
Permacomputing - ibobev
http://viznut.fi/texts-en/permacomputing.html
======
seltzered_
"Any community that uses computers would have the ability to create its own
software. A local software would address local needs better than the generic
"one size fits all" solutions would."

Vernacular Computation is term you might be looking for (inspired by
[https://twitter.com/rsnous/status/1170467742287200256](https://twitter.com/rsnous/status/1170467742287200256)
)

The other question to ask here is why do we tend to only use and develop
Personal Computers rather than Community Computers (thinking along the lines
of [https://dynamicland.org/](https://dynamicland.org/) )

~~~
Reelin
> > A local software would address local needs better than the generic "one
> size fits all" solutions would.

At what cost in terms of development effort? "Not Invented Here" is a well
recognized anti-pattern for good reason. Don't forget the ongoing investment
required for maintenance and (in many cases) ever changing interoperability
requirements.

> why do we tend to only use and develop Personal Computers rather than
> Community Computers

Dynamicland is an amazing project but I think it's a pretty loose use of the
term computer. It seems to me to be a physical space which incorporates
interesting human-computer interaction paradigms. Someone still owns and
operates the collection of computers and devices powering the entire thing
behind the scenes so it's more like a mainframe or other public access system
(ex sdf.org) in my view.

So I'd split your question into two - why do people seem to prefer personal
computers to public access systems, and why isn't there more investment in
developing novel human-computer interaction paradigms?

To the first question: All things being equal would you really prefer to do
your personal coding, writing, reading, online shopping, or other private
activities on a system someone else controlled? Note that many people already
do much of their day to day work on such devices (ie centrally administrated
systems).

To the second question: That shit is incredibly expensive in both time and
materials and a return on investment seems unlikely in most cases. Just look
at how difficult it has proven to develop usable VR headsets that fall into a
reasonable price range! (And then you have to rework or reinvent all the
existing software to add support for them.) It does happen though - VR
headsets, the Wiimote, and the Xbox Kinect are all examples. There are
certainly hobbyists who custom fabricate their own keyboards or implement
interesting interactions using computer vision, but the hurdle between that
sort of thing and mass adoption of novel hardware that integrates with a
variety of software is absolutely huge.

~~~
yellowapple
> At what cost in terms of development effort? "Not Invented Here" is a well
> recognized anti-pattern for good reason.

Building a system from smaller pre-built components helps address that; you
would be able to take those already-built pieces and arrange and configure
them to your specific needs.

That is: not all customized solutions are a symptom of NIH syndrome. Sometimes
one size _doesn 't_ fit all.

------
yetihehe
> At the same time, computers have been failing their utopian expectations.
> Instead of amplifying the users' intelligence, they rather amplify their
> stupidity.

They amplify thinking like any power tools. Those tools allow you to make both
intended actions(whatever they are) and mistakes on much bigger scale. Like
the old saying goes "This machine has no brain, please use your own".

~~~
panic
It's pretty hard to get a computer to do what you want. You're at the mercy of
whatever software is installed, and most of this software is "stupidity-
amplifying" rather than "intelligence-amplifying" \-- especially the software
that an untrained person is able to pick up and use for their own purposes.

~~~
yetihehe
Yes. The same can be said about chisels. When I was small, I tried to use
chisel to carve something. I was untrained, so I only hurt myself. The same is
with computers. But should we limit access to computers for untrained people?
It would make my life much easier, but I still think we shouldn't.

------
teekert
"Instead of amplifying the users' intelligence, they rather amplify their
stupidity."

Lost me right there. I love computers, as a bioinformatician they allow me to
understand reality better by giving me the power to create abstractions from
massive amounts of data that my puny brain _can_ comprehend. The structured
way in which I communicate with my computers allows met to think differently
about problems. I strongly feel that they amplify my intelligence.

~~~
kilpikaarna
Then you didn't reach the part where it says

'Observation is among the most important human skills computers can augment.
Things that are difficult or impossible for humans to observe can be brought
within human cognitive capacity by various computational processes. Gathered
information can be visualized, slight changes and pattern deviances
emphasized, slow processes sped up, forecasts calculated. In Bill Mollison's
words, "Information is the critical potential resource. It becomes a resource
only when obtained and acted upon."'

~~~
teekert
Oh that sounds good. I guess I always find it difficult to read a piece that
starts with things that go strongly against my convictions, I realize that
this is problem for humanity and does not help in getting wiser. I should have
read the rest of it.

------
pg-gadfly
I think the author is giving lots of value to computation itself, which is not
how humans generally allocate it. It's results are seen just as another
generic resource.

What do people do when clean water becomes nearly free? They do ridiculously
inefficient things. It's easy, efficient use of truly limited resources, like
_time_.

There is a reason we don't optimize things beyond their economic value;
because it was designed to optimize total resource use.

~~~
hootbootscoot
or perhaps indicative of what "economic value" means in the context of a
finite planet with finite resources.

I think you DID nail the needed change point right on the head. Our economic
system prioritizes "anyone should be able to do anything at any time for a
price, but the price externalities and _waste_ are irrelevant."

I'll draw a parallel with PC's "This thing should be able to do anything at
anytime and be everything to everyone" vs "this device runs circuitry and
control loops that optimally manage a given pre-described domain"

------
gdubs
I love that permaculture is getting so much interest here. (I shared a link to
Bill Mollison’s book early during shelter-and-place and it seemed to really
resonate.) Cool to see people wanting to apply its principles to areas like
technology.

One thing I’m reminded of here specifically is Steve Job’s idea that computers
should be a “Bicycle for the Mind”. (Look up his talk from the early 80s on it
if you haven’t seen it.)

There’s so much overlap in the early days of personal computing with ideas
like Permaculture. Kind of a blend of hippie-utopian ideas.

I wonder if the Apple II was the closest thing to embodying what the author
here is imagining. A bicycle for the mind, and a computer that enabled local
communities. Something extensible, which you could hack. Would not be out of
place to find an Apple II powering a little solar farm and water pump. Some
would probably say the Amiga as well.

I love this aesthetic — a kind of retro futurism. Apple’s early advertisements
of a computer in the kitchen, in the classroom, etc, really captured that
ethos.

------
Santosh83
As an aside, one of the simplest, cleanest and easy to read web page I've
recently come across on the web. Much easier on the eyes than text files (like
RFC docs), but without all the bloat and pretty ribbons of most sites these
days. Appears to be hand-written HTML and doesn't even load a stylesheet.

------
lcam84
This fits in with low technology and degrowth. For example, this site [1] only
works with energy collected from a solar panel, challenging the idea that
things always need to be available.

When he talks about technologies that make us more stupid I remembered 5G, not
because of the wave frequencies it uses, but because it will increase the
amount of information in our mobile phones, information that most of us
already cannot manage well today. It is also a tremendous waste of resources,
because we will need to change all of our mobile phones and their will consume
more energy.

[1] [https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/](https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/)

~~~
pg-gadfly
Waste is very subjective. When you have 100x the supply of something, it
becomes cheaper to do stuff, which means other more valuable resources can be
saved instead.

We don't manage "information" as much as we do abstract objects. You can have
a 5 mebibyte, gibibyte or tebibyte objects, and they will still consume the
same amount of mental capacity.

The switch to a new wireless standard is not a cliff, it will happen
gradually, there is no need to throw away everything at once. Energy per bit
transferred is lower for 5G devices, which makes them more efficient in the
future to compensate the need to transfer more bits.

~~~
lcam84
The experience I have is that we've never had such a high attention deficit.
Attention is a finite resource, there are biological limits to what we can
analyze in depth.By increasing the speed of comunications, we run the risk of
becoming more superficial. My point is that developed countries already have
infrastructure and in my view it is not justified to change it completely in
consideration of the environmental challenges that lie ahead and that many of
us already suffer from hyperconnectivity. In this respect my way of thinking
is very much in line with this article.

------
7373737373
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomic_computing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomic_computing)

~~~
GuiA
Were systems built that embody this kind of design, or is this purely
speculative?

------
hootbootscoot
Great manifesto, or at least the beginnings of one.

Favorite Quote: "Instead of planned obsolescence, there should be planned
longevity."

Which, of course, is yet another artifact of capitalism.

I'll contend that our global economic "system" (or lack thereof, in terms of
intended consequences) is a far larger determinant of our living conditions
than any local/national government, intertwined as it is with "the economy"
(in thrall to?)

Let's not forget where planned obsolescence came from, nor the stream of
constant revenue it generates for it's practioners (if also, perhaps, casting
it's proponents as antagonists to human potential's realization)...

... but onto more practical matters: I've often found cool chips in the trash
and wished to be able to onboard their unique capabilities without having to
circumvent:

1) an informational vacuum (their maker went bankrupt, or their technical data
is locked in some cellar.)

2) "protection" mechanisms designed to create opacity, because "capitalism"
and competition, etc.

I am imagining some sort of Forth-Borg performing some kind of JTAG perimeter-
scan-like activity that basically can "learn" any hardware at the raw gate
level and then impose primitive functional blocks on top, regardless of the
original intention of such logical structures. Am I crazy? probably...

"you will be assimilated" and it guesses the voltages, the high/lows/pullups,
bypass caps, etc. perhaps based around a Field Programmable Analog Array..

ok, i'm seriously digressing.

I agree with the author. Bloat and deliberate obfuscation and wasteful
fake-"abstractions" that merely obfuscate, bloat, and treat users to less info
etc, this all has reached absurd depths of silliness.

I see this sort of movement as (ironically) inspiring new platforms and
devices, while perhaps also enabling us to re-examine existing systems in
light of such ideas.

