By now it should be obvious that I think hackers are painters, just like I think hackers are philosophers and artists in general, from this blog post. I just had a great discussion with Jeffrey last week about whether Computer Science is actually a science- and we came up with no, except for computer science research since it involves experimentation (except he says this is engineering, still not science... I disagree). Computer science is mathematics, which is philosophy, and back in the olden days philosophy was also theology (omg). I think it is an art. However, I do not agree completely with Graham.
Graham sets up computers as "a medium of expression", but I do not think that that's one hundred percent accurate. Sure, you can use a computer to express yourself. But that's so not what computer science is all about. Do you think physics is a way to express yourself? Do you think pure mathematics is a way to express yourself? Heck, philosophy isn't really even a way to express yourself- all philosophers do is ponder about the world and what it is to know and be and all that jazz. Computer science is not just a way to express yourself because it is not just a medium. It is a philosophy, a study of change and theoretical concepts meant to explain the world that has been popularized into a fake field where people have stamped a purpose consisting of video games and money. It has become so trivialized that even people who have devoted 4 years of their life to studying the beautiful field scoff at the mere idea of learning "stupid theoretical concepts because they are never going to use them and it's useless to even bother". It seems like everyone has forgotten that the field was meant to concretize the ideas of thought and change, that you are not really a part of the study of computer science unless you learn about the history, the foundation, the whole reason that your stupid little games and web apps are making you money. People take computer science for granted. And it seems like Graham isn't giving the study it's full acknowedgement.
Aside from that, I do indentify with the type of person Graham describes. I especially indentify with the judgement of PhD hackers based on publication. I'm headed to graduate school and one day I would very much enjoy being a professor, and the way to get there is to publish. But publishing is not a good measurement- you have people who are good at playing the system who publish a lot, and you have people who make genuinely great work that never get recognized. However, one flaw that Graham has in is depiction is that making "subtle tweaks to something that already exists, or [combining] existing ideas in a slightly new way... is hard to convey in a research paper." I have no knowledge about how difficult that type of writing is, but I do know it is possible, and in fact, usually very well recieved. I went to my first (and second) computer science academic conference last summer (thx PJ u r my true supporter) and the presentations/papers that did the best were extensions of previous work! Graham just sounds like a fool. (The work of Matt Might and lab was just an optimization of their previous PLDI work)
As for disagreeableness, I got pretty frustrated with Graham's ideas on 'contradictory taboos' from What Not to Say. When I first started reading, I was like "gosh this guy gets me I'm so #hipster and I have my own #voice I'm so #cool". But then, he made a 'point' that is just ridiculous.
You might find contradictory taboos. In one culture it might seem shocking
to think x, while in another it was shocking not to. But I think usually
the shock is on one side. In one culture x is ok, and in another it's
considered shocking. My hypothesis is that the side that's shocked is most
likely to be the mistaken one.
Lol let's think about this.
What about the cannibalism in Figi?
Is Graham trying to tell me that I, and the rest of the world, are the mistaken ones
here, because we are the ones being shocked by cannibalism?
What about India's caste system? I'm pretty sure the general consensus in other countries (that do not practice Hinduism) is that the caste system is looked down upon because the ideal is that all humans are created equally? (for a moment let's forget about all the privileged people in the world who think they are better than others because they were born into abundant wealth or another type of privilege)
Now what is especially upsetting is the example Graham gave right before the above quote. It seems an awful lot like he thinks sexism isn't a thing, or rather a thing that will be mocked in the future. Well, for personal experience, he's just simply wrong. Now I'm not calling him a sexist, but based on just this tiny example it seems like he is ignorant to the types of discrimination that women face in his own field. Yeah, just upsetting.
I found the readings interesting, and I liked about just as much as I disliked. It's funny... Graham was so hellbent on people being sheep, and yet taking a step back, it looks like his opinions are very crowd-pleasing to clearly the majority of the US right now because Trump was elected as president by popular vote. I'm mainly talking about sexism, but also a general critique of graduate school is the publishing, but his critism fell short. Interesting?