Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why I am not going to buy a computer (1987) [pdf]

thehangedman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 173 posts

Re: Why I am not going to buy a computer (1987) [pdf]

#81

Post by bee_rider »

spennant wrote: post #49
kurthr wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, at least only the truly old school Nigerian snail mail scams will get to him! Seriously, if you have parents going into their 70s and 80s you need to really start limiting exposure to scams or the ability to send them money. Otherwise, you won't know until it's too late, their bank account is empty, and their CC are maxed out on cash advances. Also, immediately contact the IRS and Social Security, because they'…

My dad is in his 80’s and has all the tech. (computer, iPad, iPhone, etc…) Thing is, he doesn’t believe anything (true or false) from his devices. He just thinks that everything he reads is from someone trying to sell him something and/or part him with his money. I’m not sure if he’s wrong.

There are two types of offers that are made to me: Scams, and bad deals. If a good or service was worthwhile, it wouldn't need to try to get my attention.

Re: Why I am not going to buy a computer (1987) [pdf]

#82

Post by mattwilsonn888 »

jklm wrote: post #71

His arguments are, paraphrased: 1. It hurts nature. 2. It's too expensive and destroys existing jobs. 3. It's unlikely that it's better than the current tech. And that he won't fall for the "propaganda campaign" that says otherwise. --- What I find super fascinating here is that the arguments back then and now are...extremely similar. Look at any cutting-edge tech - EVs, crypto, etc. - and you find the same arguments…

I believe, assuming it exists, the flaw in this style of thinking is the unwillingness to hop on or believe in something new, when its marginal utility is still questionable. Of course, for many reasons, being early on what will become better enough to be an established part of society has advantages.

Re: Why I am not going to buy a computer (1987) [pdf]

#83

Post by pessimizer »

cataphract wrote: post #59
siraben wrote: post #41

One reply seems quite prescient for its time, clashing against the attitude of the original author. We should support alternatives both to coal- generated electricity and to IBM-style technocracy. But I am reluctant to entertain alternatives that presuppose the traditional subservience of one class to another. Let the PCs come and the wives and servants go seek more meaningful work. -- Toby Koosman, Knoxville, TN

That's an uncharitable reading of the essay. So if we help our spouses that makes us subservient to them? Sure, relying on the wife is not an option, or not a desirable option, for most writers. But the article is named "Why I am not going to buy a computer". His wife helps him and reducing his dependence on "strip-mined coal" eases his conscience. Good for him, though I don't think that the article has a lot of rele…

> So if we help our spouses that makes us subservient to them?

I don't know the distinction you're making here. Help and service are the same thing. The point is that it's easy and not notable to eschew computers if you have servants. There's no closer analog to "Let them eat cake!"

Re: Why I am not going to buy a computer (1987) [pdf]

#84

Post by marcosdumay »

jklm wrote: post #71

His arguments are, paraphrased: 1. It hurts nature. 2. It's too expensive and destroys existing jobs. 3. It's unlikely that it's better than the current tech. And that he won't fall for the "propaganda campaign" that says otherwise. --- What I find super fascinating here is that the arguments back then and now are...extremely similar. Look at any cutting-edge tech - EVs, crypto, etc. - and you find the same arguments…

Is there anybody claiming that cryptocoins destroy jobs?

Because that is the one most desirable quality in tech, and you are mixing with undesirable platitudes like if they are the same.

Re: Why I am not going to buy a computer (1987) [pdf]

#85

Post by bee_rider »

cogman10 wrote: post #30
geocrasher wrote: post #8

The original Computer Vegan, complaining about the coal used to power a computer while at the same time using a typewriter that is made of steel that had to be fired and forged probably using coal. I'm not saying he's wrong, but unless he mines his own metal and has a solar powered forge, he's fooling himself.

I'd not even worry about the steel used in his typewriter. Paper is made through an energy and chemically intensive process. I'm sure someone can math out the kwh that go into each sheet of paper, but it is far from 0. Paper costs anywhere from $0.005 -> $0.02 per sheet and that price point is going to be very closely tied to the energy used to produce that paper. Here in Idaho, power goes for around $0.11/kwh and is…

It is an interesting comparison, but if you want to be fair to him, it would make more sense to make generous assumptions for the energy cost of a piece of paper, rather than guessing at a max.

The solar power for the pi -- we could be generous to him again, and say that it is hypothetically possible to power either setup with solar, although there is something to be said for the fact that he has direct control over what he plugs his pi into.

On the other hand, a chalkboard could be used for first drafts.

Re: Why I am not going to buy a computer (1987) [pdf]

#86

Post by chx »

iRomain wrote: post #27

I laughed so hard at Gordon Inkeles' response. Wendell Berry: My wife types my work on a Royal standard typewriter bought new in 1956 and as good now as it was then. As she types, she sees things that are wrong and marks them with small checks in the margins. Gordon Inkeles: Wendell Berry provides writers enslaved by the computer with a handy alternative: Wife - a low-tech energy-saving device. Drop a pile of handwri…

What about Sister.

Frigyes Karinthy, a very famous Hungarian author active roughly 1910-1935 rightly famous for his humorous writing. He is also often billed as a translator -- this, however, is not quite true. His son, much later, in 1981, confessed he had a mentally ill sister, Emilia -- as an example, she used to put buttered toast in her handbag as is -- who nonetheless was a translator genius. She spoke 15-20 languages and she was capable of such feats as typing text in Russian dictated in Spanish. It was she who made the rough translations and Frigyes rewrote these in his style. This, for example, resulted in Winnie The Pooh becoming a cult classic book in Hungarian, much beloved by every Hungarian child (and let me quietly note: adult too) -- and it only resembles Milne's original passingly. Aside from the few sentences this son told the grandson in 1981 we know nothing of her. There are no photos, no records, nothing. Nonetheless the textual evidence is extremely compelling -- it was a longstanding mystery how could Karinthy translate Milne and Wells when he didn't speak English well.

(Tangential note: there's nothing in English Wikipedia about this. Obviously not. And I'd rather gnaw off my arm than try to fix anything there ever again. I tried once.)

Re: Why I am not going to buy a computer (1987) [pdf]

#87

Post by cogman10 »

bee_rider wrote: post #85
cogman10 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd not even worry about the steel used in his typewriter. Paper is made through an energy and chemically intensive process. I'm sure someone can math out the kwh that go into each sheet of paper, but it is far from 0. Paper costs anywhere from $0.005 -> $0.02 per sheet and that price point is going to be very closely tied to the energy used to produce that paper. Here in Idaho, power goes for around $0.11/kwh and is…

It is an interesting comparison, but if you want to be fair to him, it would make more sense to make generous assumptions for the energy cost of a piece of paper, rather than guessing at a max. The solar power for the pi -- we could be generous to him again, and say that it is hypothetically possible to power either setup with solar, although there is something to be said for the fact that he has direct control over…

Yeah, I tried to be as fair as possible with the energy consumption comparisons, inflating and rounding up for the r-pi and couching all statements about paper as "this is going to be the max".

IDK if, without an in depth study, there's a better way to to figure out wH per piece of paper. My inclination is the cost based method I used will end up being in the same order of magnitude. Obviously, I can't prove that.

The reason I think it'll be pretty close is paper is, for the most part, highly mechanized so the cost of human labor will be somewhat low. Further, profit margins are (I'm assuming) somewhat low (lots of competition). So, pull those two things and what are you looking at? Mostly shipping and processing costs which go pretty much directly to the power used to produce a piece of paper.

Re: Why I am not going to buy a computer (1987) [pdf]

#88

Post by pessimizer »

jklm wrote: post #71

His arguments are, paraphrased: 1. It hurts nature. 2. It's too expensive and destroys existing jobs. 3. It's unlikely that it's better than the current tech. And that he won't fall for the "propaganda campaign" that says otherwise. --- What I find super fascinating here is that the arguments back then and now are...extremely similar. Look at any cutting-edge tech - EVs, crypto, etc. - and you find the same arguments…

Those arguments are directed at all tech that is bad, not just your pet technologies. They encompass all possible flaws of a thing.

1. It has negative externalities. 2. It's too expensive. 3. It's not an improvement/doesn't work.

The fascinating thing is that people see these criticisms and it counterintuitively bolsters their confidence that their tech is special, because things that turned out to be special were also criticized.

1) The number of crap things or even actively destructive things that have been criticized on these same not-so-narrow grounds are far more than the number of things that turned out to be good that got criticized. Why? Because there are far fewer good ideas than bad ones, and the bad ones get criticized more (at least on average.)

2) Not only are the listed three the only ways to criticize things, but everything is going to be criticized eventually. So, the mere presence of criticism can't be evidence of anything because everything gets criticized.

Re: Why I am not going to buy a computer (1987) [pdf]

#89

Post by _carbyau_ »

forgotmypw17 wrote: post #77
_carbyau_ wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While true, there is: "You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time" For simply changing their webmail page, most of us would adjust pretty quick. If I had been quick enough I could've simply updated her link and she never would have known. But when mental health comes to paranoia, doing things behind her b…

Would you say that building wheelchair ramps is also a waste of time, because you can't please everyone all the time, and they're only a small percentage of the population?

You are arguing shades of grey.

1. You only have so much effort to spend. 2. You won't be able to please everyone with it. IE result.

Sure, for any large enough building (significant effort anyway to spend!) expecting a reasonable chunk of the population through the door a wheelchair ramp(decent chunk of populace affected) should be du jour. Hell, it is a wheelchair ramp not rocket science, I'd be happy to see them in a home building code for anywhere 2 or 3 steps are used. Little extra effort over the alternative (stairs) and get a result.

Alternately, I love my mum but it is unreasonable to expect the world to bend to meet the sheer levels of disconnection-from-reality that mental health paranoia can go to. We can't treat everyone like they are Truman from the Truman Show.

People have to be able to cope with change. When they can't, it is sad. But the world will keep changing anyway.

Re: Why I am not going to buy a computer (1987) [pdf]

#90

Post by Hellbanevil »

UncleOxidant wrote: post #6

> My wife types my work on a Royal standard typewriter bought new in 1956 and as good now as it was then. This was written in the late 80s, but I'd guess they're still using that typewriter over 60 years after it's purchase. Not saying I completely agree with his whole essay, but there's not a lot of computing equipment still in use (or considered usable) from that era. > But the cost would not be just mone- tary. It…

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN