4 ms·

The first half of this talk is excellent. The story of air travel--how the engineers of the 60s thought that we'd have supersonic jets and flying cars within a

by dcposch 11y ago

The first half of this talk is excellent. The story of air travel--how the engineers of the 60s thought that we'd have supersonic jets and flying cars within a few years--that's a great cautionary tale. Evolutionary biologists call it Punctuated Equilibrium: the idea that progress comes in spurts. The warning--that the evolution of computer hardware and software might be radically slower over the next 50 years than it was over the past 50--seems timely and reasonable. The second half is not excellent. Bad mental habits and weak arguments are on display. * Imprecision. Specifically: choosing sentences for their "punch", like a bumper sticker, without caring whether they make sense: "There is something quite colonial, too, about collecting data from users [...] I think of it as the White Nerd's Burden." "It's a kind of software Manifest Destiny." ...cool story, bro * Excessive negativity. If you haven't already, I highly recommend reading Everything is Problematic -- it really helped me understand where people like Maciej are coming from. http://www.mcgilldaily.com/2014/11/everything-problematic/ http://www.mcgilldaily.com/2014/11/everything-problematic/ * Disrespect. "Google works on some loopy stuff in between plastering the Internet with ads." I guess 40 years ago he would have said "AT&T works on some loopy stuff in between sending you phone bills". Organizations like Bell Labs--or Google X--are treasures, and as engineers we should be glad they exist. In short: haters gonna hate

eevilspock 11y ago
> choosing sentences for their "punch", like a bumper sticker > In short: haters gonna hate and > * Disrespect. > ...cool story, bro
- tljr 11y ago
  haters gonna hate, indeed.
- qwtel 11y ago
  this goes to show that negativity is contingent, not that the author's points are invalid.
vul6 11y ago
I totally agree, the first half about progress in air travel and computer science is great, the rest not so really
vog 11y ago
I was just about to write a similar sentiment. The first part is really great, also the parallels and the lessons to learn. But the second half was not so great. While I agree with the overall sentiment, the concrete examples always slightly miss the point. ----- The first such passage that caught my eye was the example about Windows XP: > Rather than offer users persuasive reasons to upgrade software, vendors insist we look on upgrading as our moral duty. The idea that something might work fine the way it is has no place in tech culture. The problem is that Windows XP is not working just fine, especially when connected to the Internet. It is full of malware and helps establishing botnets, DDOS attacks and thus feeds mafia structures. So we, as a soeciety, do have a moral obligation to retire Windows XP. Also, nobody is forced by law to use Microsoft. There are plenty of alternatives. Most of those will run smoothly on your old hardware, such as MINT, Ubuntu or whatever. And for normal Office and Web stuff, this "jump" is surely less painful than switching to the latest Windows version. Of course Microsoft is still to blame here, but for something entirely different: For closing Windows XP support. For not applying serious security fixing to it. I bet there are plenty of companies and people that are more than willing to pay for ongoing maintenance of Windows XP, but the only company that could offer that service denys it. ----- So the author missed the real point, even though this point is totally in line with the overall sentiment of the article. And it goes on and on like that, in the second half. That makes it a really annoying read.
- scott_karana 11y ago
  > The problem is that Windows XP is not working just fine, especially when connected to the Internet. It is full of malware and helps establishing botnets, DDOS attacks and thus feeds mafia structures. So we, as a soeciety, do have a moral obligation to retire Windows XP. XP was working fine, and the fact that eventually became full of malware was because of the future-focused Microsoft wanting to make "later and greater", ripping down something and "trying again", instead of improving something that, for at least 80% of usage cases, was not infected, was already making money for business, and helping people with their lives.
  - Decade 11y ago
    I remember when bug counts were considered important. Windows 2000 reportedly shipped with 63,000 known bugs. And then Microsoft stopped reporting the figure. The technical problem is that you can’t fix design problems without breaking stuff. What you remember: Windows Vista was horribly slow. What you didn’t see: Windows Vista moved the display system back into user-space, so misbehaving display drivers would not crash the OS as often. That required all new device drivers. Windows XP has other design problems, too, and no matter how much Microsoft patches it, it will never be as secure as Windows 10. Not without destroying all that precious software compatibility that makes an OS useful. Windows 10 still has issues. Until a few weeks ago, it was vulnerable to root exploit via web font? WTH, Microsoft? I thought they would eliminate that category of exploits after the last root exploit via web font, 2 years ago. The business problem is that Microsoft is trying to spread Windows into tablets and phones, and Sinofsky totally messed it up. Those third-party start menus prove that there is a market for Windows 8 guts with a Windows 7 shell. Curiously, not many people seem to want an actual Windows XP start menu, with its non-searchable interface and randomly sorted programs list and its hierarchical pop-ups that make navigating a large list into an exercise in grace. Windows 7 was the result of actually listening to users’ needs.
forscha 11y ago
I had a similar feeling, and thought it was probably because I know nothing about aviation and therefore read that stuff uncritically and feel entertained. I wonder whether that's a general principle in writing -- tell outside-your-expertise stories to entertain the reader, and then with luck (depending on your perspective), the reader reads the rest and feels entertained and informed and good emotions out of a sort of inertia the rest of the way through.
Decade 11y ago
The central mistake of the second half is this: “Vision 1: CONNECT KNOWLEDGE, PEOPLE, AND CATS. This is the correct vision.” He conflates computing with the Web, and argues that the Web is fine just the way it is; it just needs to be spread more widely. As if there aren’t plenty of people already trying to do exactly that. What he ignores is that computing is an expression of human creativity. Like literature and music, you take it into a context that it wasn’t written for, and it rarely produces a desirable response. As long as computing is relevant, we will need new software. The last 100 years of computing machines have proven that this still applies. A web based on ad revenue is no good in an area with poor electricity infrastructure and low bandwidth, so the famous M-Pesa has a completely different interface and different software than Wells Fargo Online® Banking. The article/talk has some good points, but they aren’t connected together in a good way.

by dcposch 11y ago

eevilspock 11y ago

> choosing sentences for their "punch", like a bumper sticker > In short: haters gonna hate and > * Disrespect. > ...cool story, bro

tljr 11y ago
haters gonna hate, indeed.
qwtel 11y ago
this goes to show that negativity is contingent, not that the author's points are invalid.

vul6 11y ago

I totally agree, the first half about progress in air travel and computer science is great, the rest not so really

vog 11y ago

I was just about to write a similar sentiment. The first part is really great, also the parallels and the lessons to learn. But the second half was not so great. While I agree with the overall sentiment, the concrete examples always slightly miss the point. ----- The first such passage that caught my eye was the example about Windows XP: > Rather than offer users persuasive reasons to upgrade software, vendors insist we look on upgrading as our moral duty. The idea that something might work fine the way it is has no place in tech culture. The problem is that Windows XP is not working just fine, especially when connected to the Internet. It is full of malware and helps establishing botnets, DDOS attacks and thus feeds mafia structures. So we, as a soeciety, do have a moral obligation to retire Windows XP. Also, nobody is forced by law to use Microsoft. There are plenty of alternatives. Most of those will run smoothly on your old hardware, such as MINT, Ubuntu or whatever. And for normal Office and Web stuff, this "jump" is surely less painful than switching to the latest Windows version. Of course Microsoft is still to blame here, but for something entirely different: For closing Windows XP support. For not applying serious security fixing to it. I bet there are plenty of companies and people that are more than willing to pay for ongoing maintenance of Windows XP, but the only company that could offer that service denys it. ----- So the author missed the real point, even though this point is totally in line with the overall sentiment of the article. And it goes on and on like that, in the second half. That makes it a really annoying read.

scott_karana 11y ago
> The problem is that Windows XP is not working just fine, especially when connected to the Internet. It is full of malware and helps establishing botnets, DDOS attacks and thus feeds mafia structures. So we, as a soeciety, do have a moral obligation to retire Windows XP. XP was working fine, and the fact that eventually became full of malware was because of the future-focused Microsoft wanting to make "later and greater", ripping down something and "trying again", instead of improving something that, for at least 80% of usage cases, was not infected, was already making money for business, and helping people with their lives.
- Decade 11y ago
  I remember when bug counts were considered important. Windows 2000 reportedly shipped with 63,000 known bugs. And then Microsoft stopped reporting the figure. The technical problem is that you can’t fix design problems without breaking stuff. What you remember: Windows Vista was horribly slow. What you didn’t see: Windows Vista moved the display system back into user-space, so misbehaving display drivers would not crash the OS as often. That required all new device drivers. Windows XP has other design problems, too, and no matter how much Microsoft patches it, it will never be as secure as Windows 10. Not without destroying all that precious software compatibility that makes an OS useful. Windows 10 still has issues. Until a few weeks ago, it was vulnerable to root exploit via web font? WTH, Microsoft? I thought they would eliminate that category of exploits after the last root exploit via web font, 2 years ago. The business problem is that Microsoft is trying to spread Windows into tablets and phones, and Sinofsky totally messed it up. Those third-party start menus prove that there is a market for Windows 8 guts with a Windows 7 shell. Curiously, not many people seem to want an actual Windows XP start menu, with its non-searchable interface and randomly sorted programs list and its hierarchical pop-ups that make navigating a large list into an exercise in grace. Windows 7 was the result of actually listening to users’ needs.

forscha 11y ago

I had a similar feeling, and thought it was probably because I know nothing about aviation and therefore read that stuff uncritically and feel entertained. I wonder whether that's a general principle in writing -- tell outside-your-expertise stories to entertain the reader, and then with luck (depending on your perspective), the reader reads the rest and feels entertained and informed and good emotions out of a sort of inertia the rest of the way through.

Decade 11y ago

The central mistake of the second half is this: “Vision 1: CONNECT KNOWLEDGE, PEOPLE, AND CATS. This is the correct vision.” He conflates computing with the Web, and argues that the Web is fine just the way it is; it just needs to be spread more widely. As if there aren’t plenty of people already trying to do exactly that. What he ignores is that computing is an expression of human creativity. Like literature and music, you take it into a context that it wasn’t written for, and it rarely produces a desirable response. As long as computing is relevant, we will need new software. The last 100 years of computing machines have proven that this still applies. A web based on ad revenue is no good in an area with poor electricity infrastructure and low bandwidth, so the famous M-Pesa has a completely different interface and different software than Wells Fargo Online® Banking. The article/talk has some good points, but they aren’t connected together in a good way.