@glyph Did you quote post something?

[jwgoerlich@infosec.exchange]

@glyph I feel this in my bones. We’re letting something precious slip through our fingers.

[jwgoerlich@infosec.exchange]

@jalefkowit @glyph QoTD

[jameswidman@mastodon.social]

@astraluma @tedmielczarek @glyph alternate timeline where everyone bought amiga-compatible PCs

[aeva@mastodon.gamedev.place]

@glyph so, I don't think your theory is even remotely historically accurate, and it is an incredibly depressing outlook. I wasn't going to comment because I don't know where to even begin with it and in the grand scheme of things it doesn't really matter anyway if we agree on it, but you seem confused by people's reactions to it.

[owen@mastodon.transneptune.net]

@glyph I hold in my left hand the essay _The Californian Ideology_, about the birth of Silicon Valley.

I hold in my right hand Jordan Peele's and Bradley Whitford's note-perfect depiction of the successful white hippie in _Get Out_ in all his self-assured and liberated power to casually oppress.

[burnoutqueen@todon.nl]

@glyph we can make a revolution ourselves 😂

[gaditb@icosahedron.website]

@glyph Hmm.

I, while agreeing with most of this (and getting good thoughts from all of it regardless), think I disagree pretty strongly (and hopefully generatively?) with a small detail of how you expressed it:

I think possibly more than "... a few technical innovations briefly conferred ...", it was "... a few SOCIAL innovations* happened to develop/were inadvertantly allowed to locally-flourish, that briefly (in the societal niche they happened to grow with around a few technical innovations) conferred ..."

(* not to say social innovations as in definitely-entirely-novel or unprecedented or not-elsewhere or whatever, just, new-to-those-people-at-that-time. new-in-that-context.)

[owen@mastodon.transneptune.net]

@glyph Not only must we reclaim agency, we must build it anew, and help others build it for themselves.

[glyph@mastodon.social]

@aeva I'd be interested in the historical inaccuracy, specifically, if you could comment on that part, since I'm not a historian and I'm not trying to make any novel historical claims; I'm trying to describe an emotional orientation to the same facts. if that orientation is depressing to you (or to anyone) I would definitely encourage you to discard it. but if I'm wrong about the timeline I would like to stop being wrong

[paninid@mastodon.world]

@glyph @aeva 🔥

[aeva@mastodon.gamedev.place]

@paninid @glyph thank you for reminding me to switch my replies to followers only 🙄

[gaditb@icosahedron.website]

@glyph (I guess maybe pushing back on the "technical innovations" bit of it might be a bit of a path towards building back the utopianism you're trying to move away from -- in the "the ideas are powerfulstrong" way or in a "it wasn't a utopian setting but such-and-such was an objective-universal Better Way To Act" or stuff like that --

but hopefully it can coherently be kept down to a "social innovations, like technical innovations, also shape experiences and capabilities granted, and are worth putting into history on equal footing". Like, I think the social innovations weren't any more utopian than the technical ones -- just that, in that context, they were also conferring power in certain ways in their own right.
And if trying to build back that power to try to build a similar experience for the next generation, we should also look around for social innovations in addition to technical innovations, as blocks that might be able to confer things to the people/communities.)

[glyph@mastodon.social]

@the_blackwell_ninja I, too, have been to a talk by @pluralistic :)

[flyingsaceur@ioc.exchange]

@glyph we as individuals can build consumer electronics like that of twenty years ago but cheaper and more reliable. We are discussing this in a social media state of nature of twenty years ago as individuals. We are making our first baby steps into a spread spectrum regional wireless network of thirty years ago as individuals

Remember thirty years ago when we could create an operating system from then years prior as individuals

All it takes is a willingness to learn and to log the hours

[flyingsaceur@ioc.exchange]

Aside: if I wanted to destroy the willingness to learn and to log the hours, I could do worse than “ai first”

[glyph@mastodon.social]

@flyingsaceur I do want to quibble with the end there: you need the money for the equipment and the money for the spare time to log those hours. which in the global north is not a huge deal even across a surprisingly big chunk of the income spectrum, but elsewhere it is still pretty far out of reach

[triplefox@pounced-on.me]

@glyph I appreciate the thread. Historians usually speak of "confluences of factors" in major revolutions, and I believe the computing space is one such case. It's simultaneously true that exertion of power defines the top-level narratives of industry, and at multiple points along the timeline, considerable windows of opportunity opened up.

The pattern is not unique to this era: the European mathematicians, scientists and inventors of the early modern are all characterized by being supported by a noble, then pissing off said noble and having to flee to a different country. Their work was getting interrupted by politics and duels and miscellaneous "brutish and savage" stuff all the time. In the long run view of it, we still ended up with the Enlightenment's science culture, because the opportunities kept showing up and being taken.

N. Taleb's "anti-fragility" thesis also has something to say about this - the idea of gain through disorder as a defining feature of many systems. We end up with pieces of computing that hang around forever. We never know for sure which parts are going to do that.

Fully accepting the antifragile thesis means living in preparation for crises in tech and building mostly-redundant wheel reinventions of all parts of the stack in hopes of staving off the next apocalypse. What we had fairly recently was a period where redundancy was pooh-poohed and you could not find anything but a hobbyist demographic that took it seriously, and that's the literal thing enabling the power in this case - the "why use it if the existing one is better" inertia of path-dependency on the tightly controlled standards of tech cartels and monopolies. I believe the sense of despair in replies comes from the shock of genuinely awakening to that - if you build a career in tech, your identity is likely to build a defensive ignorance of such as long as you're getting paid.

But I also don't see it as an insurmountable challenge. We have some cool indie hardware and some degree of compatibility with the old stuff. There is an aspect of "everyone shows up for the same journey at the same time, so you're not alone" to these things.

[flyingsaceur@ioc.exchange]

@glyph good point. The willingness to learn and to log the hours requires free time, at least some sort of hardware, and the ability to find and recognize good training material

I wonder what a guerilla OLPC would look like with today’s piracy and AliExpress though

[aeva@mastodon.gamedev.place]

@glyph the wheels are gonna fall off enronvidia any day now... any day now... maybe D:

[aeva@mastodon.gamedev.place]

@glyph having wandered away for a few hours, and coming back to this I'm remembering an observation that I think meshes well with what you're saying: the dot com bubble put a lot of money into improbable everything-websites that made a lot of us go "wow the internet is amazing!" but they were the kinds of things that require a massive burning money pile as fuel (deviantart was the specific example) and are not an inevitable natural emergent consequence of the internet's structure