Live data from Hacker News

Jon Stewart calls out congressional nerd bashing over SOPA

technolog.msnbc.msn.com

151–160 of 161 posts

Re: Jon Stewart calls out congressional nerd bashing over SOPA

#151
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've often wondered how to explain to non-developers the level of complexity in large software projects. I don't think the new generation will understand it any better than the old generation because, as you say, it's an invisible world. I am currently contracted on a project with 1.5 million lines of code and dependencies on hundreds of services written by a number of different teams. It takes a few weeks just to ge…

Heh. Early on in my software education, I asked a friend of mine about the difference between real time systems and normal. He said, "In real time systems, if something goes wrong, the Space Shuttle blows up." Seems like an apt metaphor.

no need for the drama. realtime simply implies there is known, hard maximum time it will take for certain in-scope operations to take place, so you can design around that. a realtime os will often be slower overall than the non-realtime os on the same gear. the bottom line is about predictable, knowable behaviour.

challenger blew up because of a fuel leak, not the lack ofi an rtos.

Re: Jon Stewart calls out congressional nerd bashing over SOPA

#152
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe that for a second. I'm 45 years old. My parents were born during ww2. I grew up with black and white tv (okay, partly because we couldn't afford color yet...). But my dad, an unskilled immigrant, ran IT companies for most of his life, and my mother, well into her 60's, got an iPad before I did. Hell, she was on Skype when I still had a landline... She even owns a friggin' Wii. If there are people who…

my folks, older than yours, also have their tech..... that doesnt mean they get how every detail works. there is no blanket statement here, but it is largely true that those who grew up with black and white tvs will not see things the same way. they may like the internet, but those of us a bit younger watched it hatch and explode globally. those even younger wont remember a tome without it and will have an even diffe…

Those elders who spent their time on ham radio and trains back in the B&W days acquired an inherent understanding of cellphones and the internet, respectively. :)

Re: Jon Stewart calls out congressional nerd bashing over SOPA

#153
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For last couple of centuries or so, each generation grows up with unprecedented change in their lifetime. For example, I enter elementary school, the internet started to take off and browsers were primitive. Nowadays, we can enjoy the convenience of movie streaming, fast browsers, and extraordinary rich video games(Dwarf Fortress, I am looking at you). So it doesn't make sense to me that congressmen are literal dinos…

you're seriously too young to understand. i am 32 years old. the first time i went online was in 1999. before that i had personal computers, yes. but no internet whatsoever. can you even imagine a world without google and wikipedia? i got my first mobile phone in that time frame. my parents were born after ww2. your time as a youth shapes you, forms your understanding of the world. you translate everything you see in…

This isn't a generational thing, not in the least.

Not understanding the internet transcends all ages and social classes. It isn't a symptom of age, but of ignorance and incuriosity. The people we're talking about haven't even tried, they haven't bothered to look up "the internet" in an encyclopaedia, haven't bothered to ask a savvy intern to explain it to them. They're people who habitually hold strong opinions on things that they know less than nothing about - c.f. climate change.

Re: Jon Stewart calls out congressional nerd bashing over SOPA

#154
post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have a very valid point. I can't think of the enormous change the introduction of the home electric providers must have been. I mean, from candles to bulbs! But then again, I think that the main difference now is the current rate of adoption of the new technologies. How many years took to build the electric system? How many years took the use of the mobile phone to become widespread? Everything moves faster and f…

The complaint that people "just can't adapt fast enough" has been a near constant refrain for over a century. Read even the Wikipedia page about the "Roaring Twenties" and then tell me that the amount of change in that decade was slower than now. Let's take some examples. Your baseline is the cell phone. The first commercial mobile phone was in 1983, so you're suggesting a time span of about 25 years. (Before 1983 it…

You are right in most of your comment. And yes, people always has been tired of having to learn how to use new stuff (I can imagine a caveman grudging about having to learn how to start a fire. LOL)

But the scale and complexity is important too. You can't compare a radio with two dials, and a smartphone with lots of screens. It's a whole new level of effort to learn how to use it. It takes more time, and it stack over previous knowledge you are supposed to have. But I know lots of elder people who don't even know how to turn on a computer. And sadly, they reject smart phones and other new things because they just gave up.

Re: Jon Stewart calls out congressional nerd bashing over SOPA

#155
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More on the plus side: Jon Stewart and his team of researchers and writers can go from knowing nothing about a topic, to absolutely nailing some of the central absurdities, in less than a week. Either comedy is easier than it looks or these guys are really good at their jobs.

Did you watch the full segment? It didn't look to me like they had much understanding of the issue at all. It seems like they'd read a few articles about it and threw together a segment whose humour didn't require a deep understanding. I was a little bit disappointed.

I did -- and I agree with you. I didn't say they had deep understanding. I said they picked out the absurdities of the process.

This is what Jon Stewart does. Some people say that the Daily Show is the only real news, but my counterpoint is that no, it may feel like it's coming from the right place, one of intelligent skepticism. But they aren't going out and getting fresh information about topics, they are just commenting on the lameness of existing coverage.

Re: Jon Stewart calls out congressional nerd bashing over SOPA

#156
post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The complaint that people "just can't adapt fast enough" has been a near constant refrain for over a century. Read even the Wikipedia page about the "Roaring Twenties" and then tell me that the amount of change in that decade was slower than now. Let's take some examples. Your baseline is the cell phone. The first commercial mobile phone was in 1983, so you're suggesting a time span of about 25 years. (Before 1983 it…

You are right in most of your comment. And yes, people always has been tired of having to learn how to use new stuff (I can imagine a caveman grudging about having to learn how to start a fire. LOL) But the scale and complexity is important too. You can't compare a radio with two dials, and a smartphone with lots of screens. It's a whole new level of effort to learn how to use it. It takes more time, and it stack ove…

I'm presuming that you've not heard much about the earliest radios. They had two or three batteries in them ("A", "B", and at the beginning, "C" cells.) Don't mix up the batteries when you wire them in and make sure you have the right polarity as otherwise you might fry the tubes. Batteries could easily leak, so check them out for problems. If you're on a farm, you might want one powered from your car battery, which meant you could take it back to the car or a generator in order to recharge it. Then there's antenna setup. And tube replacement (since tubes go bad). Also, the early radios (excepting crystal sets) usually had three or more dials. For example, when you change the frequency you need to change the impedance of your antenna to match it. (Raise the lid or read the owner's manual to find the chart of how those correlate.)

Radios got simpler to use, in part because of the strong demand to make them simpler. They got simpler to use sometimes at the expense of more internal complexity (a starter motor for an automobile, instead of a crank) but sometimes because we just figured out an easier way to do things (Wozniak's Disk II controller is a classic hacker example) .

On the other hand, you are omitting all of the difficult, complex things we used to do, which we don't do now. Do you sew all your clothes, bedsheets, and curtains? I sure don't. Sewing isn't easy. That's a "whole old level of effort" I don't need to know. Do you regularly can or preserve your own foods? A few do, but it's easier and cheaper to buy things from the store. Until the last 1800s, many engineers and scientists learned draftsmanship (as different than art, mind you) because that was the best way to make a visual record of what you saw. Of course, the camera has nearly completely replaced that requirement, which we use to learn different things. Evolution, thermodynamics, Maxwell's equations, and more have simplified what was previously a bunch of unconnected concepts.

Our culture rides the wave of "just complex enough." If it's too complex, like early microcomputers, only a few people make the effort to learn it. It it's useful enough, then there's a lot of work put into making it simpler. When it gets simple enough, there's widespread use. So widespread use happens when something is just barely simple enough for most people to understand.

The idea you are talking about is at least 45 years old. Alvin Toffler wrote "Future Shock" in 1970 about this very topic. It popularized the phrase "information overload", which was coined in 1964. Note how someone who was 20 then would be an "elder" now.

Again I ask you, how do you judge that the rate of growth is more now than it was in the 1920s, or the 1970s? What meaningful metrics do you use, and how do you correct for you own biases of what is important? As far as I can tell, excepting the Great Depression, the amount of change and the turmoil over the amount of change has been constant for over a century.

Re: Jon Stewart calls out congressional nerd bashing over SOPA

#157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Jon Stewart showed 4 people using the word 'nerd'. Three of them were anti-SOPA! So what? Were they anti-SOPA from the beginning, or just when we started getting serious pressure applied... Even if they were instinctively anti-SOPA, would it be fine if they refer to you as something similar to carnival show (okay, that's a geek), as opposed to a concerned expert in the field? That was at least my take-away from the…

You're currently attacking some of the representatives who actually tried to prevent/mitigate the damage of SOPA (yes, before the PR storm) over some quotes you've heard out of context. The term "experts" actually was used as well, it's just not good comedy fodder. You shouldn't comment if you aren't at all informed on the subject.

My point was not to attack those people, that word means something different. What if they would refer to a member of the Marines as a jarhead?

My point was that The Daily Show may be slightly anti-SOPA by being liberal, but they still have a point about the fact that they:

a) don't understand what they are legislating and rely on experts b) don't appear to have enough respect to refer to these experts as anything other than nerds

I don't care if they are for or against SOPA, that was not my point.

Re: Jon Stewart calls out congressional nerd bashing over SOPA

#158
post #30

it points to a big shift in society and the economy. software is now a cornerstone of the world economy. modern life runs through the internet. even if you personally avoid the internet, you depend on it. but the baby boomer generation, represented by these politicians has not understood it. they know engineers as the guys building houses, bridges, aeroplanes, rockets. but software? it is an invisible world to them.…

I've often wondered how to explain to non-developers the level of complexity in large software projects. I don't think the new generation will understand it any better than the old generation because, as you say, it's an invisible world. I am currently contracted on a project with 1.5 million lines of code and dependencies on hundreds of services written by a number of different teams. It takes a few weeks just to ge…

This is very true. Explaining systems of reasonably small scale seems hopeless to non-developers sometimes.

However I think this is true of a lot of fields... some people just can't grok (and don't need to grok) how an automatic transmission in their car works. I'm particularly inept when it comes to the subtleties of art and music.

But a particularly relevant analogy that I use would be that you are working at a library. (That is: a library where you can check out books, not a software library.)

Not only do you have to write a good portion of these books, but you also have to read a lot of the books in the library, and at the very least you have to read the table of contents and/or index of most of those books.

In addition to this you have to be very good at keeping the library organized, and you have to coordinate with other staff members at the library.

Smaller systems are simply a shelf or two of books, larger systems can span several buildings.

I like this analogy because most everyone can relate to it, it gives a very real physical sense of size, and I think it pretty adequately describes what a programmer has to hold in their head on a daily basis.

Re: Jon Stewart calls out congressional nerd bashing over SOPA

#159
post #99
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My current favourite is to describe it like this: You have to build a puzzle. Problem is nobody really knows what the puzzle should look like. Instead you get a few hundred pages of documentation written by a bunch of people who don't really know much more about the puzzle than you do describing how they think PARTS of the puzzle should look like in the end - based on discussions they've had with people who have no i…

I always liked: Your supposed to design a 4 lane bridge for a new interstate, you say sure that takes 6 months where do you want it?. After 3 months they decide where they want it and expect the design in 3 more months. You say, that's not going to happen I might be able to pull 5 months though. So, assuming you know where it's going to be you start pulling in some overtime and get to work. After another month they s…

I like this analogy as well as the analogy you replied to simply because they relay the massive velocity of change we have to face.

Re: Jon Stewart calls out congressional nerd bashing over SOPA

#160
post #45
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would they have to understand? Do you understand the intricaties of an airplane when you fly one?

I'm not suggesting one needs to understand the intricacies. I understand that aircraft are extraordinarily complex, and that's sufficient. I get the impression from non-computer people that software development is the equivalent of typing a Word document, except with mono-spaced fonts and highlighting, and lots of typos leading to bugs.

When people have a view of software development like this I usually retort by pulling up the Wikipedia page of a modern processor.

For instance right now I'd probably pull up the page for the Intel Core i7 and show them the transistor count.

I say: "You're now in a room. It has light switches. I write the instructions that tell you precisely how to flip those switches. You have to perform each instruction. Also it takes instructions to "

It's a bit exaggerated, of course, but it usually shakes their view of computers up a bit :).

Post reply on HN