> Some people argue that we are quickly moving from a creator economy to a verifier economy.
I wonder if this is a natural development of economic optimization.
Computability theory taught us that it is in general easier to verify that an answer is correct (P) than to come up with the answer in the first place (NP).
This ! And I really like your analogy to computability theory. I wonder if it applies to all economic activities. My experience so far is that verification is nice for simple knowledge tasks. But for the complex ones, doing it from scratch is often better. But I guess this may change as AI systems become better and better.
Of course, brute forcing a solution by verifying a massive amount of garbage is much less efficient than doing it from scratch.
Verification becomes more productive than sythesis only when the probability of generated content being correct is significantly high. So I suppose, as AI gets more accurate, verification will become more productive.
I'm in a peculiar position with Bing AI. My work provided me an enterprise account, so I can use it for work-related tasks. Often I find myself asking it to write a program for something I don't wanna do myself from scratch, then I just analyze it, see why it doesn't work and fix it. It has got to a point where it's much faster for me to do that, than to read the relevant documentation and figure out how to do it from scratch.
I always liked Guile because 1) it is a Scheme, 2) it is maintained under the umbrella of the GNU Project and 3) it is the system language of GNU Guix.
Wisp may be contraversial, especially in elitist Lisp crowds, but IMO it makes lisp more readable by using the de-facto standard Lisp indentation as Python-esque semantic whitespace.
That very much resonates with my thoughts on the matter.
I think the rigid, repetitive structure is what makes days fly by. I remember one time, while I younger and time still felt slow, I was in a sort of youth camp and I spent two weeks in their spaces with many other students. Our days were scheduled from morning to night with various activities, and most of time was either participating in activities or taking a break inbetween them. At the end, I was surprised how fast two weeks went by.
Maybe boredom is needed for time to go slowly, and we just don't have time to be bored.
> what would have happened if search engines had been prevented from displaying search results from news organizations that happened within the last month
News sites would probably change whatever metadata Google is using to check site age to make their news articles appear one-day-more-than-month old to Google crawlers, all as a part of Search Engine Optimization techniques.
There is a trivial solution to this. Store your own copy (or hash, or whatever) of the article and don't rank it until your copy is at least a month old.
The idea is still nonesense because some other search engine will show up without this restriction, and any news site would prefer to be listed there, rather than not.
Trans folks may in general possess qualities that make them better hackers, but they certainly aren't the only ones, so I wouldn't call hacker culture inherently trans.
That would imply that non-trans people are somehow outsiders, which is contrary to the hacker philosophy, which respects merit and skill, regardless of the person's identity.
> Hacker culture is inherently antiauthoritarian, therefore queer and leftist. If you have a problem with queer leftists in your hacker community, you are the problem and need to leave.
> Leadership in the hacker community doesn't look like RMS or ESR anymore. The culture is queer, trans, furry, neurodiverse.
> Hacker culture is queer, furry, neurodiverse. Deal with it.
> Hacker culture is queer now, and queer, kinky (but SSC) sex is an integral part of that.
> Hacker culture is trans/furry/otaku/plural/neuroqueer. Get used to it.
> The tech sector and hacker culture are increasingly queered.
> Times have changed. Social justice is now a core part of hacker ideals.
I don't recognize these claims either. The hackers I know are much more diverse in identity and belief than the narrow subculture described above.
Hacker culture has changed in the past ten years or so. The lodestar is no longer ESR's Jargon File, nor the GNU Manifesto, nor Steven Levy's Hackers. They're just ideals of what we think hacker culture should be, but that's not how hacker culture is actually practiced (if it ever was).
As more and more queer and trans people have gotten involved with hacker culture, they've brought queer and trans political and philosophical thinking with them and with it, a new orientation. They're sort of terraforming the hacker space to make it more comfortable and welcoming to people like them. I mean Mara Bos, a leading developer in the Rust ecosystem, states that her goal is to "make the Rust standard library more gay". Cishets are still welcome, of course, inasmuch as they give due respect to queer and other marginalized people in the community and do not express regressive opinions about the same.
The Q in LGBTQ can stand for Queer, or it can stand for Questioning; and maybe that's the basic mindset of queer theory that's applicable here: to question everything, especially your assumptions, and examine critically the social constructs that are intrinsic to the environment in which you live and work. Especially give thought to who is centered and who is marginalized by your efforts.
Allison Parrish does a great job of explaining this attitude in her talk "Programming is Forgetting: Towards a New Hacker Ethic":
She and Parrish are probably the most prominent exponents of what constitute the new norms of hacker culture. Oh, and uh, both are trans women.
That's the thing: Hacker culture never was as inclusive as people claimed it was. It was still oriented around the cishet white male nerd; inasmuch as others outside that template were allowed to participate, it was made more difficult for them because of the cishet-white-male-nerd-oriented assumptions and norms that were intrinsic to the community (as Parrish elucidates with her example about Margaret Hamilton being unable to assemble her programs on the surreptitiously modified PDP-1). That's what's changing.
Remember, traditional hacker culture could never exist without vast sums of DARPA money to supply funding for the equipment, resources, payroll, etc. It only came about because the military-industrial complex wanted the missile to know where it is as it hurtled through the sky on its way to blow up thousands or millions of Others. It is inadequate as a general framework that allows for talented people regardless of background to make a contribution. The queer hackers are attempting to modernize this framework to better meet the goal of welcoming valuable contributions regardless of the contributor's identity, using their experience as outcasts among outcasts.
We could argue about the history of hacker culture and its inclusivity, but it would most likely be just a series of proofless claims from both sides. I personally have never seen or heard of a person rejected from any hacker clique because of their sexual orientation. I've heard of a few having their contributions refused for trying to push political agenda [0], but then again it wasn't their identity that was refused, only the contributions related to advertising that identity.
I don't feel like the neo-queer-hacker culture you're discribing is particularly welcome to anyone who disagrees with them. I've heard of multiple instances of people calling for bans of people who said something they disagree with [2]. That is completely opposite of "inclusive". Inclusivity only matters when it includes people you disagree with.
> Coraline Ada Ehmke slew the meritocracy buddha in 2018
It doesn't surprise me that a person who hasn't shown much skill or merit is arguing against meritocracy. It is in her own interest to do so.
There have been hypotheses that a significant number of trans women (i.e. biological men who identify as women) are actually on the autism spectrum. Considering natural tendency of autistic people to prefer isolated activities and puzzles, there may be a correlation between hackers and trans women.
As with any novel phenomena, especially in sociology, it is very hard to provide tangible evidence for anything. If you demand nobody speaks of anything of sort without hard evidence, rarely anything would ever be said.
it is very hard not to observe said tendency, though really I was hoping that it was just that programmers always been rich enough to undergo transition. is this still true, though, perhaps now you can be jobless and still somehow apply for transition? depending on GPS coordinates, of course, but possible here and there.
this mentioning of potential trans-paraphernalia in an article calling to all hackers is a little misleading (imho), biased perhaps, or even influential. it is a statement i guess.
back in our teen hacker days we heard stories of ppl building molotovs, credit card scammers, eavesdropping equipment, lock-pick etc. but biohacking and female hormonal medicine in particular has definitely not been on the list (that much) if memory serves right... and my bet is that Phrack back-archive can confirm it.
perhaps it is a logical to see a change in popular understanding what hackers can find, or do, or are defined by. curiosity and daring courage to intrude is one thing, we can all agree.
perhaps also we may agree that hacking one's body is still hacking, as social engineering IS considered hacking.
Even if this is true, it need not be either-or. Saying that they are 'actually' autistic seems to imply that you do not believe that they are 'actually' trans.
For what it's worth, I didn't mean "actually" in an either-or sense, but more in an unexpected-correlation sense. I tend to avoid ontological discussions on this topic.
English is not my native language, I sometimes miss the subtleties.
What’s with this ‘biological men’ stuff? How would you define that and what about chromosomal abnormalities like XXY or XYY people? If I have Jacob’s syndrome and a penis am I biologically male or something else entirely? Explain.
If you just want to have silly ideas about trans people, that’s fine because I’m done arguing with people over that. It’s a huge waste of time to get that interested in another person’s genitals but you do you. However if you’re going to use something as silly as ‘biological male’ you have to support that.
Why?
reply