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

Playboy Interview: Steve Jobs (1985)

longform.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–157 of 157 posts

Re: Playboy Interview: Steve Jobs (1985)

#151

Post by graeme »

robg wrote: post #147
graeme wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your error is that people don't study physics to get their understanding of physical laws. We learn, from trial and error. Jobs was clearly talking about studying theoretical physics from a textbook.

There's a theory of epistemology that's tied to naive physics. We're built to study physics. The same is not true of computer science except in the vaguest possible uses of "language".

In context, Jobs was clearly using this definition of study:

Study: 1. the devotion of time and attention to acquiring knowledge on an academic subject, esp. by means of books

You're willfully ignoring that. You're making a point that would be valid if Jobs had said something dumber. That's called a strawman argument.

Re: Playboy Interview: Steve Jobs (1985)

#152

Post by sceadu »

pptr1 wrote: post #111

I can't think of someone else right now who could come up with such an easy way to understand computers. "Playboy: Maybe we should pause and get your definition of what a computer is. How do they work? Jobs: Computers are actually pretty simple. We’re sitting here on a bench in this café [for this part of the Interview]. Let’s assume that you understood only the most rudimentary of directions and you asked how to fin…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKWGGDXe5MA

Re: Playboy Interview: Steve Jobs (1985)

#153

Post by robg »

graeme wrote: post #151
robg wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a theory of epistemology that's tied to naive physics. We're built to study physics. The same is not true of computer science except in the vaguest possible uses of "language".

In context, Jobs was clearly using this definition of study: Study: 1. the devotion of time and attention to acquiring knowledge on an academic subject, esp. by means of books You're willfully ignoring that. You're making a point that would be valid if Jobs had said something dumber. That's called a strawman argument.

No, I'm not ignoring anything. It was a poor analogy based on the science. Naive physics means we understand pretty deep points about how objects move even if we can't express the formalisms. Exactly because we know deeply how objects move we can drive a car pretty darn well. And by the way, infants in the crib do study and experiment to understand physics.

He wasn't making that point about computer science. We need know nothing about how computers work to use them. A decent, correct analogy to driving is combustion engines.

Re: Playboy Interview: Steve Jobs (1985)

#154

Post by graeme »

robg wrote: post #153
graeme wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In context, Jobs was clearly using this definition of study: Study: 1. the devotion of time and attention to acquiring knowledge on an academic subject, esp. by means of books You're willfully ignoring that. You're making a point that would be valid if Jobs had said something dumber. That's called a strawman argument.

No, I'm not ignoring anything. It was a poor analogy based on the science. Naive physics means we understand pretty deep points about how objects move even if we can't express the formalisms. Exactly because we know deeply how objects move we can drive a car pretty darn well. And by the way, infants in the crib do study and experiment to understand physics. He wasn't making that point about computer science. We need…

Ah, that's much clearer than before. I guess the issue was the word "study" which has no English definition which refers to the kind of naive physics learning you referenced above.

To be clear, you mean: it's a poor analogy to say we don't need to know physics to drive, because we have thousands of hours learning physics from our normal experience. A better analogy would have been we can use a combustion engine without knowing the science.

I think you're right, then.

Re: Playboy Interview: Steve Jobs (1985)

#155

Post by mironathetin »

wonderyak wrote: post #126
mironathetin wrote: post #88

Playboy interviews used to be great! There was no limit in length or content. The interviewer was allowed to ask whatever he wanted. If you get a Playboy from the 60s or the 70s, the interviews fill 20 pages and more. No pics, only text. Unimaginable nowadays in a printed product. I bought some old Playboys because of this (Castro, Connery, Dylan etc.) There are also books with the interviews only [the directors (Cli…

'I only read it for the interviews/articles' used to be a legitimate reason and not a joke for covering up buying a magazine with boobs in it.

I was waiting for this comment :o).

Indeed, the interviews were designed to give more credibility to the Playboy and give a wider range of men an excuse to buy them. This worked out perfectly, if you ask me.

But, the interviews developed into much more than just an excuse. They are a genuine piece of great journalism. Even though they are surrounded with boobs - which isn't totally uncomfortable for the reader, too - is it?

Re: Playboy Interview: Steve Jobs (1985)

#156

Post by jordhy »

mehrdada wrote: post #150
utopkara wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a great observation. I wonder if it is true though. We have seen Apple obsess over Google's competition in mobile as they were rising this time.

> We have seen Apple obsess over Google's competition in mobile as they were rising this time How so? I'm actually surprised how little they seem to have reacted to the competitive pressure of Android than pursuing their agenda at their own pace.

Remember the phrase "I'll go thermonuclear on Google" by S. Jobs.

Re: Playboy Interview: Steve Jobs (1985)

#157

Post by boomlinde »

coldtea wrote: post #70
boomlinde wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Macintosh was just a computer.

A computer is a general purpose machine, with capabilities for business, clerical work, arts (graphics, multimedia etc), entertainment (games, web tv, media distrubution) and of course communications. A car, by now, is just a car. It's 2014, they are a known quantity, and the big change they were to bring, they have brought already. Plus the key in the era of Mac and IBM PC was that the personal computer was just beg…

Isn't a car a general purpose machine in the same sense that a computer is? Cars, at some point, were also "genuinely new and disruptive for all kinds of markets", just like computers were long before the Macintosh. I'd say that the Macintosh was little more than an incremental advance in a particular direction of personal computers, and I'll stick to my point that Tesla is just an electric care in the same sense the Macintosh is just a computer.
Post reply on HN