6 ms·
An appropriate response: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/opinion/sunday/the-code-of-life.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/opinion/sunday/the-code-of...
by bsirkia 13y ago
An appropriate response: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/opinion/sunday/the-code-of-life.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/opinion/sunday/the-code-of...
- auggierose 13y agoThis was actually how I found the Franzen article. But ... I don't think the response is nearly as formidable as the challenge. The writer of the NY Times article has that superficial knowledge of a programmer newbie (for example, comparing Facebook / Google with an operating system is not as wrong as it might seem), but not the depth of thought that Franzen has.
- jrs99 13y agoi don't think there's much depth of thought at all. He doesn't understand that future reviews will have better algorithms filtering them. He doesn't mention that quality during the print era was terrible also. That since the beginning of printing, trash was being written, and things were being written purely for profit. And that in the internet age, an awesome writer can find an audience of 50. The main thing is that he doesn't really understand technology, probably because he doesn't use it. It is, however, more poetic and more emotionally resonant than the response.
- auggierose 13y agoHe actually understands all of those things. He mentions in particular that "since the beginning of printing, trash was being written, and things were being written purely for profit".
- jrs99 13y agoI really doubt that he understands that algorithms will be formed that filter those reviews out on amazon. I really do believe he thinks that quality control being supposedly better in print was actually good for the best writers.
- JonnieCache 13y agoWhat evidence have you given that you understand these "better algorithms?" You haven't even described them, let alone named them. Merely alluded to them like a religious believer invoking handwavey ideas of first cause. I don't think you are in a position to criticize "depth of thought." Moore's law is a statement about transistor density. It does not apply to algorithmic/mathematical innovation, otherwise we'd have sentient robot buddies already. Do you find the algorithms and languages of today exponentially superior to those of 50 years ago? May I remind you LISP came about in 1958...
- jrs99 13y agoYes i do find that all the algorithms we have right now are superior to all the algorithms that existed 50 years ago. I don't think that I'm being like a religious fanatic by believing that better fraud detection on amazon reviews will be implemented in the future.
- onebaddude 13y ago>I really do believe he thinks that quality control being supposedly better in print was actually good for the best writers. And this is exactly why I, apparently like Mr. Franzen, appreciate the "quality control" of newspapers like, for example, the Guardian in this case. Otherwise, people tend to believe that dismissing a thoughtful 5,000+ word essay with, "I really doubt he understands the Amazon algorithms" passes for reasonable criticism.
- jrs99 13y agothe quality control IS better in print, and I appreciate it. But the quality control is NOT best for the best writers.
- jrs99 13y agoas a percentage of course. There are web publications with greater quality control than certain print publications of course. but probably not overall as a percentage.
- jrs99 13y agoI don't think he mentions that.
- auggierose 13y agoYep, he does. Read the article more carefully :-)
- jrs99 13y agoI think he mentioned modern newspapers.
- onebaddude 13y ago>An appropriate response: If what you got out of Mr. Franzen's essay was that he's a technophobe who divides the world into Mac and PCs and doesn't know what an operating system is, then yeah, appropriate response. Personally, I think his essay was a little deeper than that.