Are Hackers the New Luddites? [audio](novaramedia.com)
novaramedia.com
Are Hackers the New Luddites? [audio]
https://novaramedia.com/2021/03/26/luddites-hackers-saboteurs/
111 comments
Beside the point, but IMO, all podcasts should have a transcription option as well. I unfortunately just don't have the attention span to listen to hours of people talking, but put it in text format and I have zero issues.
Yeah, I was tempted to comment that I guess I'm a Luddite because my reaction to seeing any link to a video or audio file is "please just give me text."
I think my issue with audio/video is i often finding myself skimming articles for content i'm interested, before i deep-dive in the content and consume it fully.
I don't mind video or audio if i _know_ i want it. But it's obscenely slow to verify if video/audio content is worth my time.
So much content on the internet is shallow or misleading. Text is easier to filter for me.
I don't mind video or audio if i _know_ i want it. But it's obscenely slow to verify if video/audio content is worth my time.
So much content on the internet is shallow or misleading. Text is easier to filter for me.
I often skim video content on youtube and while not as easy as text, it’s still possible. When people talk an idea they usually go on for a bit and that could be enough to sample video. If interested I add it to a playlist and listen when Im in deep mode, usually when painting or doing a creative activity. When my interest peaks I go 100% on the content.
Absolutely. It would also be a net benefit for those who can't hear well and/or also don't have the quietness/tech to listen in peace. Way too many times I've had to pass up on podcasts in general because there isn't a transcript.
[deleted]
Same here. When something can be answered in few written words now there is often lengthy video tutorial where most of the time taken by mouse aimlessly jumping all over the screen in search of that magical button. Same with podcasts obviously.
I get a bit frustrated whenever a Google search for some how-to item leads to a YouTube video leaving me thinking "this should have just been text with some pictures", but I've come to the conclusion that it's all about the money -- content creators get paid more for video content, even if it's 80% "like and subscribe and listen to me ramble" overhead, and there just isn't a good place to host well-written howto content.
> I unfortunately just don't have the attention span to listen to hours of people talking, but put it in text format and I have zero issues.
Spoken like a true luddite! XD
Spoken like a true luddite! XD
Disclaimer: I am building an app in this space. https://audiograph.io
For me, this is pretty contextual. Sometimes I want to listen to audio when I'm on a walk or doing dishes. Other times I want text so I can skip the audio and save time. The more mediums, the better, personally speaking.
For me, this is pretty contextual. Sometimes I want to listen to audio when I'm on a walk or doing dishes. Other times I want text so I can skip the audio and save time. The more mediums, the better, personally speaking.
[deleted]
You can't control-f video.
In addition, all articles should have an audio option as well. I unfortunately just don't have the attention span to read walls of text, but put in audio format and I have no problem.
I didn't realise there was content beyond the link to the book. Looking closer my privacy plugins had blocked the content (I'm such a luddite).
It's not just attention span, but time. It's hugely inefficient, and there are usually better things to devote one's time to.
I watch only video with text in my house, no subtitles and I’m skipping the video or moving on.
Would you have the same demand for video?
For me, yes
> Would you have the same demand for video?
Yes. I turn CC on for most videos, even movies or shows watched at home.
Yes. I turn CC on for most videos, even movies or shows watched at home.
Would you have the same demand for video?
Why not? Not everyone is in a room by themselves and can turn up the volume. Not everyone can wear big gamer headphones at work.
Posting a video on the internet and not including a transcript is like posting something on Instagram and no other platform and thinking, "That's good enough."
If your goal is to communicate your thoughts, you make them available to as many people as is practical.
You don't publish a book and slip it onto one shelf at one local library and then wonder why nobody reads your work.
Why not? Not everyone is in a room by themselves and can turn up the volume. Not everyone can wear big gamer headphones at work.
Posting a video on the internet and not including a transcript is like posting something on Instagram and no other platform and thinking, "That's good enough."
If your goal is to communicate your thoughts, you make them available to as many people as is practical.
You don't publish a book and slip it onto one shelf at one local library and then wonder why nobody reads your work.
[deleted]
Startup / App opportunity? Automated transcripts are pretty good.
Google's automated transcripts of YouTube videos are pretty terrible for the type of content I watch.
If Google's billions can't solve the problem, Rando Startup is going to have to be awful clever.
If Google's billions can't solve the problem, Rando Startup is going to have to be awful clever.
Jonathan Corbet in this week's LWN:
> Your editor recently moved house; part of that move involved carefully packing up the dust-covered household television set, gently transporting it to the new home, and lovingly moving it to its new location — followed by gracelessly dropping it on the floor while lifting it into place. The search for a replacement involved asking a salesman for a reasonable "non-smart" television, a request that was met with mirthful incredulity. It would appear that such things no longer exist; all televisions are built to be placed on the network now.
https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/850218/d38e18d65e4d8fc5/
> Your editor recently moved house; part of that move involved carefully packing up the dust-covered household television set, gently transporting it to the new home, and lovingly moving it to its new location — followed by gracelessly dropping it on the floor while lifting it into place. The search for a replacement involved asking a salesman for a reasonable "non-smart" television, a request that was met with mirthful incredulity. It would appear that such things no longer exist; all televisions are built to be placed on the network now.
https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/850218/d38e18d65e4d8fc5/
This is a synopsis of the book described here: https://www.versobooks.com/books/3184-breaking-things-at-wor... Breaking Things at Work. The Luddites Are Right About Why You Hate Your Job, by Gavin Mueller
The basic gist is that software is eating people's jobs, and everything has to be an /app/ these days or it's not credible.
The basic gist is that software is eating people's jobs, and everything has to be an /app/ these days or it's not credible.
Can you explain how this relates to hackers being the new Luddites? I haven’t had a chance to listen to the podcast yet but I can’t see how it’s description or yours relates to the title.
I identify as a 'hacker' in the 2600/Phrack tradition, and I definitely feel like a luddite rejecting the centralization of control as everything moves into the cloud, and proliferation of anti-consumer software that disempowers. Linux and BSD are beginning to feel like the last bastions of true user freedom, and the only remaining place that I have any control over my destiny as a user (and creator) of software.
DRM, app stores, subscription models, SaaS... I would burn all of these things to ground if I could
DRM, app stores, subscription models, SaaS... I would burn all of these things to ground if I could
Grew up reading Phrack too. Work as pentester these days. I understand code deeply, and have tried my hand at everything from memory corruption exploits to javascript SPA apps.
I hate technology more and more. It's moving in the wrong direction. Almost everything technological seems to be used to increase control over individuals, extract money, track or predict.
No company can seem to withstand the lure and the power that comes from controlling, analyzing and aggressively tracking users.
Every traditional device that works just fine, now only has 'smart' alternatives available. The only value-add for the consumer appears to be that I can use my smartphone as the thermostat remote. The value for the energy company seems to be to better predict when to raise prices and bill & track me.
I hate technology more and more. It's moving in the wrong direction. Almost everything technological seems to be used to increase control over individuals, extract money, track or predict.
No company can seem to withstand the lure and the power that comes from controlling, analyzing and aggressively tracking users.
Every traditional device that works just fine, now only has 'smart' alternatives available. The only value-add for the consumer appears to be that I can use my smartphone as the thermostat remote. The value for the energy company seems to be to better predict when to raise prices and bill & track me.
Not a pentester but a code monkey. Here is what worries me.
As we get tracked more, algorithms will start making better predictions about us. The negative side of this is that you will get offered ads that are specifically tailored to your interests, at the time you are most likely to buy at a price point you can afford. Essentially you will get controlled and primed by machines to consume, feel certain ways, agree with certain sentiments etc. That's not the kind of dystopia I want to be in.
This is already happening, Facebook has done experiments about user emotions. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/06/28/facebook...
Youtube is using machine learning algorithms for suggesting videos https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.c...
There is nothing to stop a company from manipulating user emotions enough to guide you down the path of buying a product.
As we get tracked more, algorithms will start making better predictions about us. The negative side of this is that you will get offered ads that are specifically tailored to your interests, at the time you are most likely to buy at a price point you can afford. Essentially you will get controlled and primed by machines to consume, feel certain ways, agree with certain sentiments etc. That's not the kind of dystopia I want to be in.
This is already happening, Facebook has done experiments about user emotions. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/06/28/facebook...
Youtube is using machine learning algorithms for suggesting videos https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.c...
There is nothing to stop a company from manipulating user emotions enough to guide you down the path of buying a product.
>The negative side of this is that you will get offered ads that are specifically tailored to your interests, at the time you are most likely to buy at a price point you can afford.
To me the current system doesn't seem all that different. It's more crude, but it's already trying to do that. So I think we both have been in this dystopia for some time now.
I don't see a problem though. Consumption of ads is a free choice. People have made the choice of wanting to be manipulated for thousands of years (religion or patriotism are common examples).
I removed all ads from my household nearly two decades ago. Anyone that doesn't do that, doesn't object to the manipulation. Everyone knows what ads are for, what they do. It's not like it's a secret. A lot of people just don't mind being manipulated. And changing that I suspect is impossible.
To me the current system doesn't seem all that different. It's more crude, but it's already trying to do that. So I think we both have been in this dystopia for some time now.
I don't see a problem though. Consumption of ads is a free choice. People have made the choice of wanting to be manipulated for thousands of years (religion or patriotism are common examples).
I removed all ads from my household nearly two decades ago. Anyone that doesn't do that, doesn't object to the manipulation. Everyone knows what ads are for, what they do. It's not like it's a secret. A lot of people just don't mind being manipulated. And changing that I suspect is impossible.
A personal example of this: while going through my divorce, I witnessed several ads targeted towards me for storage units.
Thanks for looking out for me, Google.
Thanks for looking out for me, Google.
And nobody seems to recognize this emotional component, except the people doing the manipulation!
Screwing with my emotions is my #1 beef with tech today. Even more than the freedom thing.
Friends of mine that jealously guard and maintain their emotional state seem to have issued a blanket exception for tech.
Screwing with my emotions is my #1 beef with tech today. Even more than the freedom thing.
Friends of mine that jealously guard and maintain their emotional state seem to have issued a blanket exception for tech.
I think you can simplify this entire thread into:
Software that's built with money, keeps making design decisions that increase profit.
Software that's built ambivalent to money, makes other design decisions.
Most software is built with money.
The only thing that feels like it will fix this is a software/hardware bill of rights. E.g. right to repair, right to source, etc. Otherwise, things will get more exploitive, as products get cheaper.
Software that's built with money, keeps making design decisions that increase profit.
Software that's built ambivalent to money, makes other design decisions.
Most software is built with money.
The only thing that feels like it will fix this is a software/hardware bill of rights. E.g. right to repair, right to source, etc. Otherwise, things will get more exploitive, as products get cheaper.
Too right. It's just evolution really, survival of the fittest.
Software that can afford to have 100 developers work on it will, on average, out-compete software that is sustained by 50 developers.
Software (note: not necessarily _good_ software, this could also be the shittiest software with a nice lock-in) that is good at making money, can afford more developers, lawyers and lobbyists.
It's nothing new under the sun, but it does suck in a major way.
Software that can afford to have 100 developers work on it will, on average, out-compete software that is sustained by 50 developers.
Software (note: not necessarily _good_ software, this could also be the shittiest software with a nice lock-in) that is good at making money, can afford more developers, lawyers and lobbyists.
It's nothing new under the sun, but it does suck in a major way.
Right to source sounds strong, but I am curious about how a right to source for software that's no longer produced would work. This could be very beneficial to society, and perceivably speed up progress quite a bit.
IMHO, that should be seen as a tangential right to repair.
Either the entity that sold you the software (or their successors) gives you standard access, tools, and specs to effect standard repairs.
Or if that entity cannot fulfill that responsibility (say, because they went bankrupt), their code is open-sourced.
The situation to avoid is "nobody cares about this thing, and nobody is available to service it."
Either the entity that sold you the software (or their successors) gives you standard access, tools, and specs to effect standard repairs.
Or if that entity cannot fulfill that responsibility (say, because they went bankrupt), their code is open-sourced.
The situation to avoid is "nobody cares about this thing, and nobody is available to service it."
On the facade, I like this. Hopefully someone advances these ideas.
If there is one thing I have learnt about the populace at large is they don't pay much attention to private et el issues but when it affects enough of them they change the law in their favour. Companies get plenty of years even decades to exploit but eventually the mainstream is impacted enough that regulation gets brought down in massive heavy handed ways and often not in a good way. Privacy via GDPR and the "cookie law" before it are examples of the mainstream waking up to problems that impacted them. Get too popular and exploit too much and the mainstream will do something about.
There are movements for taking data entirely away from these companies, movements for repair and a host of other things. Eventually they will more than likely become mainstream and big tech is going to find itself on the end of a lot of regulation especially in the EU. There is no way they show self control before the point where DRM, gambling and engagement mechanics are involved they are simply too profitable.
There are movements for taking data entirely away from these companies, movements for repair and a host of other things. Eventually they will more than likely become mainstream and big tech is going to find itself on the end of a lot of regulation especially in the EU. There is no way they show self control before the point where DRM, gambling and engagement mechanics are involved they are simply too profitable.
Frankly, any discussion about this invariably becomes a critique of capitalism. If you further generalize “software” to “organization”, your examples would include the various decisions companies make to increase profit: polluting, exploiting their workers, etc. At some point, we just have to acknowledge that a free market simply does not work.
A free market is extremely efficient at some things. It's also extremely terrible at other things.
Of all the options, a free market with regulation to internalize social externalities seems the optimal solution.
Of all the options, a free market with regulation to internalize social externalities seems the optimal solution.
Denial of root/admin access too.
Android - You are forced to void warranty, and try risky stuff. Once you are rooted, you have to play hide-and-seek with banking apps.
Windows - You can login as admin, but unless you NSudo, you cannot stop certain services.
I agree with you on most things, but I don't quite see it as being a Luddite. I see it as the continued divergence of the closed-source software world and the real world, the former turning into an endless treadmill of forced change sold as upgrades and massive amounts of tracking and the latter being the only world where it's possible to have enough control over your tools to get anything of consequence done. My point is, the real world isn't standing still, and I don't want it to, whereas a Luddite would.
I suppose you can call me a Luddite when the fashionable closed-source hardware/software companies declare that keyboards are now obsolete and demand everyone use touchscreens or voice.
I suppose you can call me a Luddite when the fashionable closed-source hardware/software companies declare that keyboards are now obsolete and demand everyone use touchscreens or voice.
Stop optimizing for interoperability then.
Write your own operating system specific to hardware.
It’s either have the monolith for all or make it a black box so you’re special.
Personally I’d rather the resources be made available to all and not just cellar dweller squirrelly types.
What you have is a political problem: we optimize to reduce fiscal costs to protect aristocratic power.
If everyone wants to be highly atomic agents of self management, stop working for money.
Write your own operating system specific to hardware.
It’s either have the monolith for all or make it a black box so you’re special.
Personally I’d rather the resources be made available to all and not just cellar dweller squirrelly types.
What you have is a political problem: we optimize to reduce fiscal costs to protect aristocratic power.
If everyone wants to be highly atomic agents of self management, stop working for money.
Hackers in the classical sense don't like being part of an authoritarian structure.
What do you do when the technological world that you may have had a hand in creating turns on you, when technology and computing becomes an enslavement rather than a liberation? It makes sense for hackers to then find freedom without technology.
What do you do when the technological world that you may have had a hand in creating turns on you, when technology and computing becomes an enslavement rather than a liberation? It makes sense for hackers to then find freedom without technology.
I'm a Luddite and a luddite. There's a distinction that folks fail to make: in my jargon, a Luddite opposes the automation of labor without a plan to support the displaced laborers (as the followers of Ludd), and a luddite opposes the use of technology (a perverse interpretation of Ludd as an opponent of technology)
I automate all kinds of stuff for my job, of course; I'm a cyborg and my brain works better when I can offload processing to a CPU. When I make design decisions that impact laborers at my company, that's something I think a lot about -- if it can make their job less harmful (in terms of RSI, etc), that's great; if I'm going to put somebody out of work, I'll reconsider telling my boss about an option I see.
But lots of tech is totally out of my control. IOT bugs the hell out of me, especially with everything phoning home. I hate that people willingly allow google, amazon, apple, tesla and onstar to straight up listen to every word that's said in their house/car. Hell, I don't even like cars made after the 80s.
When I grew up, there were people who reliably knew how everything in the pedestrian world worked, and could generally be counted on to fix anything that broke (except perhaps RF electronics, people specialize in that because big caps go brrr). But today, pretty much everything is unfixable; even furniture is mostly ikea or (somehow) lesser-quality pressboard crap.
So to me, saying that hackers are the new luddites is a statement about control. We want to own the objects we buy. We want to hack them, fix them, repurpose them. I'm in a relative minority on the labor theory thing
I automate all kinds of stuff for my job, of course; I'm a cyborg and my brain works better when I can offload processing to a CPU. When I make design decisions that impact laborers at my company, that's something I think a lot about -- if it can make their job less harmful (in terms of RSI, etc), that's great; if I'm going to put somebody out of work, I'll reconsider telling my boss about an option I see.
But lots of tech is totally out of my control. IOT bugs the hell out of me, especially with everything phoning home. I hate that people willingly allow google, amazon, apple, tesla and onstar to straight up listen to every word that's said in their house/car. Hell, I don't even like cars made after the 80s.
When I grew up, there were people who reliably knew how everything in the pedestrian world worked, and could generally be counted on to fix anything that broke (except perhaps RF electronics, people specialize in that because big caps go brrr). But today, pretty much everything is unfixable; even furniture is mostly ikea or (somehow) lesser-quality pressboard crap.
So to me, saying that hackers are the new luddites is a statement about control. We want to own the objects we buy. We want to hack them, fix them, repurpose them. I'm in a relative minority on the labor theory thing
> I'm a Luddite and a luddite. There's a distinction that folks fail to make: in my jargon, a Luddite opposes the automation of labor without a plan to support the displaced laborers (as the followers of Ludd)
Being aware of the effects of automation seems wise. My problem with Ludditism as a philosophy is that it seems to focus anger on the businesses that created the jobs in the first place rather than focusing energy on the government (ie, the people) making more jobs.
Why does offering someone something become a promise to keep doing so?
Being aware of the effects of automation seems wise. My problem with Ludditism as a philosophy is that it seems to focus anger on the businesses that created the jobs in the first place rather than focusing energy on the government (ie, the people) making more jobs.
Why does offering someone something become a promise to keep doing so?
> the seeds of this resistance are already present in the neo-Luddite efforts of hackers, pirates, and dark web users who are challenging surveillance and control, often through older systems of communication technology
I actually don't agree that using the dark web is using older technology (but I can see why using the postal system to deliver contraband to households would be old tech). Tor is relatively recent tech that people can use. I think what the writer means is that hackers usually try to avoid prosecution by encrypting literally everything they do (an old cypherpunk tactic), so when they eventually get vanned by a LEA they have nothing to hand over for evidence.
How this is being a Luddite though is questionable. There is a disconnect there.
I actually don't agree that using the dark web is using older technology (but I can see why using the postal system to deliver contraband to households would be old tech). Tor is relatively recent tech that people can use. I think what the writer means is that hackers usually try to avoid prosecution by encrypting literally everything they do (an old cypherpunk tactic), so when they eventually get vanned by a LEA they have nothing to hand over for evidence.
How this is being a Luddite though is questionable. There is a disconnect there.
I was trying to get a zoomer relative of mine interested in technology. I said, "let's mine cryptocurrency." He didn't want to because, according to him, "that's hacking." Kids these days!
"I found an exploit in mom and dad's electric account!" =D
I was trying to get a zoomer relative of mine interested in technology. I said, "let's mine cryptocurrency." He didn't want to because, according to him, "that's hacking." Kids these days!
The Z's are shaping up to be... interesting. From what I've seen so far, they're turning out to be very much like Gen X.
On the other hand, I see very little difference between the Millennials and the Boomers. I find it amusing to see them trading barbs about one another, while exhibiting nearly identical traits. (Social media addiction, persecution complex, entitlement complex, obsession with money, etc.)
The Z's are shaping up to be... interesting. From what I've seen so far, they're turning out to be very much like Gen X.
On the other hand, I see very little difference between the Millennials and the Boomers. I find it amusing to see them trading barbs about one another, while exhibiting nearly identical traits. (Social media addiction, persecution complex, entitlement complex, obsession with money, etc.)
I sense a trend https://getpocket.com/explore/item/what-happens-to-tech-work...
Let's be realistic.. let's say you are a c++ programmer and want to learn some modern JS framework. I bet you it will literally take less than a week of concentrated study work for you to become better than 80-90% of people working with it. You can get a book on the subject, there's great tutorials, heck, just reading the reference will get you far.
This is true for a lot of stuff on youtube, coursera etc. I believe. It's for people who don't want to get to the destination faster, by reading a few books and doing the exercises in them.
This is true for a lot of stuff on youtube, coursera etc. I believe. It's for people who don't want to get to the destination faster, by reading a few books and doing the exercises in them.
Everyone has gaps in experience.
I've worked in both of these kinds of domains and different kinds of people thrive at doing each. The kind of problems you face are different.
Most of the backend C++ types I've worked with aren't so great at "design for failure" types of environments whereas on the web development side of things I've found people are much more receptive.
I'm working with a few hundred backend engineers who all have a hard time with thinking infrastructure is always available and can handle infinite throughput. They absolutely stink at reasoning about the network. And these aren't dummies -- they're all MIT/Waterloo/etc grads.
I've worked in both of these kinds of domains and different kinds of people thrive at doing each. The kind of problems you face are different.
Most of the backend C++ types I've worked with aren't so great at "design for failure" types of environments whereas on the web development side of things I've found people are much more receptive.
I'm working with a few hundred backend engineers who all have a hard time with thinking infrastructure is always available and can handle infinite throughput. They absolutely stink at reasoning about the network. And these aren't dummies -- they're all MIT/Waterloo/etc grads.
> I'm working with a few hundred backend engineers who all have a hard time with thinking infrastructure is always available and can handle infinite throughput.
Could you clarify this statement? Are you saying you work with hundreds of backend engineers:
- who all believe infra is always available and can handle infinite throughput (???)
or
- who can't wrap their head around an environment where infra is so scalable / high availability that it might as well be "infinite" and so they are always looking designing for tradeoffs that don't exist in your environment?
If the former, where do these people work? If the latter, where do these people work?
Could you clarify this statement? Are you saying you work with hundreds of backend engineers:
- who all believe infra is always available and can handle infinite throughput (???)
or
- who can't wrap their head around an environment where infra is so scalable / high availability that it might as well be "infinite" and so they are always looking designing for tradeoffs that don't exist in your environment?
If the former, where do these people work? If the latter, where do these people work?
You don't have to look hard to find stories of people running up huge cloud infrastructure bills by using it improperly.
Engineers in general poorly understand the connection between their code and resources consumed. Until something bites them and they learn.
I'd say that this is pretty widespread throughout the industry.
Engineers in general poorly understand the connection between their code and resources consumed. Until something bites them and they learn.
I'd say that this is pretty widespread throughout the industry.
I know there are plenty of engineers with those gaps, and they learn from experience, as one does.
My issue was with the statement that all backend engineers you work with (hundreds of them!) have this weakness. Does not match my experience, so I was wondering where you work.
My issue was with the statement that all backend engineers you work with (hundreds of them!) have this weakness. Does not match my experience, so I was wondering where you work.
A mid-sized, already-public SaaS company.
The barrier to entry is not the availability of materials, it's the jargon and working knowledge of the ecosystem required to find those materials and decide which are worth your time.
I've been the C++ programmer with a week to learn a modern JS framework. I'll never do that again, and will always hire an expert to bring myself and a project up to speed. It's a massive waste of time and money.
You also won't be "better" than anyone else at it, since expert-level C++ knowledge is not very translatable to other domains (but that's a C++ problem more than anything, working in it is like playing a piano and not riding a bike).
I've been the C++ programmer with a week to learn a modern JS framework. I'll never do that again, and will always hire an expert to bring myself and a project up to speed. It's a massive waste of time and money.
You also won't be "better" than anyone else at it, since expert-level C++ knowledge is not very translatable to other domains (but that's a C++ problem more than anything, working in it is like playing a piano and not riding a bike).
Why on earth would you think that? C++ programmers are not “better” than web developers. They work in very different domains, and skills built up in one don’t necessarily transfer to the other.
C++ has a high barrier because it exposes the inherent complexity of computing. If you've managed to fight through that you can probably pick up the simplified concepts in Javascript, Python, Ruby, etc.
C++’s complexity has nothing to do with the “inherent complexity of computing”. It’s just a kitchen sink language.
Likewise, concepts in the domains of the languages you mentioned aren’t “simpler” — they’re just different.
Likewise, concepts in the domains of the languages you mentioned aren’t “simpler” — they’re just different.
My job offered to 'train' me in using salesforce, all paid trip with training etc. I switched jobs.
Now I read perl for a living so who knows if I made the right move!
Now I read perl for a living so who knows if I made the right move!
> Now I read perl for a living so who knows if I made the right move!
I know it's fashionable to hate Perl these days, but I think this sounds like great and rare fun in 2021.
I know it's fashionable to hate Perl these days, but I think this sounds like great and rare fun in 2021.
All the non trendy languages have loads to teach, even TCL forums were full of surprises. Perl talks (say damian conway on perl6/raku grammar traits) are so infinitely better than 80% of any trending topic.
Perl is great. Also we're hiring several roles
https://www.fastmail.com/about/jobs/
https://www.fastmail.com/about/jobs/
People can read Perl? I thought they could only write it.
Maybe that could a lucrative specialised role - Perl Reader.
I jest
Maybe that could a lucrative specialised role - Perl Reader.
I jest
I think it’s the same process, just at a higher velocity.
Jobs have always been at risk of obsolescence. Jobs either require continual learning (typically the “professions”, e.g., physician, lawyer,...) or were at risk for being irrelevant. In the past, the pace of irrelevance was often slow enough to span a lifetime or multiple generations so people could still make a (slowly dwindling) living. Now the turnover just seems much faster that irrelevance can come at multiple times in ones career.
What’s the quote? “There future will belong to those who learn, unlearn, and relearn.”
Jobs have always been at risk of obsolescence. Jobs either require continual learning (typically the “professions”, e.g., physician, lawyer,...) or were at risk for being irrelevant. In the past, the pace of irrelevance was often slow enough to span a lifetime or multiple generations so people could still make a (slowly dwindling) living. Now the turnover just seems much faster that irrelevance can come at multiple times in ones career.
What’s the quote? “There future will belong to those who learn, unlearn, and relearn.”
One thing though, if even programming (a somehow advanced human endeavour) gets deprecated then something is wrong with our culture.
I agree, but think that statement does a disservice to programming by treating it as a monolithic domain. It’s telling a mechanical engineer “mechanical things will never deprecate”. That’s true, but doesn’t help the ME whose career may have been built in, say, a fossil fuel power plant.
I have a feeling that anybody in physically based engineering will never lose use of his knowledge. You don't spend time using trendy inventions at the pace of computing. Many programmers fiddle with plumbing onto <framework-of-the-day> until they get a new position. Not a lot to remember beside social reflexes and 'best practices'.
The pace is certainly different but I’ve found most engineers lose those skills that aren’t directly relevant to their job at hand. Ask that power plant engineer to do fluid dynamics and they’d likely be lost. The physical engineering disciplines are often hyper-specialized as well
Sure you forget but if you come into a fluid dynamic problem, you know that the universe didn't move to a new paradigm, I assume it's a different feeling to know that you can revisit the knowledge instead of navigating a totally new structure.
[deleted]
Do you feel the fundamental precepts of programming don’t generally hold true regardless of the application of the technology?
if you spend your days design algorithms yeah but if you assemble vue or angular components I think it's much different.
I’ve found Engineering to be similar. A relatively small percentage of engineers are actually crunching numbers in the academic sense. Most of the work is around learning a limited number of tools that may not translate effectively into another position
Wow. That article starts with "programmers continually learn new technologies" and does a kickflip at the end into "so bootcamps are good". I admire the skill of whoever wrote that, but ugh - what a nasty piece of PR.
> Lambda School co-founder Austen Allred envisions students coming back to his coding school every eight years or so to learn new skills.
Oof, this didn't age well.
Oof, this didn't age well.
A better term than Luddite may be obstructionist. Hackers object to new technology due to their disagreeing with everything Cloud, Tracking, limited user rights, DRM, etc.
The Luddites also objected to new technology for their reasons. They weren't reacting on religious grounds that it was inherently evil.
It depends on how wide you cast the net of "hacker."
I think people who take things apart for fun and mash them together in new, unplanned ways can tend to build up a healthy respect for unexpected consequences. That can translate into an extremely reasonable tendency to shoulder the role of doom-sayer for any large system that could have huge societal impact. That's the thing about the Luddites... They were, perhaps, short-sighted, but they weren't exactly wrong. The Industrial Revolution was absolutely disastrous for entire ways of life and paved over tens of thousands of people on the path of progress. I personally see their failing not in their desired goals but in their methods.
... but on the other hand, hackers are also the ones building cloud services, user tracking systems, and DRM protocols. Again, depending on how wide you cast the net.
I think people who take things apart for fun and mash them together in new, unplanned ways can tend to build up a healthy respect for unexpected consequences. That can translate into an extremely reasonable tendency to shoulder the role of doom-sayer for any large system that could have huge societal impact. That's the thing about the Luddites... They were, perhaps, short-sighted, but they weren't exactly wrong. The Industrial Revolution was absolutely disastrous for entire ways of life and paved over tens of thousands of people on the path of progress. I personally see their failing not in their desired goals but in their methods.
... but on the other hand, hackers are also the ones building cloud services, user tracking systems, and DRM protocols. Again, depending on how wide you cast the net.
Hah, you should see the comment threads in some of the European nation subreddits on Reddit, whenever an article mentioning FAANG / Big Tech comes up.
They really want to burn them.
They really want to burn them.
Those subreddits are not exactly hacker hotbeds though
I was going to say no but then I realized I would be unfairly judging the actual Luddites. (I would like to say that I am going by the podcast blurp rather than its content so they may very well cover the point I am making).
Hackers seem to oppose 'new' things in the technology space because most of them limit us and bind us to monolithic entity. Similarly, Luddites did not technically oppose technology but rather were outraged at their own loss of autonomy as crafts were replaced by mechanized, industrial production. Really the opposition of large, opaque, and closed software and services has very similar underlying drives as that of the Luddites. It's then not really a surprise when Marxist themes (some would say more libertarian but in practice not really) are somewhat common in open source & hacker spaces.
Hackers seem to oppose 'new' things in the technology space because most of them limit us and bind us to monolithic entity. Similarly, Luddites did not technically oppose technology but rather were outraged at their own loss of autonomy as crafts were replaced by mechanized, industrial production. Really the opposition of large, opaque, and closed software and services has very similar underlying drives as that of the Luddites. It's then not really a surprise when Marxist themes (some would say more libertarian but in practice not really) are somewhat common in open source & hacker spaces.
If you use the hate of crypto on HN as a metric, then yes.
From my bag of citations: "crypto is to millenials what the internet was to boomers"!
A few of them got it, but for most people what didn't exist when they were teens is some heresy that threaten society. Yet as usual, society will move on, and those unable to adapt will be left behind.
A few of them got it, but for most people what didn't exist when they were teens is some heresy that threaten society. Yet as usual, society will move on, and those unable to adapt will be left behind.
I'm not against technology: I'm against inferior technology. I know what you can build with a computer: with a smartphone not so much. I don't see many professional sound engineers, architects, chip engineers, developers and all the myriad of profession requiring serious tools to do serious work working from their mobile phone or from their Internet-of-Insecure-Shitty-Poinless-Thing-with-a-3-inches-screen (yup, I know, there's that one guy who made a hit pop music tune using only his smartphone, but that's more than uncommon).
Yet because there are a very select few megastar who became famous because they kept posting selfies taken with their smartphones, we are to believe that the smartphone "is the new computer".
Luddite? What about we talk about the specs of my workstation vs your IoT device? We'll see who's adopting modern tech ; )
Yet because there are a very select few megastar who became famous because they kept posting selfies taken with their smartphones, we are to believe that the smartphone "is the new computer".
Luddite? What about we talk about the specs of my workstation vs your IoT device? We'll see who's adopting modern tech ; )
> I'm not against technology
Neither were the Luddites! The Luddites were a labor movement who wanted to ensure that workers in textile mills were being treated fairly. Many Luddites were highly skilled and happy to work with automated looms, they just didn't want factories to fire all the skilled labor and pay pennies on the dollar to unskilled labor. (While holding cloth prices steady.)
Neither were the Luddites! The Luddites were a labor movement who wanted to ensure that workers in textile mills were being treated fairly. Many Luddites were highly skilled and happy to work with automated looms, they just didn't want factories to fire all the skilled labor and pay pennies on the dollar to unskilled labor. (While holding cloth prices steady.)
Also, as a separate comment, the day will come where software development is automated in some capacity. All the high skill workers may be competing with workers with much less training at lower wages.
The Luddites are a good cautionary tale about when you should protect your working conditions and rights (when the demand for your services is at its peak). So many engineers I talk to these days say things like, "Why would I want to organize/engage in collective bargaining now? My life is good!" rather than, "My work is highly desirable, and my employer might actually come to the negotiating table because it is challenging to replace us right now."
The Luddites are a good cautionary tale about when you should protect your working conditions and rights (when the demand for your services is at its peak). So many engineers I talk to these days say things like, "Why would I want to organize/engage in collective bargaining now? My life is good!" rather than, "My work is highly desirable, and my employer might actually come to the negotiating table because it is challenging to replace us right now."
Software development is already highly automated relative to what it once was. That's what high-level languages are. I expect we will continue to develop even higher-level languages in the future. Some people are only capable of programming in high-level languages because of a lack of understanding of the rest of the stack (and this goes both down into the hardware and up into DevOps that even CS grads are largely unequipped to work with).
I think textile manufacturing is distinct from software engineering, though, because unlike textile demand which is fairly limited (people only need so much fabric), the demand for new software will always exceed supply because the space of useful applications of general-purpose computation is effectively infinite. I don't think we've even seen the tip of the iceberg yet.
I think textile manufacturing is distinct from software engineering, though, because unlike textile demand which is fairly limited (people only need so much fabric), the demand for new software will always exceed supply because the space of useful applications of general-purpose computation is effectively infinite. I don't think we've even seen the tip of the iceberg yet.
This is already happening. Squarespace, Shopify and to some extent Facebook certainly have an impact on the lower end of web development.
Once upon a time you needed to hire someone to get a website for a small business going, now you can do this yourself for a small fee.
Once upon a time you needed to hire someone to get a website for a small business going, now you can do this yourself for a small fee.
> The Luddites are a good cautionary tale about when you should protect your working conditions and rights
But at that point, you'd be doing exactly what the Luddites were doing, which was attempting to hold back the natural consequences of technological advancement.
The (temporary) end state of that kind of thing are artificially inefficient situations where someone is paid an unreasonably well to do something that could be done much more efficiently by a machine.
That's a temporary end state because at some point, the people and organizations doing that will be definitively out-competed, and that particular instance of Luddism becomes another historical footnote.
But at that point, you'd be doing exactly what the Luddites were doing, which was attempting to hold back the natural consequences of technological advancement.
The (temporary) end state of that kind of thing are artificially inefficient situations where someone is paid an unreasonably well to do something that could be done much more efficiently by a machine.
That's a temporary end state because at some point, the people and organizations doing that will be definitively out-competed, and that particular instance of Luddism becomes another historical footnote.
Luddites destroyed machinery because the new technology was threatening to replace them. They were most certainly against this technology.
Fortunately, the explosion of affordable textiles resulted in many more jobs in textiles, which were unskilled. So the luddites were right - they were not worth the cost of their skilled labor. They did get replaced. But society as a whole gained a lot, as is usual for new technology.
And even more people than before were employed in textiles.
Fortunately, the explosion of affordable textiles resulted in many more jobs in textiles, which were unskilled. So the luddites were right - they were not worth the cost of their skilled labor. They did get replaced. But society as a whole gained a lot, as is usual for new technology.
And even more people than before were employed in textiles.
> They were most certainly against this technology.
Absolutely not. They were absolutely willing to operate the machinery. They could have produced more cloth at the same price, or distributed more of the earnings back to the workers. It's not a boolean outcome where it's either "the machines or the Luddites". There are plenty of ways to solve the problems they raised without doing away with either.
Absolutely not. They were absolutely willing to operate the machinery. They could have produced more cloth at the same price, or distributed more of the earnings back to the workers. It's not a boolean outcome where it's either "the machines or the Luddites". There are plenty of ways to solve the problems they raised without doing away with either.
> They were absolutely willing to operate the machinery.
Smashing the machines was perhaps a poor way to communicate that.
And how far do you take that? There have literally been union jobs where someone's shift consisted of doing nothing but pressing a button every now and then. That's a pointless waste of both human life and economic efficiency.
Someone else in this thread wrote:
> a Luddite opposes the automation of labor without a plan to support the displaced laborers
...which seems like a much more viable position, although perhaps not so popular in the US.
Smashing the machines was perhaps a poor way to communicate that.
And how far do you take that? There have literally been union jobs where someone's shift consisted of doing nothing but pressing a button every now and then. That's a pointless waste of both human life and economic efficiency.
Someone else in this thread wrote:
> a Luddite opposes the automation of labor without a plan to support the displaced laborers
...which seems like a much more viable position, although perhaps not so popular in the US.
Not disagreeing with you, but I do think there is something to be said about the platform provided by mobile tech. Artists can live stream themselves to massive audiences from their bedrooms.
And in the professional field iOS has become quite useful for music. As a couple examples, there are numerous iOS instruments (often with external midi control) made by well known companies like moog and korg, and live sound engineers are now remotely controlling mixers with iOS devices. It’s possible the next concert you go to will be sound checked/mixed via an iPad.
Also worth considering is that mobile accessibility doesn't necessarily produce the next mass-appeal mega star. I think in many cases it instead allows smaller subcultures to connect and form which makes for stars on a smaller scale. Popular streamers are a good example, well know by their fans but not a household name.
And in the professional field iOS has become quite useful for music. As a couple examples, there are numerous iOS instruments (often with external midi control) made by well known companies like moog and korg, and live sound engineers are now remotely controlling mixers with iOS devices. It’s possible the next concert you go to will be sound checked/mixed via an iPad.
Also worth considering is that mobile accessibility doesn't necessarily produce the next mass-appeal mega star. I think in many cases it instead allows smaller subcultures to connect and form which makes for stars on a smaller scale. Popular streamers are a good example, well know by their fans but not a household name.
This reminds me of the disdain with which some of those who used mainframes and minis looked upon the early microcomputers. That was clearly a step back in some ways (you couldn't even run a LISP compiler on those), yet micros made computing ultimately more accessible to a much wider share of the populace and eventually displaced minis (and threatened mainframes and confined them to a niche market).
The CPU in pricier smartphones outperforms the one in yesteryear's desktop for a while already. It's just that the UI and (usually missing) periphery isn't necessarily best suited for traditional computer applications like software development.
The CPU in pricier smartphones outperforms the one in yesteryear's desktop for a while already. It's just that the UI and (usually missing) periphery isn't necessarily best suited for traditional computer applications like software development.
[deleted]
This resonates with me. Two different people at a job dubbed me "The Technological Luddite" because of, among other things, my lack of a cell phone, the absence of a Facebook page, pointing out where the "all you have to do is ..." algorithms break, and so on.
I will admit it, I prefer the downslope of the Hype Cycle. I choose boring technology. At the end of the day, I am trying to solve problems, and playing with new stuff often doesn't pay out for solving those problems.
I related this once on another site: we had this process that was heavily manual and the people performing the task would want this part at the end automated, or maybe a reminder email at the end, or some instructions here ... can we just do that part by computer? Bit by bit, the process maxed out on automation.
And then the people who asked for the automation were fired and replaced with minimum wage intern types. Also, the final product was inferior but hey ...
I think technology can be marvelous but we often do stupid things with it, ending up in unemployment and some crap results, like "American cheese."
I will admit it, I prefer the downslope of the Hype Cycle. I choose boring technology. At the end of the day, I am trying to solve problems, and playing with new stuff often doesn't pay out for solving those problems.
I related this once on another site: we had this process that was heavily manual and the people performing the task would want this part at the end automated, or maybe a reminder email at the end, or some instructions here ... can we just do that part by computer? Bit by bit, the process maxed out on automation.
And then the people who asked for the automation were fired and replaced with minimum wage intern types. Also, the final product was inferior but hey ...
I think technology can be marvelous but we often do stupid things with it, ending up in unemployment and some crap results, like "American cheese."
Paraphrasing Anton Ego: "I don't like software; I love it. If I don't love it, I don't use it."
If you find this conversation interesting you might want to check out this Ep of The Filter: Our Glorious Future as Amish or Termites.
See https://open.spotify.com/episode/6uSd3fSZz3gg6idbdUyvKB
See https://open.spotify.com/episode/6uSd3fSZz3gg6idbdUyvKB
Oh how timely, Gavin Mueller, the first author mentioned here, is part of a this panel tomorrow https://twitter.com/SciSocJournal/status/1368662709923966983 with Aaron Benanov.
My take from reading some of each is that the disagreement is more superficial: Benanov has a soft spot for what automation could be but is very much keen on chronicling the economic context it's actually gone down in, while Mueller likes to criticize "actually existing automation" itself.
But, I guess we'll see how it actually goes down tomorrow.
My take from reading some of each is that the disagreement is more superficial: Benanov has a soft spot for what automation could be but is very much keen on chronicling the economic context it's actually gone down in, while Mueller likes to criticize "actually existing automation" itself.
But, I guess we'll see how it actually goes down tomorrow.