[extropy-chat] PR: Lanier trashing >Hism again...

[Adrian Tymes]

--- Emlyn <emlynoregan at gmail.com> wrote:
> The technique I use for this problem is to work out what areas of
> tech
> / architectures / paradigms really crank up my fear & loathing. Then,
> simply, I try to embrace them.
> 
> I do this by posing this question: "Imagine I loved this technology /
> idea / whatever... what would that be like". The answer pretty much
> always involves finding out more. For technologies, it usually means
> building something using one or more of them.
> 
> Once I'm better informed, I try to give the tech/idea the same status
> in my mind as the stuff I really like, and artificially keep it there
> for a while (maybe a few weeks). I find I need to change my POV like
> this to really get a feeling for the deep meaning behind whatever the
> thing is. And often I suddenly see things from that other point of
> view, and learn something!
> 
> Or, at this point I can reject the idea if it still seems like crap,
> or if I can see why it is not good, but why its supporters would
> think
> it is good (because I've tried being one).

An alternate strategy I've tried (not saying it works better or worse
than yours, just that it works for me): for any popular tech that I
don't like, do a thorough and honest mental evaluation of why I don't
like it.  There is, of course, the danger of rationalizing from false
evidence or unjustified assumptions - so examine the evidence and
assumptions, *especially* if they're based on data that's more than a
few years old (given how fast tech changes these days, any data that
old about a certain technology might have become incorrect in that
time).

If the reason why is uncertain or unclear, or possibly disproven, then
look at the tech again (if there's a reason to, for instance if it's a
potentially viable component of my next project, or if the employers
seem to be wanting it), and play with it if possible.  (Of course, if
it's only available to those willing to spend $10000+ on it, that alone
is reason to be suspicious...and to know that that alone would limit
its adoption, thus excusing personal inexperience with it where such
might otherwise be expected.)  Pay particular attention to the reasons
it's so popular, and to my own previous objections (to see if they are
in fact still valid).

Case in point: one of my professional skills is Web programming.
There's word of a new method out there, called AJAX, which is based on
advanced Javascript.  My personal experience with Javascript, from 2000
and before, was that it's unreliable (especially across browsers),
didn't always perform according to the documentation (even within a
given browser: i.e., MSIE's flavor of Javascript and MS's documentation
of same did not agree), and was limited in functionality (mainly to
form actions and simple tricks).  Thus, it seemed unsuited to serious
Web applications.  That data is over 5 years old now, though; perhaps
Javascript has dealt with those issues...or perhaps they're still
there, and AJAX is just a bunch of hype that will fall through.  It's
easy enough for me to build some simple AJAX applications and see if
they are robust enough to use.

Another case in point: instant messaging.  For many years now, I've had
an unreliable schedule - my employers needed me to accomplish tasks by
certain times, but they only rarely needed my actual presence at
meetings, and if they needed to contact me on an emergency basis they
had my phone number.  I viewed IMs as a way to chain me down: to have
absolute reporting of when I was online and when I was not, which would
not help me but would help them micromanage me (to their detriment:
they had better things to do with their time).  I grant that that's a
more emotional than practical reason, and yet...it's just as true
today, and the factual basis behind it is also somewhat true (even
though I've tried to select employers who don't have tendencies to
micromanage anyway).  My current employer really really wanted me to
get AIM, since that was "the company standard" for communication.
Eventually it worked out that it was actually
emergency-contact-equivalent, so I upgraded my cell phone (at their
expense, with their agreement) to get AIM...and they rarely use it.
E-mail and telephone calls continue to be the actual standard for
communication.  IM has become an emergency contact that is understood
to not always be on - *especially* since it's on my cell phone only,
and thus subject to cell phone usage limits (for instance, if I'm out
in the boonies, or inside a building I sometimes visit that's
apparently the equivalent of a Faraday cage, no service).