
Software, the Tough Tomato Principle, and the Great Weirdening of the World - patadune
https://florentcrivello.com/index.php/2019/04/29/software-the-tough-tomato-principle-and-the-great-weirdening-of-the-world/
======
rossdavidh
So, I'm a software developer, so it's not like I'm against software. I also
work remote, and it's fine. But...

Sometimes you need to remove a restriction, in order to find out why that
restriction was important. It's like if gravity goes away
([https://www.rosshartshorn.net/stuffrossthinksabout/end_of_gr...](https://www.rosshartshorn.net/stuffrossthinksabout/end_of_gravity/)),
and you discover you were depending on gravity to do a lot of things for you,
even though it was a drag when you have to get up in the morning.

The Great Weirdening that the author discusses, is not unrelated to the fact
that every little pocket of greed, hatred, or delusion can reinforce itself
online. Also, that one nation after another finds that it has no consensus
anymore, no political center of gravity to use for keeping it together. And if
you can't get to consensus by talking, eventually, you get to it by violence.
I'm not sure the Great Weirdening is going to be all that good. It may be that
having colocated physical spaces and shared media helped us learn to get along
with people that aren't like us, and it may be that is a difficult but
important skill to have.

------
tschellenbach
The name for this is co-evolution (though tough tomato sounds fun as well :D).
It's been written about extensively in papers.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coevolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coevolution)

~~~
eternalban
Co-evolution in biological systems is based on evolving organisms. There is a
broken symmetry here (though personally I find the notion of 'artificial'
constraints affecting the space of possible actions rather too dull to get
excited about) in that we are considering changes in two categorically
distinct mechanisms and organisms.

In fact, imo, what is actually interesting are the specific cases instances of
the dull fact, such as of language and thought/expression. And btw, would you
consider that specific case "co-evolution"? Is it really a linear history?)

------
otakucode
I don't know if I can agree with the notion that software is bringing more
flexibility. Software and other computer-based systems breed a type of
'systems thinking' which is very efficient and rule-based. And reality is
neither efficient or rule-based. If the software doesn't have a field to enter
the correct data, how do people react? Do they conclude the software is wrong?
No, they conclude the person is wrong and must be fit to the system provided.
Software systems are often very general, and they achieve this by ignoring the
complexities and specificities of individual situations.

Software makes it almost impossibly tempting to reduce human situations to
factors and linear approximations. While these may often work well enough,
they also fail often enough to cause trouble. Hundreds of years ago, a work
was written which I believe was quoted by Donald Knuth in one of his books
that I've never forgotten: "Make game of that which makes as much of thee."
That, to me, sound like the most cogent advice to anyone living in the modern
world. If you are seen as a factor to be manipulated, maximized, or reduced,
it is only fitting, appropriate, and ultimately, moral, for you to respond in
kind.

~~~
icebraining
Bureaucracy was doing that way before software came along, and I'm not sure
the former was easier to subvert than the latter.

~~~
mercer
It's much easier, through software and the internet, for bureaucracy, or in a
broader sense 'systems thinking', to extend its reach to every little part of
life that used to be exempt or less affected in the past because of various
constraints.

I do realize that the statement is a bit vague, and I'm not saying it's
necessary development, but at least in my experience it seems to be true, in
all sorts of ways.

There's the ability to measure and optimize things in ways never possible
before: tickets processed, karma, time to respond to a chat or email, etc. And
if it's possible and easy, why not do so when you're the one in charge?

Or ubiquitous communication channels, unbounded by time or place. It takes
conscious effort/willpower to disconnect, and isn't always possible (at least
not without negative consequences including social 'punishment').

There's a growing problem in the (mental) health care industry here, as I
understand it, because doctors, psychologists, and social workers find
themselves overwhelmed with 'paperwork' at the expense of doing their actual
job, all because the various bureaucracies want measurements: insurance
companies, the government, the CEO.

And it's not just that it takes time, it actually changes the way these people
have to work. I've spoken to a number of social workers and psychologists who
lament the fact that they can't build up any kind of relationship with their
patients (err, "clients") because the 'system' actively reduces them to rows
in a database and if 'a' then 'b' approaches, where personal connection (and
ability to, at times, use human judgment) is significantly reduced.

I've heard the same is true with police work. Because of 'algorithmic'
solutions (a whole other can of works) the 'beat cops' are told by computers,
basically, where to patrol. As a self-fulfilling prophecy, their increased
presence in certain areas increases the measured crime, which in turn affects
the algorithm. This obviously doesn't just reduce the ability of cops to use
their fuzzy human judgment to go where they think it makes sense, but it
actually pollutes crime data which might, for example, mark certain areas (and
ethnicities?) as more criminal.

To end my ramble, I'm not saying all of this is bad. I'm still a bit of a
techno-utopian at heart, and I think removing human judgment can also be
beneficial (especially when it comes to power dynamics). But it worries me to
the rather rapid increase in our abilities, and the way we just seem to jump
head-first into this new world without some very careful investigation.

And I definitely think a lot of this was a lot harder to do before software
came along, and generally a lot harder to subvert.

------
l33tbro
> removing gatekeepers means you don’t need to run your idea through a dozen
> filters before showing it to its final consumer. People get the uncut stuff
> directly — in all its glorious weirdness.

Isn't the goal to be build systems where users are able to modify and optimize
the gatekeeper in the fairest way to their collective needs? The assumption
that all gatekeepers are bad just feels so undergraduate at this point.

To be honest, this whole post reads like an updated version of a 'the web is
going to be so neat guys' / cyber-utopian rant from 1993. If the last 5 years
are teaching us anything, it's that being able to 'run your idea through a
dozen filters' may not be such a bad thing.

~~~
CodeMage
_> To be honest, this whole post reads like an updated version of a 'the web
is going to be so neat guys' / cyber-utopian rant from 1993_

I'm glad I wasn't the only one who had that reaction. Don't get me wrong, I
liked the first half of the article a lot. The exploration and discussion of
coevolution principle in technology was very interesting. But the way the
"software revolution" was described is extremely naive. The following are some
points that stood out.

 _And of course, that communication is free and instantaneous regardless of
its distance._

No, it isn't. It might be near-instantaneous in best case, but it sure as hell
isn't free.

 _The gig economy worker and the digital nomad are two examples of lifestyles
that are native to this new paradigm. Each just has to press a button to start
making money. Each works when and from wherever they want. And each gets paid
in direct proportion to their output._

This totally ignores the plethora of very real and very nasty issues plaguing
the gig economy.

 _In practice, it means the factory no longer needs to run as slow as its
slowest gear. Each gear can spin as fast as it fancies, and be rewarded
according to it._

That's not how things work out in practice. The "gears" don't "spin" in
isolation, so the "slowest gear" still affects the whole "factory". Worse, the
competitive nature of our society turns this whole scenario into a race to the
bottom.

 _Some will say that this measurability also comes at the cost of our privacy.
But you rarely need your government-issued ID to do things online — something
less true of the physical world. Software is anonymous by default._

Do we live in the same world? Sure, software itself is conceptually
uninterested in identity -- which isn't the same thing as being anonymous --
but I think we've all had plenty of evidence demonstrating how software
facilitates erosion of privacy.

 _You may not need to ask for permission to distribute your content anymore,
but you do need permission to get paid. If the payment gatekeepers don’t like
you, you’re outta luck._

Again, this is simplistic and naive. Cryptocurrencies cannot magically
abstract away the real world. The "payment gatekeepers" are not just banks and
credit card companies. There's also your government and your client's
government and all the stuff that comes with them.

In short, while I agree we should be excited about technology, we really have
to do a much better job of making sure it helps us.

~~~
DennisP
I've spent a fair amount of time reading terms of service for various payment
providers. They restrict a lot more than the government does.

------
SideburnsOfDoom
This is an old one:

"We shape our tools, and thereafter our tools shape us"

[https://mcluhangalaxy.wordpress.com/2013/04/01/we-shape-
our-...](https://mcluhangalaxy.wordpress.com/2013/04/01/we-shape-our-tools-
and-thereafter-our-tools-shape-us/)

[https://quoteinvestigator.com/2016/06/26/shape/](https://quoteinvestigator.com/2016/06/26/shape/)

------
bungie4
When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail principle. Come on admit,
you've hammered in a screw before.

Good easy read though.

~~~
FreeFull
I'm reading it more as "If the only tool everyone has is hammers, everything
will be done with nails"

~~~
beat
And screws will be refined to lose those hard-to-hammer threads and that
unreliable taper.

------
spir

      The Valley of Mismatch
      The Tough Tomato Principle is not a mere side effect of innovation.
      It’s necessary for the new technology to express its full potential.
      You can’t use your shiny new tomato harvester until you’ve got the
      tomato that goes with it.
    

We're seeing a lot of this in blockchain.

~~~
exelius
The problem with blockchain is that a significant percentage of people who are
bullish on blockchain are only bullish because they think it will negate the
need for governance.

They fail to see that many systems they want to replace with blockchain only
exist because of the need for governance. The governance came first, then we
designed a system around the rules we needed.

------
melks
This, although a little different, reminded me of Conway's Law:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law)

------
jondubois
>> One instance of the Tough Tomato Principle is particularly interesting:
when people are the tomatoes that have to fit their new technological
paradigm.

Sounds like a lot of people are going to be thrown out.

~~~
stcredzero
No. People are going to change to adapt to the new environment:

 _Taste and nutritional quality were secondary to machine compatibility._

(Read "nutritional" in the sense that Harvey Keitel means it with regards to
people. Or was that Michael Caine?)

~~~
bartimus
> People are going to change to adapt to the new environment

We'll just be doing whatever the AI tells us to do.

~~~
stcredzero
We're already doing what _the machine_ tells us to do -- where _the machine_
is the machine of the market, or the market-like machine which is social
media.

------
jacobush
Tough Tomate principle is a new (to me) take on how the tools and the product
shape each other, but it reminded me of this gem:
[https://dourish.com/publications/2012/ubicomp2012-colonial.p...](https://dourish.com/publications/2012/ubicomp2012-colonial.pdf)

Ubicomp’s Colonial Impulse

------
Animats
People have been grumbling about that since the invention of fences.

