
Programming Is Forgetting: Toward a New Hacker Ethic - Espressosaurus
http://opentranscripts.org/transcript/programming-forgetting-new-hacker-ethic/
======
cousin_it
I think Levy's take on hacker ethic was a bit phony to begin with, typical of
journalists who try to describe the spirit of something without practicing it.
All information should be free, really? Like your root password? I much prefer
the version in the Jargon File:

 _" A person who enjoys exploring the details of programmable systems and how
to stretch their capabilities, as opposed to most users, who prefer to learn
only the minimum necessary."_

Basically a hacker is someone who enjoys hacking for its own sake, not as part
of some moral crusade. The OP is proposing another moral crusade which is just
as irrelevant. Whether you like it or not, most discoveries will be made by
those who enjoy discovery, not by those who view it as a means to reach
utopia.

~~~
fornever
> All information should be free, really? Like your root password?

A password isn't information, especially in this context, it's data. How the
login or encryption system works is information. Of all the misconceptions
about hackers this is one of the weirdest to criticize. From the introduction
of computers until the mass adaptation of the Internet, access to information
was the largest issue in hacker culture. From BBSes to hacking groups and
computer clubs, it was all about access.

> Basically a hacker is someone who enjoys hacking for its own sake

Not only isn't that what your quote says, it's essentially just the definition
of an enthusiast. Hackers are, even in the most watered down definitions,
something different. Doing something for fun is part of hacker culture, but
it's not the purpose of it. It's things like curiosity, exploration, exchange
of ideas etc.

> Whether you like it or not, most discoveries will be made by those who enjoy
> discovery, not as part of some moral crusade.

Rarely. Discoveries (at least "common" ones) tend to be made by people who see
a future other people don't. One could argue that people like Elon Musk is
very much on a moral crusade and that his motivations are utopic.

I don't really care who calls themselves or things "hacker" these days. But if
you don't recognize that hacker culture, or the future of technology in
general, is something more you're missing out.

~~~
duaneb
While I get your point, I don't think data is clearly not information, it's
just that the whole point of passwords is to be secret.

~~~
zanny
Information and data are entirely about the intent of them. The same number
can mean a movie file or a math equation in different interpretations, yet
still have the same physical representation.

The difference between passwords, DRM, and proprietary software is then
intent. They all serve the same function - secrecy - but for different
purposes. The secret password is meant to provide security to the holder in
regards to the information _they_ hold. Proprietary software and DRM are meant
to provide secrecy to the rights holder in regards to software _other people_
hold.

------
drewcrawford
The audio "loss" example sounds plausible in passing (and the diagram looks
plausible) but is actually incorrect. The frequency and timing dimensions of
analog audio below the Nyquist frequency is preserved _perfectly_ by digital
quantization, which in practice for CD/DVD usecase are the full spectrum of
the human ear. This counterintuitive result is explored in some detail in [1].

It is true that the amplitude dimension (only) is quantized to (typically, 16
or 24) bits, which you could detect with a very good oscilloscope. However 24
bits is way smaller than any human ear can discern. Visually, it is like
looking at two stacks of dollar bills that are 6,000 feet high and trying to
discern which one has one extra bill.

I suppose that is technically "lossy", but the only thing we are "forgetting"
is something no human could perceive, or remember.

[1] [https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-
young.html](https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html)

~~~
topspin
> The audio "loss" example sounds plausible in passing

Not really. Sure, your debunking is sound, but we really don't need to appeal
to Nyquist for this one. Just consider the alternatives; analog media? It
begins rotting the moment it's recorded. Some abstract representation? Fine,
until you forget how to interpret it. Digitizing is the most robust means
we've yet invented to forestall "forgetting;" a technique that enables precise
and efficient replication of audio on myriad forms of media now and in the
future.

The Unicode case is also naive. Every language suffers change as new
speakers/writers and new representations appear; that isn't a feature specific
to programming or computing at all. On the other hand, thousands of symbols
from hundreds of obscure languages are being permanently preserved for
posterity in Unicode; how is this "forgetting?"

~~~
mjg59
The argument is not that "forgetting" is fundamentally bad - it's that the
choice of what to leave out can be meaningful. Han unification removes some
amount of distinction between things that are meaningfully different and
instead relies on additional metadata to reconstruct that. What are the wider
social consequences of that? I don't know, but it's not clear that those
involved in making the decision do either.

The fundamental point here is that hacker culture has often made decisions
without considering the effect they have on non-hackers (or even hackers of
different backgrounds), and as a result those decisions may result in
abstractions that "forget" meaningful data. Uncompressed digitisation of audio
is a case where it's unlikely that the difference is important in any way, but
there are plenty of examples given where it is. The suggestion that having
more information can help us make better decisions shouldn't be controversial.

~~~
astrange
By the way, people seem to think Han unification was forced on CJK users by
evil white people from Unicode (there was an article like this in
modelviewculture once), but it was contributed by the relevant Asian
governments.

And of course China already made much larger changes in real life by creating
Simplified Chinese.

------
darawk
I really enjoyed this essay, even though I think I disagree (at least
partially) with its primary conclusion. I especially liked the discussion of
the map/territory problem and its application to programming.

I think I even agree partially that the most literal version of the hacker
ethic is a bit flawed. But I think there is still a lot of value there, even
if Levy's book didn't necessarily show it in the best light, or deal equitably
with all of his characters.

Here i'd say: the map is not the territory. Levy's book is not the hacker
ethic, even though he may have made an attempt to map it. The examples he
cites may or may not meet the criteria that he himself specified in all cases,
but that says more about his choice of example than it does about the ideas
themselves.

I think there's a way of understanding these principles that comports well
with a, shall we say, more mature view of the world than perhaps some of us
had growing up on them:

> Access to computers should be unlimited and total.

I think this one stands on its own. Access should be unlimited and total. For
everyone. As the author rightly pointed out, the 'hackers' denied access to
Margaret Hamilton. That makes this event a bad example of the hacker ethic,
not a good one. But I think the principle fits rather well with the philosophy
of the author, provided the definition of 'access' is probably expanded and
contextualized.

> All information should be free.

To me, this is more ideal than implementation. All information ought to be
free. In an ideal world. Where possible that information should be free, and
we should be working towards a world where it is moreso. However, information
should never be _more free_ than the maturity and tolerance of the society its
embedded within permits at any given time. As free as possible, but no freer,
to put it on a bumper sticker.

> Mistrust authority—promote decentralization.

I think this is an unequivocal good not limited to the hacker ethic. Authority
should be mistrusted. Decentralization should be promoted where we can avoid
compromising the other ideals (e.g. access).

~~~
hibikir
Even your modified interpretation has dangerous side effects. We can probably
modify the access to computers line to only over computing hardware you own,
and that probably works, but the other two lines you comment on are often in
opposition.

If all information is free, then it's also free to access to authority.
Authority can do a lot of things with information that few hackers would like:
Read on what full transparency leads to in a place like Bridgewater. Once it's
clear that we don't want authority to have free access to our information,
it's clear that the 'all information should be free' line is not an idea, it's
just hypocritical. What it really means is that hackers should have access to
all the information they want, but they should be able to hide all the
information they need from authority: Enough of that, and now you have a new
authority, which happens to be the people that have access to the information.

All information should be free is a phrase that gives permission to developers
to creates databases that are better at predicting election results than
pollsters. It's what allows people to tell if someone is pregnant, has an
undisclosed mental illness, can list everyone's favorite kinks, where has
their cellphone been since it was purchased, and everything they've bought on
the internet the last 10 years. When it comes to information quantity has a
quality all to itself, and I don't think that hackers in the 70s had really
internalized this.

This breakdown on the hacker ethos builds two camps: One that finds privacy
more important, and doesn't really want information to be free, and those that
put the freedom of information first, and are happy to hand tremendous guns to
authorities, whether they are governments or silicon valley corporations.

And this is why the hacker ethics breaks, and we should be careful about the
future. There's a lot of uses to all that centralized, free information: A lot
of things become very convenient, computers systems are capable of pretty much
reading our mind, and fraud detection algorithms become so very good that many
things become cheaper. Unfortunately the same tools can be used for far less
friendly uses.

This is a question we'll all be wrestling with for years, as choosing privacy
would make most tech giants collapse, while choosing information freedom is
just waiting for the right kind of authority to show us that East Germany's
Stasi was just a small scale exercise.

~~~
darawk
> Even your modified interpretation has dangerous side effects. We can
> probably modify the access to computers line to only over computing hardware
> you own, and that probably works, but the other two lines you comment on are
> often in opposition.

I wouldn't even make that modification. Illegally accessing computer hardware
in pursuit of a higher or better purpose can be good, provided that purpose
avoids harm to others.

Of course, people playing God with their own interpretations of when that
standard is met can lead to disastrous results. But sometimes it's ok to break
something or break into something to learn about it. It's a thin line, but it
is there.

A Chinese hacker poking holes in the great firewall, for instance. I'd say
that's a good thing, even though they do not own the hardware.

> f all information is free, then it's also free to access to authority.
> Authority can do a lot of things with information that few hackers would
> like: Read on what full transparency leads to in a place like Bridgewater.
> Once it's clear that we don't want authority to have free access to our
> information, it's clear that the 'all information should be free' line is
> not an idea, it's just hypocritical. What it really means is that hackers
> should have access to all the information they want, but they should be able
> to hide all the information they need from authority: Enough of that, and
> now you have a new authority, which happens to be the people that have
> access to the information.

Ya, I couldn't agree more. That's why I added the proviso that information
wants to be free only in the ideal case. It is aspirational, not pragmatic. We
want to live in a world where all information can be free, and we should all
work towards that. That does not, however, mean going around 'liberating'
information arbitrarily. And it also does not mean that, in even our most
progressive societies, that we are ready for _all_ information to be free.

> This breakdown on the hacker ethos builds two camps: One that finds privacy
> more important, and doesn't really want information to be free, and those
> that put the freedom of information first, and are happy to hand tremendous
> guns to authorities, whether they are governments or silicon valley
> corporations.

Ya, you have no argument from me there. I do not think all information should
be free in the actual world that we live in. But I do think it's an
interesting way of modeling an ideal world. Underneath all forms of necessary
secrecy lie blights of some kind. Weapons are secret for war, sexual
preferences can be secrets due to shame or even criminalization, etc.
Sometimes that secrecy is justified by the faults of the world, and sometimes
it is used to further the interests of an individual or group. In the latter
case we should strive to reveal it, and in the former to address the
justification for that secrecy.

------
josteink
While it was a interesting read and definitely had several good points, I
don't agree this is a "new" hacker ethic.

It bears no semblance to the original, and is of a fundamentally different
nature.

The original is a short and simple declarative list of principles towards a
goal.

This is a looooong list of ambiguous wishy washy questions whose intent is
unclear and with little relation to the original.

Trying to brand this as a "new" hacker ethos is just abusing the recognition
of the original to push your own (completely different) ideas and agenda.

I'm not going to call it entirely disingenuous, but it does come off with a
bad smell of politics.

Count me out.

~~~
rauljara

      Trying to brand this as a "new" hacker ethos is just abusing the recognition of the original to push your own (completely different) ideas and agenda.
      I'm not going to call it entirely disingenuous, but it does come off with a bad smell of politics.
    

You didn't say this (and I'm not asserting that you believe it), but it's easy
to read this statement and have the feeling that the original "hacker ethos"
was devoid of politics or trying to push an agenda. But it was totally
politics and it was totally trying to push an agenda.

One may prefer the original to this new ethos, but anyone claiming to speak
for a large group of people is engaging in politics. To borrow an idea from
the essay, you are forgetting the diversity of that group's opinions when you
claim it can be boiled down into short pithy statements.

------
dgreensp
This is a great talk, and I loved the discussion and criticism of the roots of
hacker culture, and also what the author describes as "logical positivism."
You can look at something like Bitcoin as a textbook example. The thinking was
that by making a simplified model of money, money can be replaced, and the
government (authority) circumvented. In reality, money is not just numbers in
a ledger, and when you take away one authority you institute others.

That said, mistrusting authorities such as governments is a valid and valuable
position, as is standing up for the right to tinker with hardware on
principle. Some of the bullet points that are bulldozed in this talk seem to
have a philosophical kernel that is sound, if controversial or subversive.
It's pretty interesting to me that computer tinkerers in the 70s, before
personal computers, couldn't own a computer or take one apart. Is that the
lack of "access" the ethic decries? Properly contextualized, is this point
just about the inherent value of freedom to tinker? Or is "access should be
total" a juvenile rationalization for breaking into computer systems, and
"information should be free" an excuse to steal or expose secrets? (And is
this ambiguity real or an artifact of Levy's formulation?)

I would separate "philosophy" from "culture." If in a particular subculture
like hacker culture, "all that matters is how good you are," this is
equalizing in a way -- for example, a man and woman with equal skills will
have equal status -- but it can also lead to phenomena such as arrogant
rockstars and frequent pissing contests. And what about the people who aren't
so good, how are they supposed to feel? So this "ethic" can generate a
traditionally male sort of culture that is off-putting or toxic to many
people, male and female. The fact is that creating a diverse and inclusive
community is its own value and doesn't follow from anything about hacking.

~~~
thescribe
> You can look at something like Bitcoin as a textbook example. The thinking
> was that by making a simplified model of money, money can be replaced, and
> the government (authority) circumvented. In reality, money is not just
> numbers in a ledger, and when you take away one authority you institute
> others.

Do we believe that the author of bitcoin has any ability to control Bitcoin
other than releasing it or any way to compel adoption of bitcoin beyond
advocating for it the way any of us could advocate for it?

If they are lacking those abilities they have just provided an alternative
which dilutes the authority of traditional money without adding any authority
themselves.

I may not understand where you are coming from, if so I apologize.

~~~
kazagistar
The rules and structure of bitcoin enshrine the values and ideals of a certain
culture, and enforce their traditions with ironclad rules. It has just as much
"authority" as any government mandated currency, though it might not seem that
way if you feel more favorably about the culture surrounding bitcoin vs the
standing political structure.

~~~
erikpukinskis
Bitcoin the community and Bitcoin the software have rules and authority. "Just
as much" is an empirical claim that I disagree with. I don't think Coinbase or
Gavin Andreesen have the same kind of authority as the Venezuelan president.
It's a set of narrower, diffuse authorities, rather than a central authority.

But even that is just one branch of Bitcoin. What makes Bitcoin truly anti-
authoritarian is that even if some body of power controls the dominant branch,
a group of people can simply fork it, and run their own currency completely
without the blessing of Gavin or Coinbase or anyone.

That doesn't give them all the benefits of holding mainline Bitcoin, but it
gives them some benefits. But anarchism never said everyone can have all the
power, it says everyone should have the power to do what they want ___amongst
themselves_ __. It 's freedom from interference, not guaranteed access.

Ethereum Classic is a fantastic example of this. As is the proliferation of
altcoins, many of which are just Bitcoin forks, and in that sense _are_
Bitcoin.

------
thescribe
This is entryism at its finest. It feels like an attempt to subvert an already
existing culture to another ideology.

~~~
GavinMcG
In order to be entryism, the speaker would have to be an outsider, right? But
that's not the case here. It's a member of the community speaking up about the
values they care about.

Presumably, that care is genuine, right? Or do you have some reason to suspect
the speaker is being disingenuous?

~~~
generic_user
Entryism is the practice of infiltrating an organisation/group to gain trust
then using a variety of tactics to try and subvert the politics/ideological
premise of the group. Also misdirecting resources to support the subversive
ideology and efforts. And ultimately trying to destroy the group and capture
the membership into the subversive organisation that was behind the entryism
in the first place.

What I gather from the piece and the reactions here point to a fairly clear
example of entryism.

~~~
GavinMcG
What evidence do you have of _infiltration_ beyond the fact that you don't
like what the speaker said?

It's a pretty extraordinary charge that someone would become a computer
programmer and become a teacher of programming purely in order to give a
conference talk that seems to suggest, at root, that we consider how our
programs treat people. What a revolutionary!

~~~
adangert
The author is trying to replace one system of thought with another, that's a
fact. I think it's baseless to assume if the intention of the author was to
originally pursue this motive or to suggest improvements after being apart of
the community for a period of time.

------
hl5
I'd wager that management denying open access to hackers was more detrimental
to Ms. Hamilton's exercises than the activities of said hackers. A good hacker
would do root cause analysis instead of picking the most convenient victim to
further some personal odyssey.

------
stirner
I think Parrish misunderstands a key component of the hacker ethic, which is
that the "richness of the world" is overrated and the structured logic of
computer systems is something we should strive for.

~~~
erikpukinskis
"overrated" is kind of a garbage descriptor. All I have to do to make
something overrated is rate it highly.

I suspect you have more concrete descriptors for what you are complaining
about, I would be more interested in reading those.

~~~
stirner
Okay.

------
javajosh
I found it interesting that her big counter-example to Levy's hacker ethic
concerned the modification of hardware. And _shared_ hardware at that. There
is a difference of kind rather than degree when it comes to modifying software
because _software never needs to be shared_. That is, you can copy data,
modify it to your heart's content, and never affect the original owner of the
data.

This does bring up a bunch of interesting points about shared software and
data, like who owns it. But one can imagine a world where all software is
open, which means anyone is trivially able to hang a shingle and start a new
node, but the only really "owned" stuff is the data users have put into it.

------
tikhonj
Programming is forgetting because forgetting is _abstraction_. On the other
hand, abstraction is not always about forgetting, and programming is not
always about the real world[1].

But that's always been part of the hacker ethic _I 've_ seen, to the extent it
exists at all.

Really, I agreed with a lot of the criticism in the article. There are points
definitely worth consideration and reflection. But it also had a couple of
peculiarities I've seen again and again in discussions on such topics (whether
they're criticisms of programming or some other discipline or science as a
whole). It should be considered _carefully_ —dare I say _critically_?

The first problem is that it, by necessity, doesn't treat "the hacker ethic"
with the same nuance as its own ideas. That mostly fine—a natural consequence
of constrained time and space and effort—but it's a bit concerning if a core
part of the argument is that the hacker ethic is insufficiently nuanced. You
could say it's a response solely to Levy's book, but its conclusions try to
apply to hacker culture as a whole. It's a bit like criticizing science (or
scientism) based solely on Neil deGrasse Tyson's hilariously simplistic
"Rationalia"[2]. The discussion is still _valuable_ , but not nearly as broad
as it tries to look.

The other problem is even more classic: the criticism is relevant and natural,
but the alternative solution pulled in is arbitrary and does _not_ flow
naturally from the criticism. Her suggested alternative questions pull in _a
lot_ of baggage unrelated to the shortcomings of the "hacker ethic" that just
reflects her particular philosophical abstractions for understanding social
systems, power and morality—abstractions that are by no means universal. For
example, the focus on "labor" immediately stood out: why single out _labor_ of
all things? There is an answer to that question of course, but that's not the
point: the point is that the answer to that question _does not_ naturally
emerge from the perfectly reasonable criticism in the rest of the talk. The
same about most of the other things she wishes to change—or not to change—in
the hacker philosophy.

As an illustration, it's not hard to imagine somebody with totally different
views agreeing fully with the problems outlined in the body of the talk, but
coming up with a totally different replacement for the "hacker ethic". Think
about a hardcore utilitarian, or somebody with a strongly individualistic bent
or a full-on anarchist or whatever else. Or perhaps just imagine the smallest
change needed to address the problems of Levy's hacker ethic while keeping the
"hacker spirit" however you see it. All those could come up with exactly the
same _problems_ in the fist part of the talk, but end up with totally
different conclusions.

My point, ultimately, is not to address those conclusions in particular.
Rather, I just want to point out the disconnect: it's perfectly possible to
agree with the setup without admitting anything about the proposed
alternatives. Just like it's possible to admit to shortcomings in science
without going full-on postmodern about it :).

 _footnotes_

[1]: I say this coming from a particular perspective where the real world is,
if anything, an enemy—perhaps you could call it programming language idealism
:).

[2]: It's an idealized government based solely on reason and empiricism which
is hilariously unrealistic: [https://www.facebook.com/notes/neil-degrasse-
tyson/reflectio...](https://www.facebook.com/notes/neil-degrasse-
tyson/reflections-on-rationalia/10154399608556613/)

~~~
thescribe
The whole article seems to have only the argument of, "Hackers as a whole
should think the way I want them to."

This is the new authority to be questioned.

~~~
skybrian
I'm not seeing any particular claim to authority here? In a critical essay,
it's customary to argue in favor of your own beliefs.

~~~
thescribe
I feel like nothing about the conclusion follows from the problems. If I say
that LA has a public transit issue and my solution is radical libertarianism I
should guide my audience between those two points.

------
adangert
I would suggest that computers don't necessarily make your life better, but
following value does, and using computers in certain ways necessary follows
added value.

------
auggierose
I like the article. Replace "forgetting" by "abstracting" and it becomes even
more reasonable.

------
igniteflow
If you buy into personality types, the hacker philosophy in part comes from
the fact many "hackers" are of ISTP type or similar. These personality types
learn by taking things apart and are far more likely to simply ignore rules if
they can see a way to solve a problem. As tech expands and becomes comprised
of a broader range of people with different takes on how things should be
done, then there is room for conflict and it's valid to question how we will
overcome this. However, replacing statements with questions feels like a
philosophy class. If the author has an effective counter argument then they
should be able to define it clearly and succinctly.

~~~
GavinMcG
Is "you should be asking these questions instead of making those assumptions"
such an unclear argument?

The questions are the whole point – that's what the speaker wants us to keep
in mind as we make choices as professionals.

------
leoc
Start bracing youselves _now_ for the Eric Raymond counterblast.

~~~
josteink
I'm not so sure, but if he decides to write one, I'm looking forward to it.

Eric usually makes for an interesting read.

~~~
qwertyuiop924
Eric can be good, especially when his writing is purely technical. However,
his politics are off-the-wall insane, so his response to this might be
similarly so.

------
chmaynard
Stewart Nelson decided to rewire MIT’s PDP-1 as a prank. Later, Margaret
Hamilton tried to use the DEC-supplied DECAL assembler on the machine and it
crashed repeatedly. The transcript points out that Hamilton is generally
credited with doing brilliant work for NASA on the Apollo project. Did Nelson
go on to do anything notable? Just curious.

~~~
chmaynard
If the length of one's Wikipedia page is any indication, Hamilton kicked a
bigger dent in the Universe than Nelson.

    
    
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewart_Nelson_(hacker)
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Hamilton_(scientist)

------
saycheese
>> "if somebody calls you a hacker that’s kind of like a compliment"

Being called a hacker has never felt like a compliment to me.

~~~
saint_fiasco
You frequent a site called Hacker News so at least you don't see hacker as a
terrible insult.

~~~
saycheese
Actually, I really dislike the site's name and I would never infer that
because someone visits a site that some label applies to them.

~~~
pvdebbe
This site is just misnamed, is all. "Startup news" would be more apt.

------
nickthemagicman
"And it’s a privilege…if somebody calls you a hacker that’s kind of like a
compliment. It’s a privilege to be able to be called a hacker, and it’s
reserved for the highest few. And to be honest, I personally could take or
leave the term."

This feels so passive aggressive and subtly mocking.

This entire article is ridiculous pedantry to me. By default everything a
HUMAN DOES is a simplification/abstraction of an unknowable mysterious
reality. A better catchphrase is: "EXISTENCE IS FORGETTING"....Human language
doesn't communicate our complete feelings, ou4 system of time doesn't capture
the fullness of the 4th dimension, our structures are a result of our crude
ability to shape the infiniteness of matter...and on and on...

Then the author claims: "Programs aren’t models of the world constructed from
scratch but takes on the world, carefully carved out of reality"

Insane! Programs are tools. Is a hammer a 'carefully carved out version of
reality?

Our societies perceptions give it whatever 'take on reality' it embodies and
that is constantly shifting! Our views on Myspace changed pretty fast...the
program actually failed because it didn't adapt to societies version of
reality.

And the authors alternative to the hacker ethic is pretty unusable. It's a
pedantic restatement of the golden rule....

~~~
PaulAJ
> Is a hammer a 'carefully carved out version of reality?

Yes. The construction of a hammer takes a particular view about what is to be
done with it. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

------
kahrkunne
The article does a wonderful job in hiding its actual point, probably because
the point is very inane - the semi-serious playful "hacker ethic" must go and
be replaced by a moral imperative in the form of a list of questions.

------
generic_user
Can someone do an executive summary or tl,dr please,

I honestly tried to read it but found it impenetrable.

~~~
anonemouse145
The phrase "Toward a new..." is very nearly a sure sign of relativism at work.
I don't know why so many quacks pick it. I guess they think they're
revolutionizing the world.

This article pushes for an ethics and feelings based redistribution of
programming effort. That's bad. Because resources remain finite, we won't lose
less data, we can only shuffle around what we lose. What we need to make this
decision, is not feelings or vague ethical codes. We need hard data,
especially in an age of big data and machine learning where the detailed
pieces involved in making a deep statistical analysis may well be out of the
realm of human comprehension.

For example, this article targets the evil gender binary. If only we would
think more carefully about our choices. Meanwhile, clinics are scratching
their heads trying to figure out how to map rates of ovarian cancer to
"demisexuals", or how a local rise in "non-binary asexuals" might affect rates
of testicular cancer, and what should be done about funding for screenings.

We lose data because we come from an era where space was limited, and cycles
were counted. Sure we made some dumb mistakes like 2 digit years, but 2 digit
years still work in a broad array of cases so we still use them all over the
place today. They are sometimes good to use, sometimes bad, sometimes they're
superfluous and unused anyway.

By all means rethink what fields should be compressed or expanded based upon
business needs. But do it based on data and business use cases, not on
feelings and someone's personal bias- even if that person promises their
ethics are better than the old ones.

~~~
mjg59
> Meanwhile, clinics are scratching their heads trying to figure out how to
> map rates of ovarian cancer to "demisexuals", or how a local rise in "non-
> binary asexuals" might affect rates of testicular cancer, and what should be
> done about funding for screenings.

This is a great case in point! Simply classing people as male or female
already loses data that's therapeutically relevant. The important thing in
determining whether someone's at risk of ovarian or testicular cancer isn't
whether they're male or female - it's whether they have ovaries or testes.
Some people have both, some people have neither and some people do not have
the set you'd expect from their gender. Assuming that "Male" or "Female"
accurately describes this is exactly the kind of "forgetting" discussed in the
article, and people lose out on appropriate healthcare as a result.

~~~
qb45
> Some people have both

I don't think _this_ particular combination is possible, for the record.

------
qwertyuiop924
Oh boy. I can taste the flames already.

Others have aptly tackled the "computing is forgetting" part of the article,
so I want to discuss the Midnight Computer Rewiring Society section.

The argument is that they denied somone access to a computer by re-wiring it.
But that's not true, anymore than changing the ITS login screen to say "5
losers online" was denying anyone access to that routine. The functioning of
the computer had been altered, but Hamilton could have simply popped the front
panel and re-wired it back, or translated her program to use the other
assembler.

She wasn't denied access, the hackers just broke something.

There is also the claim that Hamilton's access was considered umimportant
without even looking at the code, with the implication that it was because she
was a woman.

As stated above, Hamilton's access was ininhibited. Her program wouldn't run,
but not because the hackers didn't consider her important: _they had never
considered that someone would use DECAL_. It wasn't Hamilton's code they
disregarded, it was DECAL itself. In this case, wrongly.

Frankly, I find the continuing undertones of sexism accusations frustrating:
firstly, it was the 50s, and secondly, none of them seem to be in any way
accurate. And if you're going to claim sexism, at least have the guts to say
it straight up.

Hacker ethic and culture may be flawed, but it's the only set of computer
ethics and culture that I'd want to be a part of.

~~~
webmaven
_> I find the continuing undertones of sexism accusations frustrating:
firstly, it was the 50s_

It is possible to regard the historical period (and by implication, the social
context) of the events as an _excuse_ of the pervasive sexism (but given the
vaunted propensity to distrust authority and disregard social conventions, it
is quite weak as excuses go), but it certainly does _not_ make the events any
less sexist.

~~~
qwertyuiop924
Fair enough. It doesn't. However, it does change our expectations of how
sexist the events would be.

But this doesn't nullify my second point, which is that the article here
_doesn 't actually demonstrate any sexism at all_.

