|
|
|
Always blame the last to leave.
|
|
|
|
|
Because we've got their memory.
... And their hard drive, if we've got a spare slot.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Right? Every time a coder leaves here we create a new folder on the internal network called "[Coder]'s Brain" and copy their hard drive to it.
|
|
|
|
|
I say that about code I wrote myself more than two weeks previously. Maybe it's an age thing?
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
|
|
|
|
|
Wall Street Journal, Nov. 21, 2014, "Automation Makes Us Dumb:
Human intelligence is withering as computers do more, but there’s a solution." by Nicolas Carr [^]:
"Ten years ago, information scientists at Utrecht University in the Netherlands had a group of people carry out complicated analytical and planning tasks using either rudimentary software that provided no assistance or sophisticated software that offered a great deal of aid. The researchers found that the people using the simple software developed better strategies, made fewer mistakes and developed a deeper aptitude for the work. The people using the more advanced software, meanwhile, would often "aimlessly click around" when confronted with a tricky problem. The supposedly helpful software actually short-circuited their thinking and learning." The problem I have with the language here is in the equating of "rudimentary" with "simple." In my book, "simplicity" is a "holy grail," often achieved only with heroic odysseys' through the wilderness of "complexity," where "rudimentary" commonly means just "lacking functionality."
The problem I have with the experimental design of the study cited is that it has no test of the "median," software that had some "aid:" more than the "simple," less than the "complicated."
Whether or not I "buy into" Carr's premise: well, I'll have to read his work, first.
Carr's personal web-site: [^].
Would it be a devilish thought to wonder if programmers would be more in demand, paid better, if the general populace were more dumbed-down technically than they are now ? ... Assuming that programmers are not also being dumbed-down at a similar rate by the increasing extent to which to-write-the-code-click-here developer tools are dumbing us down.
«If you search in Google for 'no-one ever got fired for buying IBM:' the top-hit is the Wikipedia article on 'Fear, uncertainty and doubt'» What does that tell you about sanity in these times?
|
|
|
|
|
Rudimentary: VisiCalc
Simple: Excel
BillWoodruff wrote: if the general populace were more dumbed-down technically than they are now ?
Is that even possible?
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't have to think about it, I agree. I came to that conclusion via direct observation without a study.
|
|
|
|
|
The best reason for KISS is because we can. As for providing self-help assistance for users via documentation or whatever means, that only matters to the 10% or so of users who might actually consider solving their own problems. Most people, including clients and family members would rather that you just fix it for them. Now, excuse me while I remote into my brother-in-laws 6 month old laptop since he is complaining about how slow it is now...I tried to offer some easy tips for him to try, but he immediately interjected, 'that sounds complicated, can't you just remote in?'. And later on, I get to backup the wife's laptop because she doesn't know how. 
So, I don't think the populace is dumbing down, I think they are just getting lazier!
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, you made the mistake of letting them know that remoting was possible! If they don't know it can be done, they won't ask for it! 
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but the alternatives are worse!
0) a special weekend trip to bring it to me
1) trying to sort it out over the phone
2) listening to the whining/nagging about it being such a problem until it is fixed
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
I think he found a horse he can ride in to town on and garner a lot of attention, because it sounds reasonable. That study in the Netherlands I would greatly question.
As far as the alternative being, keeping the human operator in the decision loop, I'd rather trust a machine in many cases, whether it's driving, operating a commuter train, diagnosing a medical condition, etc.
What Carr fails to realize is that it just looks like people are dumbed down nowadays. People have always been dumbed down. Religion was the first great dumbing-down of the masses. Government became the next great dumbing-down, followed by the advent of the industrial revolution and the "corporations have the same rights as people" laws. And finally, in the deepest irony of all, our very system of education is designed to dumb-down the population. One only need look at who was in charge of creating public education to see the motivations behind ensuring that the worker was smart enough to do his job but not so smart as to threaten the economic/socio/political hierarchy. And that hasn't changed one whit in 200 years.
I also find it amusing how people blame inanimate objects, like "technology" or even "TV". No. People are directly responsible for their own dumbing down by the poor choices they make. By blaming some inanimate thing like "computers", we avoid taking responsibility for our own actions.
And BTW, the reason I write a lot of "to-write-the-code-click-here" automation solutions is that, for the most part, programmers should actually not be programming (many notable exceptions of course, I don't want to piss people off here, but it really is a sad truth that there are very few people in this field that actually are qualified to do the work they are doing.)
And besides, me personally, I'd rather be sitting on the beach enjoying the sun than coding, so if I can use those "click-here" solutions myself, then frankly, I think that's pretty smart! 
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Well said, Marc, as usual...
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, you certainly drowned Carr in platitudes and pronouncements, but I would have appreciated some insight based on scientific knowledge of human cognition, and learning, or awareness of the anthropology of education. Of course, Mr. Natural himself said "Twas Ever Thus," [^], and I'd never pick a bone with him.
cheers, Bill
«If you search in Google for 'no-one ever got fired for buying IBM:' the top-hit is the Wikipedia article on 'Fear, uncertainty and doubt'» What does that tell you about sanity in these times?
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: scientific knowledge of human cognition
IMO, that's an oxymoron. You can't gain "scientific" knowledge of human behavior by studying pigeons in a constructed environment or by looking at K and Na transport across a neuron's membrane. The only way, again IMO, to understand human cognition is, ironically, through the act of self-cognizing. So, while the "gambling reflex" and the biology of the brain is absolutely fascinating, it does little for me in understanding how it comes about that I have the rudiments of self-consciousness and reasoning (which even my cat demonstrates), and that's why you'll never see citing "scientific knowledge" (which is given far too much authority) when dealing with topics like human cognition.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: And finally, in the deepest irony of all, our very system of education is designed to dumb-down the population. One only need look at who was in charge of creating public education to see the motivations behind ensuring that the worker was smart enough to do his job but not so smart as to threaten the economic/socio/political hierarchy
And wouldn't it be nice if the upper strata of the economic/socio/political hierarchy were actually smart enough to use the education that they can afford?
I'm not a programmer but I play one at the office
|
|
|
|
|
Lilith.C wrote: And wouldn't it be nice if the upper strata of the economic/socio/political hierarchy were actually smart enough to use the education that they can afford?
Indeed, however the horror stories I've heard from people getting their doctorate degrees from places like Harvard lead to me believe that they actually aren't receiving much value. Tenured professors that teach from their own obsolete textbooks, students given assignments requiring reading thousands of pages in one week, an intolerance of new thinking in the classroom...I have not been impressed by the accounts of my friends who have gone through the process.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: Religion was the first great dumbing-down of the masses. Government became the next great dumbing-down, followed by the advent of the industrial revolution and the "corporations have the same rights as people" laws. And finally, in the deepest irony of all, our very system of education is designed to dumb-down the population.
I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one.
Religion: Some of the greatest of man's achievements (Pyramids, Cathedrals, Art) have been response to a religious conviction or drive. Western art, architecture, literature - and indeed, civilization owes a tremendous debt to religion.
Government: Feel free to point out any place at any time where the lack of strong, stable government has resulted in intellectual freedom and development.
The same could be said for the rest of your indictments - and if you look across religion, government, education, and industry perhaps you'll know they've all one thing in common: mankind. Seems to me we've identified the problem.
|
|
|
|
|
MehGerbil wrote: mankind. Seems to me we've identified the problem.
Aye, on that point I'll agree.
You bring up some good arguments. Perhaps the difference is that what I hear you to be describing is more archetypical and thus demonstrating the best of religion, gov't, etc., whereas what I tend to be biased in my view is the implementation, which I see as being frequently and deeply flawed. For example, there are many cases where a strong stable government prohibits intellectual freedom and development. Seems like North Korea would make a good example.
For example:
MehGerbil wrote: civilization owes a tremendous debt to religion.
Aye, and religion owes a tremendous debt to civilization. 
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: Perhaps the difference is that what I hear you to be describing is more archetypical and thus demonstrating the best of religion, gov't, etc., whereas what I tend to be biased in my view is the implementation, which I see as being frequently and deeply flawed.
I think you should recognize and expose flaws.
My concern is that many run to the next big thing and think that it offers salvation.
Science/rational thinking comes to mind.
Man is still at the helm there - it will produce the same abuse as always.
|
|
|
|
|
MehGerbil wrote: Religion: Some of the greatest of man's achievements (Pyramids, ...) have been response to a religious conviction or drive.
Naw, dat twas spaceships landing, aliens making people slaves done did dat.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't agree that "Religion was the first great dumbing-down of the masses".
The fact that various priesthoods and temples through history have held knowledge that the general population didn't have, doesn't necessarily mean that the priests took it away from them.
It always seemed to work the opposite way when I worked in I.T.
|
|
|
|
|
I'd like to think of a really "Smart" reply to that post Marc, but unfortunately I feel to "Dumb" at the moment
Shawty
|
|
|
|
|
In the spirit of "quis custodiet ipsos custodies"[^], there must ultimately be an expert source of the knowledge implemented by the software system, implemented by a 'not dumbed-down' programmer. Of course, in a post-Singularity world, that expert and that programmer might be facets of a machine intelligence.
I've been a developer for over 30 years. Given the rate of change in our field, that gives me a perspective that borders on the archaeological. Regardless of the level of automation provided to our users, and to us in our tools, I still believe there is a fundamental competence required to create a quality product. The biggest thing that has changed in that time is the scale at which those products are used. Our applications are flotsam on the surface of an ocean whose depth is ever-increasing.
Hmm. For some reason, the following line from Star Trek: The Next Generation, episode "Q Who?", comes to mind:
"It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross."
I still enjoy working here, despite any 'dumbing down'.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
