3 ms·

Beginnings are, pretty much by definition, largely mysterious and chaotic, intimate, and disorganized. I have a tremendous respect for those qualities - without

by haxel 12y ago

Beginnings are, pretty much by definition, largely mysterious and chaotic, intimate, and disorganized. I have a tremendous respect for those qualities - without them we'd not have computers or even ourselves to talk to. We wouldn't exist. Overall, in my view, the feminine represents the creative process - the ability to discover and establish new directions. It's the way to achieve any kind of change. Is there anything more valuable? The idea though is that by making the beginning of a computing experience more closely align with where we actually are as individuals, the ramp-up is much less steep than it is now. I say it's steep because of my observations of people who are not long-time techies - just regular folk who are afraid of computers and abhor detail. People taking classes and using command lines are already well along their journey.

angersock 12y ago
just regular folk who are afraid of computers and abhor detail. This is a good example of the sort of language that I think doesn't help us. "Regular folk" somehow implies that it's normal and acceptable not to know how to use computers--it's not. In fact, it's no more acceptable nowadays to be ignorant of how to use a computer than it is to be ignorant of how to use a book or how to use a phone or how to use a lighter. "abhor detail" is a defect, not a common trait. Mankind is defined by our use of tools and our ability to pay attention to details as well as the abstract. I think the sooner we stop using language that lets people excuse themselves from being functioning members of a technological society the better we'll be as a civilization.
- haxel 12y ago
  Those are my observations, maybe I run in different circles than you do. You seem to be saying there's only one way for technology to be - the way it already is - and that everyone had better get on board with it, or else. I'm saying there's also another way for computers to be that lets everyone receive more value with less effort and, if they choose to take it that far, ease into the way technology is now. But they may not ever need to. This would accomplish the same goal you are espousing, but in a practical way rather than by decree. I'm taking the beginning and moving it way back, to the point where an Uzbek villager seeing such a computer for the first time can use it as well as an expert within a day or two, because it operates on principles he's already familiar with and doesn't require classroom instruction. As a SysAdmin, you have the keys to the kingdom, the world of technology is at your fingertips. You're in a position of power in a technological world. As a long-time software guy, the same is true for me. Yet our expertise only puts us on thick side of a power-law distribution; a fine place to be, but the vast majority of people have nowhere near our expertise and simply do not possess the comfort-level and skills to extract the value we do. Whether it is to pull down a nice salary or to change the world with software, at this point in time we are a minority.

by haxel 12y ago

angersock 12y ago

just regular folk who are afraid of computers and abhor detail. This is a good example of the sort of language that I think doesn't help us. "Regular folk" somehow implies that it's normal and acceptable not to know how to use computers--it's not. In fact, it's no more acceptable nowadays to be ignorant of how to use a computer than it is to be ignorant of how to use a book or how to use a phone or how to use a lighter. "abhor detail" is a defect, not a common trait. Mankind is defined by our use of tools and our ability to pay attention to details as well as the abstract. I think the sooner we stop using language that lets people excuse themselves from being functioning members of a technological society the better we'll be as a civilization.

haxel 12y ago
Those are my observations, maybe I run in different circles than you do. You seem to be saying there's only one way for technology to be - the way it already is - and that everyone had better get on board with it, or else. I'm saying there's also another way for computers to be that lets everyone receive more value with less effort and, if they choose to take it that far, ease into the way technology is now. But they may not ever need to. This would accomplish the same goal you are espousing, but in a practical way rather than by decree. I'm taking the beginning and moving it way back, to the point where an Uzbek villager seeing such a computer for the first time can use it as well as an expert within a day or two, because it operates on principles he's already familiar with and doesn't require classroom instruction. As a SysAdmin, you have the keys to the kingdom, the world of technology is at your fingertips. You're in a position of power in a technological world. As a long-time software guy, the same is true for me. Yet our expertise only puts us on thick side of a power-law distribution; a fine place to be, but the vast majority of people have nowhere near our expertise and simply do not possess the comfort-level and skills to extract the value we do. Whether it is to pull down a nice salary or to change the world with software, at this point in time we are a minority.