Live data from Hacker News

How Software Companies Die (1995)

cs.cmu.edu

151–160 of 176 posts

Re: How Software Companies Die (1995)

#151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The time has come now to the point where anyone who holds an anti-gay position is criticized and/or boycotted. "The time has come now to the point where anyone who holds an anti-black position is criticized and/or boycotted." "The time has come now to the point where anyone who holds an anti-woman position is criticized and/or boycotted." "The time has come now to the point where anyone who holds an anti-Jew positi…

The problem with this logic is that by characterizing preferring one lifestyle to another as an "anti-X position" and therefore something that is by default wrong, we encourage the dismantling of our entire culture. If we are to say that the only acceptable view is that being gay is as good as being straight, then we must logically do the same for the following * Being transgender * Being a sex worker * Eating shit f…

"including groups who will never be considered as oppressed by liberals, like nerds in high school."

Isn't that arguably a part of the anti-bullying push?

Re: How Software Companies Die (1995)

#152
post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like you're purposely misinterpreting his point. He's not saying what should be, he's saying what probably was. You might have been saying that homosexuality is unethical a hundred years ago with the same certainty with which you denounce Card. I'm sure nobody here actually thinks that being gay is unethical.

While we're accusing people of purposeful misinterpretation, let me pass that right back at you. I wanted to hear the rationale for calling being gay unethical. I wasn't about to allege anything. But if someone asserts that there might be an ethics argument against homosexuality, I'd really like to hear it.

Okay, I apologize about implying that you're being intentionally obtuse. About the ethics argument, you (or maybe someone else above) said that anti-homosexuality is a violent hateful position, and the homosexuality is just a sexual preference. I'm not disagreeing with you, but an opponent might claim that your arguments regarding both are extremely ad-hoc. You could just as easily claim that homosexuality is unnatural or that it's against god's will or that it goes against our national interests or any other bullshit. Why I didn't want to make these arguments is because I'm not interesting in debating this side. I don't think homosexuality is unethical, and hence carrying on this debate isn't pleasant to me. I'm just saying that thinking that both positions had the same ethical value in any time is presentism.

Re: How Software Companies Die (1995)

#153
Some of his essay is meant to be funny and I think some people are missing that. It's an interesting critique in the relationship between programmers and management. Just try to enjoy it.

Re: How Software Companies Die (1995)

#154
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would make an ad hominem attack, yes. I don't believe ad hominem is fallacious in this sense. Orson Scott Card has expressed such a lack of humanity elswhere that I do not understand why I would spend my time deciding whether his other arguments have any merit. He has disqualified himself from my consideration.

I don't think that qualifies for an ad hominem at all. It's only ad hominem if the factor you're dismissing the author due to happens to be irrelevant to his current argument. That's not the case, I agree. Having said that, I just want to make it clear that I don't know enough about him to agree with your position on him. I know he's anti-gay, and I've read the Ender books. That's about it.

Try reading "A Memory of Earth". It was the thirds and last Card book I read, after I read Enders Game and Enders Shadow, and disliked both, I was told that maybe I should just read a non-Ender book since I clearly just had something against the Ender universe. I saw "A Memory of Earth" at a yardsale for a dollar so I bought it without knowing anything about it besides that it was Card, and not Ender-universe.

Actually, don't try reading it. It is literally the worse book I've ever read. Confused and idiotic plot, cliched one dimensional characters, a serious sense of confused genre....

A few years later, I looked the book up on wikipedia and learned that it is his sci-fi version of The Book of Mormon.... yeah, the guy is a total hack.

Re: How Software Companies Die (1995)

#155
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One shouldn't feel obligated to be tolerant of intolerance expressed by people with power and privilege against those who have less power and privilege (like a wealthy, straight, white male attacking LGBTQ folks). That's a very common tactic of bigots to claim that being told they should stop oppressing people is oppressive toward them. Demanding an end to oppression is not oppressive toward those who currently benef…

Yet we should be tolerant of intolerance expressed by people who are not wealthy, straight, white or male?

We should never tolerate intolerance, unless we are considering the intolerance of intolerance. That intolerance, and only that intolerance, must be accepted:

"The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato. Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."

--Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945)

Re: How Software Companies Die (1995)

#156

In case you'd like to catch up on previous discussions of this, here are some of the previous submissions. The majority of the conversation and comments are on these: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1866486 (netjeff.com) : 45 comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=552821 (carolyn.org): 23 comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5372726 (zoion.com) : 14 comments There are also a few comments on some…

Wow, thanks! Wondering if all the previous discussions are about OSC's political positions rather than the subject matter of the essay.

Re: How Software Companies Die (1995)

#157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with this logic is that by characterizing preferring one lifestyle to another as an "anti-X position" and therefore something that is by default wrong, we encourage the dismantling of our entire culture. If we are to say that the only acceptable view is that being gay is as good as being straight, then we must logically do the same for the following * Being transgender * Being a sex worker * Eating shit f…

"including groups who will never be considered as oppressed by liberals, like nerds in high school." Isn't that arguably a part of the anti-bullying push?

The entire anti-bullying push is based on a narrative in which bullying results from our society being insufficiently inclusive. If people were more tolerant of differences, we are told, the motivation for bullying would go away.

However this reasoning only applies to certain kinds of bullying, such as bullying of gays (and [1] argues it doesn't even apply in this case). Nerds are bullied because of their actual weakness, not because they are different per se. The sub-culture is a response to bullying, not vice versa.

In order to deal with this kind of bullying, we would need a new narrative in which people have an innate tendency towards picking on other people, and that if not kept in check, this can reach to physical violence and other extremes.

[1] http://owldolatrous.livejournal.com/14079.html

Re: How Software Companies Die (1995)

#158
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the left never shuts up about it. I deplore his views, and Ender's Game was still a great book. People are complex.

Yes, people who are denied their rights, beaten up and killed tend to get annoyed about it. They have a right to be annoyed.

What if someone gets beaten up by minority members? Or does not get a job thanks to positive discrimination?

Re: How Software Companies Die (1995)

#159
post #23

We all know that OSC is a horrible bigot, right? I feel like any sort of fatherly advice he emits needs to be suffixed with "...unless you're gay, then you should be in prison."

There is no reason to not listen his views on software, if he has weird views on homos. He is a horrible bigot when it comes to gays. We as logical rationalists should stop labeling someone as 'Insert some hateful word' and ignore everything what he says. This is occurring more and more these days, if we dont like someone's economic views we label him as communist and completely stop hearing him. Few days back someon…

> Zed shaw is too cocky, so whatever he says is shit.

I don't find Zed's views on programming to be terribly insightful either. I have a hunch that one directly leads to the other. I watched a talk he did about Javascript, several times, making sure I understood what he was saying when he was calling it a pile of shit, and walked away with the realization that Zed either didn't understand basic OOP, or did at some point then decided that it wasn't sexy anymore. Because all the problems he found could be easily fixed with basic SOLID techniques.

I have a hunch that his "Learn XXX the hard way" books wouldn't be very helpful either, the tone set in the title indicates to me that instead of translating good principles to code, he's going to beat us over the head with a bottom-up approach to learning a language rather than the saner way.

All of this points to Zed as someone trying to fit the world to his personality, rather than trying to truly understand the world as it is. His first response to some programming thing not fitting in with the way he thinks it should is to lambast it as stupid, this goes with languages, other developers, pretty much anything.

Now, that's not exactly "Zed's cocky, so everything he says sucks," but what it does mean is that unless you have Zed's personality, you're not going to get much out of what he has to say. Because you won't approach problems the same way he does.

Personally I prefer Giles Bowkett, whose tone and personality doesn't get in the way of his ideas. When something gets in his way, he works around it (with a small amount of cursing) rather than call it shit for 30 minutes. His books solve problems rather than creates them.

So while criticizing a person's personality isn't, by itself, the way to enlightenment, you shouldn't completely ignore such things, either. Because if you look closely enough, these traits will point to the deeper problems with their ideas that you do need to come to a fuller understanding.

Re: How Software Companies Die (1995)

#160
post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've found presentism to be an all but impossible concept for those whose ideology drives their historiography.

So you guys are calling me either stupid or malevolent, thanks for that. Aaron, there really isn't a lot of ideology in my posts - but how about yours? I've tried, patiently, explaining why I think homosexuality is not unethical in any historical context, and why I believe militant homophobia is. One is behavior which is deemed unacceptable but doesn't negatively affect anyone, and the other one is about harming and…

I mean, I don't know the arguments, but I imagine that some sort of argument comparing homosexuality to pedophilia could be made. Just to make it clear, this is not what I believe.
Post reply on HN