lack of a better word) used to be for managers and executives only (although at least a third to one-half are dividers in most companies). Executives and capitalism could claim that they were the real producers and movers of progress and that the workers, "mere" adders. were hangers-on (Randism) but that's no longer the case. Now software engineers can be multipliers without access to capital or bureaucratic installation into a managerial role. Global economic growth is currently about 4% per year. That's the highest it's ever been, but there's no reason it can't be much higher-- possibly 20 or 30 percent per year. That seems radical, but in 1798 (Malthus) economic growth under 1%, and that (sub-1% global economic growth) had been the norm for eternity. Malthus was wrong mathematically in his assumption that economic growth was linear (even in pre-industrial times, the curve was exponential-- just a very slow exponential curve) but he was right about population increases outpacing economic growth and leading to disaster or war. That happened constantly in pre-industrial societies. It stopped happening in the developed world around 1850. Some time in the next two hundred years we'll probably see post-scarcity. I, for one, would love to see a post-scarcity world. I don't care if I live to be 1000 years old, in the sense that if we don't eradicate scarcity I don't want to live past my natural ~75-100 (even for the rich, the with-scarcity existence is too crappy to justify more than a century in such a world in one incarnation) but a post-scarcity would be worth seeing. Technology is a chance to contribute, in some small way, to the overarching effort to see that through.
apsurd 14y ago
The phrase is "by and large" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/by%20and%20large http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/by%20and%20large
- moocow01 14y ago
  Thanks - changed

marquis 14y ago

>software itself has very little ability to be applied in a way that is directly transformative to the human condition I have to disagree on at least the area of communications. I travel all the time and if I'd have been doing this in the 90s I'd either have a hefty phone bill or I'd not be able to keep in touch with my family. More than likely, I'd not keep in touch with my friends and keep my friends, and know my place in this world through my friends. I agree, a lot of software is just convenience, such as better flight search that replaced my travel agent, or the ability to pay my bills online so when I get do home the power is still on. >The way software is truly transformational to the human condition is by freeing more and more of us from doing mindless tasks I also celebrate the destruction of the mindless job. I can't remember where I read this yesterday, but someone mentioned imagine you are having a conversation with yourself from 100 years ago: the amount of free time we have because of automation is astounding and I can only hope it gets better. I like to be creative on my free time, but the paradox is that I need a lot of free time to be creative. I find myself spending time on programming or thinking about the automating of tasks instead of just doing them once a week. I hope to find a balance over time and I do jump on anything that can save me from mundane activities.

michaelochurch 14y ago

I have a love/hate relationship with software. First of all, the idea that it's not "transformative" is nuts. Fifty years ago, I would have been a jaded businessman or attorney or investment banker and probably hate my work. Instead, I'm learning how to use pure logic to solve hard, important problems and have a more fulfilling life, because I have a real shot at getting so good that I can earn a living (a) decently and (b) without making obscene sacrifies. I'm training a neural network how to play a game at 7:30 on a Friday night on a fucking train. That's cool. The problem is that 90 percent of software is just bad. Really bad. Unusable code, horrific UIs, bad decisions that have calcified and cannot be reversed. So bad that much of our industry's total person-power is devoted to maintaining legacy messes and deciphering shitty code.

moocow01 14y ago
Probably should have been more explicit about the first statement - I agree that the profession can be transformative by the opportunities it creates for those involved. My first statement is meant to say that I think it is unlikely that an individual piece of software is going to be tansformative to the overall human condition in its application. Many will argue that Google, Facebook, etc. are counter examples - I agree with that to some extent in that there is probably some truth and some non-truth to that viewpoint depending on the perspective.
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  A lot of it is about multiplier effects, which can be subtle. Google and Github make people better at their jobs (especially software engineers, who don't have to read horribly-written manuals for shitty commercial software, because they can now use excellent open-source tools and search for what they need). This speeds economic growth and innovation by making people more productive. Multiplier-dom (for lack of a better word) used to be for managers and executives only (although at least a third to one-half are dividers in most companies). Executives and capitalism could claim that they were the real producers and movers of progress and that the workers, "mere" adders. were hangers-on (Randism) but that's no longer the case. Now software engineers can be multipliers without access to capital or bureaucratic installation into a managerial role. Global economic growth is currently about 4% per year. That's the highest it's ever been, but there's no reason it can't be much higher-- possibly 20 or 30 percent per year. That seems radical, but in 1798 (Malthus) economic growth under 1%, and that (sub-1% global economic growth) had been the norm for eternity. Malthus was wrong mathematically in his assumption that economic growth was linear (even in pre-industrial times, the curve was exponential-- just a very slow exponential curve) but he was right about population increases outpacing economic growth and leading to disaster or war. That happened constantly in pre-industrial societies. It stopped happening in the developed world around 1850. Some time in the next two hundred years we'll probably see post-scarcity. I, for one, would love to see a post-scarcity world. I don't care if I live to be 1000 years old, in the sense that if we don't eradicate scarcity I don't want to live past my natural ~75-100 (even for the rich, the with-scarcity existence is too crappy to justify more than a century in such a world in one incarnation) but a post-scarcity would be worth seeing. Technology is a chance to contribute, in some small way, to the overarching effort to see that through.

apsurd 14y ago

The phrase is "by and large" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/by%20and%20large http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/by%20and%20large

moocow01 14y ago
Thanks - changed