Discussion:
[Fonc] Fundamentals, please add me to your LinkedIn network
Paul W. Homer
2015-09-23 21:44:39 UTC
Permalink
Hi Fundamentals,
I'd like to connect with you on LinkedIn.

Paul W. Homer
Software Developer

Accept: https://www.linkedin.com/e/v2?e=65w51z-iexbjh4u-1x&a=invite-accept&midToken=AQECovfFHDZz2A&tracking=eml-comm_invm-b-accept-newinvite&ek=invite_member_28&mboxId=I6052567914790285312_500&sharedKey=NL7WdkPB&invitationId=6052567892770197504&fromReminder=false&fromEmail=true

View Paul W. Homer's profile: https://www.linkedin.com/e/v2?e=65w51z-iexbjh4u-1x&t=npv&midToken=AQECovfFHDZz2A&tracking=eml-comm_invm-b-name-newinvite&ek=invite_member_28&invitationAccept=372694679_I6052567914790285312_500&authType=name&authToken=ncxe&memberID=7880586

You are receiving Invitation emails. Unsubscribe here: https://www.linkedin.com/e/v2?e=65w51z-iexbjh4u-1x&t=lun&midToken=AQECovfFHDZz2A&tracking=eml-comm_invm-f-unsub-newinvite&ek=invite_member_28&loid=AQHc-Jk4zNzJOwAAAU_8KmCkcC1uro2PFRImd8vsw4zzINoNPYpxZMXESzP_TSBIPLSIoLo&eid=65w51z-iexbjh4u-1x

This email was intended for Fundamentals Computing (Guess what at Same answer as above). Learn why we included this at the following link: https://www.linkedin.com/e/v2?e=65w51z-iexbjh4u-1x&a=customerServiceUrl&midToken=AQECovfFHDZz2A&ek=invite_member_28&articleId=4788
© 2015 LinkedIn Ireland Limited. LinkedIn, the LinkedIn logo, and InMail are registered trademarks of LinkedIn Corporation in the United States and/or other countries. All rights reserved.
LinkedIn is a registered business name of LinkedIn Ireland Limited.
Registered in Ireland as a private limited company, Company Number 477441
Registered Office: 70 Sir John Rogersons Quay, Dublin 2
Paul Homer
2015-09-24 19:40:35 UTC
Permalink
Nope. I'm getting sloppy in my old age. I hit one of those blanket connect to lots of people thingies :-)

Sorry,

Paul.

Sent from my iPad
Is this LinkedIn's algorithm getting desperate ?
Post by Paul W. Homer
Hi Fundamentals,
I'd like to connect with you on LinkedIn.
Paul W. Homer
Software Developer
Accept
View Profile
© 2015 LinkedIn Ireland Limited. LinkedIn, the LinkedIn logo, and InMail are registered trademarks of LinkedIn Corporation in the United States and/or other countries. All rights reserved.
You are receiving Invitation emails. Unsubscribe
This email was intended for Fundamentals Computing (Guess what at Same answer as above). Learn why we included this.
LinkedIn is a registered business name of LinkedIn Ireland Limited.
Registered in Ireland as a private limited company, Company Number 477441
Registered Office: 70 Sir John Rogersons Quay, Dublin 2
_______________________________________________
Fonc mailing list
http://mailman.vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc_mailman.vpri.org
Andrey Fedorov
2015-09-25 05:24:19 UTC
Permalink
Some of both, I think – this is a mistake that a lot of people make, and
even if it isn't intentional, I'm sure LinkedIn isn't too interested in
fixing the sloppy UX.
Post by Paul Homer
Nope. I'm getting sloppy in my old age. I hit one of those blanket connect
to lots of people thingies :-)
Sorry,
Paul.
Sent from my iPad
Is this LinkedIn's algorithm getting desperate ?
[image: LinkedIn]
<https://www.linkedin.com/e/v2?e=65w51z-iexbjh4u-1x&t=nmp&midToken=AQECovfFHDZz2A&tracking=eml-comm_invm-b-logo-newinvite&ek=invite_member_28>
[image: Paul W. Homer]
<https://www.linkedin.com/e/v2?e=65w51z-iexbjh4u-1x&t=npv&midToken=AQECovfFHDZz2A&tracking=eml-comm_invm-b-photo-newinvite&ek=invite_member_28&invitationAccept=372694679_I6052567914790285312_500&authType=name&authToken=ncxe&memberID=7880586>
Hi Fundamentals,
I'd like to connect with you on LinkedIn.
Paul W. Homer
<https://www.linkedin.com/e/v2?e=65w51z-iexbjh4u-1x&t=npv&midToken=AQECovfFHDZz2A&tracking=eml-comm_invm-b-name-newinvite&ek=invite_member_28&invitationAccept=372694679_I6052567914790285312_500&authType=name&authToken=ncxe&memberID=7880586> Software
Developer
Accept
<https://www.linkedin.com/e/v2?e=65w51z-iexbjh4u-1x&a=invite-accept&midToken=AQECovfFHDZz2A&tracking=eml-comm_invm-b-accept-newinvite&ek=invite_member_28&mboxId=I6052567914790285312_500&sharedKey=NL7WdkPB&invitationId=6052567892770197504&fromReminder=false&fromEmail=true>
View Profile
<https://www.linkedin.com/e/v2?e=65w51z-iexbjh4u-1x&t=npv&midToken=AQECovfFHDZz2A&tracking=eml-comm_invm-b-profile-newinvite&ek=invite_member_28&invitationAccept=372694679_I6052567914790285312_500&authType=name&authToken=ncxe&memberID=7880586>
© 2015 LinkedIn Ireland Limited. LinkedIn, the LinkedIn logo, and InMail
are registered trademarks of LinkedIn Corporation in the United States
and/or other countries. All rights reserved.
You are receiving Invitation emails. Unsubscribe
<https://www.linkedin.com/e/v2?e=65w51z-iexbjh4u-1x&t=lun&midToken=AQECovfFHDZz2A&tracking=eml-comm_invm-f-unsub-newinvite&ek=invite_member_28&loid=AQEDHUKcAxvg-QAAAU_8KmCq_E9Hha6MXgnFFf6JDyiB-SjVHKTbN1gCwPhvQmOSAN2umPY&eid=65w51z-iexbjh4u-1x> This
email was intended for Fundamentals Computing (Guess what at Same answer as
above). Learn why we included this.
<https://www.linkedin.com/e/v2?e=65w51z-iexbjh4u-1x&a=customerServiceUrl&midToken=AQECovfFHDZz2A&ek=invite_member_28&articleId=4788>
LinkedIn is a registered business name of LinkedIn Ireland Limited. Registered
in Ireland as a private limited company, Company Number 477441 Registered
Office: 70 Sir John Rogersons Quay, Dublin 2
_______________________________________________
Fonc mailing list
http://mailman.vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc_mailman.vpri.org
_______________________________________________
Fonc mailing list
http://mailman.vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc_mailman.vpri.org
Paul Homer
2015-09-25 12:56:58 UTC
Permalink
To me it is sort-of the defining issue of modern software development. LinkedIn wants to grow, so they build in a tool that goes through one's email addresses and nicely suggests connecting to them. I wasn't paying attention, so I didn't clue in when I saw the Fundamentals address in the set. They couldn't have warned me that it was a mailing list -- not a person -- because as far as I know there is no extra information included in the addresses. They are unlikely to even consider this a problem, because mailing lists are not as popular as they once were.

Thus, to abstract it, some programmers are directed to craft code that uses data that is not precise enough to allow the code to actually work properly. Everyone settles on 'good enough' and pushes that problem back onto the user who eventually makes the mistake of not paying attention. It's increasingly common, these days. It's an old but still worrisome trend both because software is everywhere now, but also because by partially working it diminishes the ability to deal with the failures. It's most useful when you can trust it, but you should never trust it.

Paul.

Sent from my iPad
Some of both, I think – this is a mistake that a lot of people make, and even if it isn't intentional, I'm sure LinkedIn isn't too interested in fixing the sloppy UX.
Post by Paul Homer
Nope. I'm getting sloppy in my old age. I hit one of those blanket connect to lots of people thingies :-)
Sorry,
Paul.
Sent from my iPad
Is this LinkedIn's algorithm getting desperate ?
Post by Paul W. Homer
Hi Fundamentals,
I'd like to connect with you on LinkedIn.
Paul W. Homer
Software Developer
Accept
View Profile
© 2015 LinkedIn Ireland Limited. LinkedIn, the LinkedIn logo, and InMail are registered trademarks of LinkedIn Corporation in the United States and/or other countries. All rights reserved.
You are receiving Invitation emails. Unsubscribe
This email was intended for Fundamentals Computing (Guess what at Same answer as above). Learn why we included this.
LinkedIn is a registered business name of LinkedIn Ireland Limited.
Registered in Ireland as a private limited company, Company Number 477441
Registered Office: 70 Sir John Rogersons Quay, Dublin 2
_______________________________________________
Fonc mailing list
http://mailman.vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc_mailman.vpri.org
_______________________________________________
Fonc mailing list
http://mailman.vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc_mailman.vpri.org
Julian Leviston
2015-09-25 17:19:55 UTC
Permalink
To me it’s matter of the degrees of “power” that computers afford us.
Technology affords us immense power. The dual of this is that we must now be very careful and responsible. (As in “able to respond”)

“Just press this one big button, and you’ll get a treat” - what is the cost?

This is one reason why our (me and my friend) business works the way it does (I’m one half of it). It’s a simple web design business when viewed from one angle
 However, we use powerful "high technology" behind the scenes to do our work, but the personal connection and touch is the most important part of it. We build websites for people and small business. We happen to have one of the most structurally advanced content management systems we've ever seen, but the human contact is the important thing. Especially in this more and more impersonal world we live in.

All the “high tech” is kept behind the scenes - and only rolled out to the degree our customers need it, and where it brings genuine positive impact. Perhaps this is why we only have a few customers tho! Needs growing.

Providing a tool that black boxes massive “connectivity” is taking an extremely complex issue, and smashing it with a hammer, IMHO. We end up with ridiculous things happening like Google connecting everyone’s Gmail identities up to their Google Plus service automatically (and publishing people’s real names in the process
 by “mistake”), or linked in or facebook “automagically” harvesting our gmail accounts and sending out messages “in our best interests” - things that we clearly would not have done by ourselves.

So
 is this “better”? I say not. Until we have PROPERLY better systems, I think this kind of power should be kept at bay
 because it’s not real and in many ways, sometimes, it’s much, much worse than not having it.

2 cents,
Julian

http://www.getcontented.com.au/ - Amazing website creation service. Get a professional, distinguished yet highly affordable website today.
Ph. 02 8005 0701
Post by Paul Homer
To me it is sort-of the defining issue of modern software development. LinkedIn wants to grow, so they build in a tool that goes through one's email addresses and nicely suggests connecting to them. I wasn't paying attention, so I didn't clue in when I saw the Fundamentals address in the set. They couldn't have warned me that it was a mailing list -- not a person -- because as far as I know there is no extra information included in the addresses. They are unlikely to even consider this a problem, because mailing lists are not as popular as they once were.
Thus, to abstract it, some programmers are directed to craft code that uses data that is not precise enough to allow the code to actually work properly. Everyone settles on 'good enough' and pushes that problem back onto the user who eventually makes the mistake of not paying attention. It's increasingly common, these days. It's an old but still worrisome trend both because software is everywhere now, but also because by partially working it diminishes the ability to deal with the failures. It's most useful when you can trust it, but you should never trust it.
Paul.
Kurt Stephens
2015-09-25 17:34:58 UTC
Permalink
"the personal connection and touch is the most
important part of it" is disguised surveillance.

"State surveillance is driven by fear.
And corporate surveillance is driven by money."

http://idlewords.com/talks/what_happens_next_will_amaze_you.htm

Mass surveillance is the most impersonal thing about Web 2.0,
we do not matter.

-- KAS
To me it’s matter of the degrees of “power” that computers afford us.
Technology affords us immense power. The dual of this is that we must
now be very careful and responsible. (As in “able to respond”)
“Just press this one big button, and you’ll get a treat” - what is the cost?
This is one reason why our (me and my friend) business works the way it
does (I’m one half of it). It’s a simple web design business when viewed
from one angle… However, we use powerful "high technology" behind the
scenes to do our work, but the personal connection and touch is the most
important part of it. We build websites for people and small business.
We happen to have one of the most structurally advanced content
management systems we've ever seen, but the human contact is the
important thing. Especially in this more and more impersonal world we
live in.
All the “high tech” is kept behind the scenes - and only rolled out to
the degree our customers need it, and where it brings genuine positive
impact. Perhaps this is why we only have a few customers tho! Needs growing.
Providing a tool that black boxes massive “connectivity” is taking an
extremely complex issue, and smashing it with a hammer, IMHO. We end up
with ridiculous things happening like Google connecting everyone’s Gmail
identities up to their Google Plus service automatically (and publishing
people’s real names in the process… by “mistake”), or linked in or
facebook “automagically” harvesting our gmail accounts and sending out
messages “in our best interests” - things that we clearly would not have
done by ourselves.
So… is this “better”? I say not. Until we have PROPERLY better systems,
I think this kind of power should be kept at bay… because it’s not real
and in many ways, sometimes, it’s much, much worse than not having it.
2 cents,
Julian
http://www.getcontented.com.au/ - Amazing website creation service. Get
a professional, distinguished yet highly affordable website today.
Ph. 02 8005 0701
Post by Paul Homer
To me it is sort-of the defining issue of modern software development.
LinkedIn wants to grow, so they build in a tool that goes through
one's email addresses and nicely suggests connecting to them. I wasn't
paying attention, so I didn't clue in when I saw the Fundamentals
address in the set. They couldn't have warned me that it was a mailing
list -- not a person -- because as far as I know there is no extra
information included in the addresses. They are unlikely to even
consider this a problem, because mailing lists are not as popular as
they once were.
Thus, to abstract it, some programmers are directed to craft code that
uses data that is not precise enough to allow the code to actually
work properly. Everyone settles on 'good enough' and pushes that
problem back onto the user who eventually makes the mistake of not
paying attention. It's increasingly common, these days. It's an old
but still worrisome trend both because software is everywhere now, but
also because by partially working it diminishes the ability to deal
with the failures. It's most useful when you can trust it, but you
should never trust it.
Paul.
_______________________________________________
Fonc mailing list
http://mailman.vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc_mailman.vpri.org
Julian Leviston
2015-09-25 17:56:06 UTC
Permalink
I disagree with that a lot. Two people providing customers personal service is *not* disguised surveillance any more than you replying to my email is.

Julian

http://www.getcontented.com.au/ - Amazing website creation service. Get a professional, distinguished yet highly affordable website today.
Ph. 02 8005 0701
Post by Kurt Stephens
"the personal connection and touch is the most
important part of it" is disguised surveillance.
"State surveillance is driven by fear.
And corporate surveillance is driven by money."
http://idlewords.com/talks/what_happens_next_will_amaze_you.htm <http://idlewords.com/talks/what_happens_next_will_amaze_you.htm>
Mass surveillance is the most impersonal thing about Web 2.0,
we do not matter.
-- KAS
Alan Moore
2015-09-25 18:06:57 UTC
Permalink
Paul,

I think you are spot on - the software industry (and many others) are
driven singularly by profit (marketing spin and self delusion aside) with
little consideration for being thorough and doing right by the end user.
There are a number of reasons for how we got here but clearly things need
to change. This is the reason I'm subscribed to this list and why I work
nights and weekends trying to figure out a better way (I'd do it as a day
job but the job I want doesn't exist ... yet.)

Some of these changes will come from technical innovations and rethinking
basic assumptions about computing, programming languages, storage,
security, etc. but I think fundamental positive changes will only come from
a cultural shift. We need an alternative to the perpetually late projects,
the underfunded projects and the projects that are designed primarily to
exploit the end user for profit rather than making their needs and concerns
a priority. We need to be as innovative in our approach to cultural issues
as we are to the technical side of things.

My contribution to bring about a cultural shift is to promote the use of
the cooperative business model as an organizing principle for software
development (see: coopsource.org.) If we can organize ourselves more
effectively developers will be driven less by quarterly profits and more by
engaging with our end users using sustainable business practices that serve
all of us.

We have a long way to go to seize control of our destiny instead of leaving
it to the tech giants in our industry. I'm in this for the long haul -
fifteen years ago I promised myself that I would take a slow and deliberate
path to building my vision. Several personal setbacks have slowed my
progress but in the end the timing couldn't be better. Growing
dissatisfaction with the status quo and limitations of Open Source
"business models" are becoming apparent. We need alternatives, we need to
get organized and we need software to stand on it's merits, not on how much
advertising it can sell. I'm trying to provide at least one edge/corner
piece to help solve this complicated puzzle. It will take time and patience
but it is important work.

I'm glad you hit that button - at least it spurred a conversation of some
consequence.

Take care.

Alan

"Whatever you can do, or dream you can do, begin it. Boldness has genius,
power, and magic in it. Begin it now." - Goethe
BGB
2015-09-30 15:05:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Moore
Paul,
I think you are spot on - the software industry (and many others) are
driven singularly by profit (marketing spin and self delusion aside)
with little consideration for being thorough and doing right by the
end user. There are a number of reasons for how we got here but
clearly things need to change. This is the reason I'm subscribed to
this list and why I work nights and weekends trying to figure out a
better way (I'd do it as a day job but the job I want doesn't exist
... yet.)
but, this is assuming most people care about much of anything beyond profit.

IME, often they do not, so everything from the level of businesses down
to interpersonal relationships is driven mostly by money, profit, or
sometimes other goals (interpersonal gets more complicated, but mostly
boils down to each person using others as stepping stones to try to get
whatever it is they hope to accomplish, typically money or possessions
or similar, or a line of communication to help them leverage benefits
from those higher up the chain...).

for a company, the main use of end-users is in terms of getting them to
give them money.
the best-interests of the user are secondary, mostly in terms of how it
may influence the users' actions.

while it doesn't seem to be "ideal" by any means, as far as I can tell,
this is basically how it works.

a person who doesn't have much, or have much to offer, is effectively
seen as useless and is pushed aside.
Post by Alan Moore
Some of these changes will come from technical innovations and
rethinking basic assumptions about computing, programming languages,
storage, security, etc. but I think fundamental positive changes will
only come from a cultural shift. We need an alternative to the
perpetually late projects, the underfunded projects and the projects
that are designed primarily to exploit the end user for profit rather
than making their needs and concerns a priority. We need to be as
innovative in our approach to cultural issues as we are to the
technical side of things.
well, it is basically like you give the people a slot machine. they pull
the arm hoping for an outpouring of quarters, but the provider has
little reason to care beyond that the user has on-average more input of
quarters than they receive back out.

can society be changed? I really don't know.

in any case, things need to be considered carefully, as unintended
consequences or disastrous results are also something to be avoided, and
the application of a policy more often goes where it wants to go rather
than where the creators intended it to go.
Post by Alan Moore
My contribution to bring about a cultural shift is to promote the use
of the cooperative business model as an organizing principle for
software development (see: coopsource.org <http://coopsource.org>.) If
we can organize ourselves more effectively developers will be driven
less by quarterly profits and more by engaging with our end users
using sustainable business practices that serve all of us.
dunno.

I have pretty much resorted to doing programming almost solely as a
hobby at this point (little chance of me making any money off it).

the rest is mostly special-purpose stuff, like code related to some of
my recent electronics and robotics projects (I have been working some on
things like building small robots and other things, have built 3-phase
inverters/VFDs for running 3-phase induction motors, ...).

some of this is things like real-time signal processing on "moderately"
limited hardware (such as a Raspberry Pi), as well as some stuff using
hardware a fair bit more limited (8 or 16 bit microcontrollers).
comparably, you don't exactly have lots of resources on an 8/16 bit MCU.


however, it tends to have rather little real "general purpose" appeal,
for example:

a VM which exists mostly to run C code on a custom scheduler:
* mostly so that I can do green-thread switching at 250kHz to 1MHz, and
have predictable latency.
* the normal Linux OS scheduler falls well short of the latency
requirements.

I had for a little while worked on starting to port a BGBScript (loosely
based on ActionScript, C, and C#) variant to run in this VM, but this
has been slow as it is a lower priority. the performance and latency
requirements make things a little more complicated (as well as having to
pay attention to memory footprint, as the ARM SoC's don't exactly have a
whole lot of RAM).

unlike the PC version, this version would also not use a GC, instead
using mostly a mix of statically-determined lifetime analysis, RAII, and
manual new/delete. it would retain optional dynamic classes and dynamic
typing, as well as a restricted form of the delegate-scope model (only
statically visible delegation paths would be used).


likewise goes for a newer video codec intended to run on the same
hardware (for encoding and streaming video from an image sensor, it can
encode 480p30 in real-time on a 700MHz ARM11). it focuses a fair bit on
encoder speed, while also trying to have decent video quality and
bitrate. it is based on VQ technology rather than DCT. likewise, it is
designed to be used with the encoder encoding and streaming the image in
small pieces (over UDP over WiFi) rather than sending whole frames at a
time.

it also encodes reasonably quickly on a desktop PC, so is fairly useable
for screen capture (*).
it doesn't seem to be quite as fast as some of my other designs, but it
does get better bitrate and image quality.

*: most of the "standard" options don't really work acceptably on my PC,
generally because they either kill the HDD or the CPU, or both. I also
like capturing my desktop at full resolution (1680x1050 at 30fps).


I have observed though that pretty much no one cares.
Post by Alan Moore
We have a long way to go to seize control of our destiny instead of
leaving it to the tech giants in our industry. I'm in this for the
long haul - fifteen years ago I promised myself that I would take a
slow and deliberate path to building my vision. Several personal
setbacks have slowed my progress but in the end the timing couldn't be
better. Growing dissatisfaction with the status quo and limitations of
Open Source "business models" are becoming apparent. We need
alternatives, we need to get organized and we need software to stand
on it's merits, not on how much advertising it can sell. I'm trying to
provide at least one edge/corner piece to help solve this complicated
puzzle. It will take time and patience but it is important work.
yeah.


it is like compilers and video-codecs, pretty much everyone sees them as
magic black boxes, they don't know or care how they work.

those who do know, can't see them as applicable to any use-cases outside
the narrowly defined niches the mainstream options fill (or see it as
trying to ram the other use-case into an established niche).

like, what are technically the bests option for something like YouTube,
are not necessarily the best options for remotely controlling a robot.
Post by Alan Moore
I'm glad you hit that button - at least it spurred a conversation of
some consequence.
yeah, there hasn't been much of note on here for a while.
Alan Moore
2015-10-03 23:12:15 UTC
Permalink
BGB,

Thanks for your response, see mine inline below...
Post by Alan Moore
Paul,
I think you are spot on - the software industry (and many others) are
driven singularly by profit (marketing spin and self delusion aside) with
little consideration for being thorough and doing right by the end user.
There are a number of reasons for how we got here but clearly things need
to change. This is the reason I'm subscribed to this list and why I work
nights and weekends trying to figure out a better way (I'd do it as a day
job but the job I want doesn't exist ... yet.)
but, this is assuming most people care about much of anything beyond profit.
IME, often they do not, so everything from the level of businesses down to
interpersonal relationships is driven mostly by money, profit, or sometimes
other goals (interpersonal gets more complicated, but mostly boils down to
each person using others as stepping stones to try to get whatever it is
they hope to accomplish, typically money or possessions or similar, or a
line of communication to help them leverage benefits from those higher up
the chain...).
That is probably true for many people. However, there is a substantial
number of others that realize that working for mutual benefit can result in
greater gains than if they went it alone. There are a lot of engineers
willing to give away code for free, usually in return for other less
tangible benefits, usually having to do with reputation or simply because
they enjoy it.

Human motivation is varied and complicated as you pointed out. I don't
expect a majority of engineers will want to work as a cooperative but I
think a non-insignificant number of us will. We don't need very many to be
effective in putting together a profitable venture. Beyond financial gains
cooperative principles promote fairness, transparency and sustainable
development practices. Many people don't know this but cooperatives are one
of the most stable forms of enterprise outside of governments and
institutions and often outlive their "competitive" counterparts. Instead of
profits being siphoned off to VC investors, as would happen with a typical
startup, much of the generated income can go back into further development.
Post by Alan Moore
for a company, the main use of end-users is in terms of getting them to
give them money.
the best-interests of the user are secondary, mostly in terms of how it
may influence the users' actions.
Yes, most enterprises are maximally profit driven but that doesn't mean
there aren't alternatives. There is value in the aligning with user's
interests and not everything needs to be a race to the bottom.
Post by Alan Moore
while it doesn't seem to be "ideal" by any means, as far as I can tell,
this is basically how it works.
That is probably more true in non-differentiated markets and products.
However, software tends towards monopoly so I think it resides at the other
end of the spectrum.
Post by Alan Moore
a person who doesn't have much, or have much to offer, is effectively seen
as useless and is pushed aside.
How sad. I don't see things that way but I guess everyone has their own
experience.
Post by Alan Moore
Some of these changes will come from technical innovations and rethinking
basic assumptions about computing, programming languages, storage,
security, etc. but I think fundamental positive changes will only come from
a cultural shift. We need an alternative to the perpetually late projects,
the underfunded projects and the projects that are designed primarily to
exploit the end user for profit rather than making their needs and concerns
a priority. We need to be as innovative in our approach to cultural issues
as we are to the technical side of things.
well, it is basically like you give the people a slot machine. they pull
the arm hoping for an outpouring of quarters, but the provider has little
reason to care beyond that the user has on-average more input of quarters
than they receive back out.
can society be changed? I really don't know.
Maybe I'm tilting at windmills but in any case I'm having fun doing it :-)
Post by Alan Moore
in any case, things need to be considered carefully, as unintended
consequences or disastrous results are also something to be avoided, and
the application of a policy more often goes where it wants to go rather
than where the creators intended it to go.
Agreed - I think our culture has gone too far down the dog-eat-dog path and
I think many are craving a sense of agency in their work. I think people
want more of a say in the direction their company takes and don't want to
be just a cog in someone else's machine. IMHO cooperatives offer employment
that is democratically owned and operated rather than being a strict
hierarchy with just a few "winners" at the top.
Post by Alan Moore
My contribution to bring about a cultural shift is to promote the use of
the cooperative business model as an organizing principle for software
development (see: coopsource.org.) If we can organize ourselves more
effectively developers will be driven less by quarterly profits and more by
engaging with our end users using sustainable business practices that serve
all of us.
dunno.
I have pretty much resorted to doing programming almost solely as a hobby
at this point (little chance of me making any money off it).
I've been doing it for a very long time and am able to find work. I don't
know where you live but it could be a geographic thing - I've lived and
worked in the SF Bay Area since junior high so I there are a lot of jobs
there. YMMV.
Post by Alan Moore
the rest is mostly special-purpose stuff, like code related to some of my
recent electronics and robotics projects (I have been working some on
things like building small robots and other things, have built 3-phase
inverters/VFDs for running 3-phase induction motors, ...).
some of this is things like real-time signal processing on "moderately"
limited hardware (such as a Raspberry Pi), as well as some stuff using
hardware a fair bit more limited (8 or 16 bit microcontrollers).
comparably, you don't exactly have lots of resources on an 8/16 bit MCU.
Sounds like you have some mad programming skills to me. I love that stuff
too but don't get enough time to play with them lately... sigh.
Post by Alan Moore
however, it tends to have rather little real "general purpose" appeal, for
* mostly so that I can do green-thread switching at 250kHz to 1MHz, and
have predictable latency.
* the normal Linux OS scheduler falls well short of the latency
requirements.
I had for a little while worked on starting to port a BGBScript (loosely
based on ActionScript, C, and C#) variant to run in this VM, but this has
been slow as it is a lower priority. the performance and latency
requirements make things a little more complicated (as well as having to
pay attention to memory footprint, as the ARM SoC's don't exactly have a
whole lot of RAM).
unlike the PC version, this version would also not use a GC, instead using
mostly a mix of statically-determined lifetime analysis, RAII, and manual
new/delete. it would retain optional dynamic classes and dynamic typing, as
well as a restricted form of the delegate-scope model (only statically
visible delegation paths would be used).
My day job is doing "embedded systems" programming but it isn't anything
like it used to be. There is always the tradeoff of development time (e.g.
time to market) and making guarantees about performance and reliability,
etc. HW is getting so powerful (and cheap) that it is often better to spend
more money on a better processor than spend time/effort on writing
efficient code...
Post by Alan Moore
likewise goes for a newer video codec intended to run on the same hardware
(for encoding and streaming video from an image sensor, it can encode
480p30 in real-time on a 700MHz ARM11). it focuses a fair bit on encoder
speed, while also trying to have decent video quality and bitrate. it is
based on VQ technology rather than DCT. likewise, it is designed to be used
with the encoder encoding and streaming the image in small pieces (over UDP
over WiFi) rather than sending whole frames at a time.
it also encodes reasonably quickly on a desktop PC, so is fairly useable
for screen capture (*).
it doesn't seem to be quite as fast as some of my other designs, but it
does get better bitrate and image quality.
*: most of the "standard" options don't really work acceptably on my PC,
generally because they either kill the HDD or the CPU, or both. I also like
capturing my desktop at full resolution (1680x1050 at 30fps).
I have observed though that pretty much no one cares.
Except for those who work in the professional video industry - which I do.
Contact me offline and maybe we can work something out.
Post by Alan Moore
We have a long way to go to seize control of our destiny instead of
leaving it to the tech giants in our industry. I'm in this for the long
haul - fifteen years ago I promised myself that I would take a slow and
deliberate path to building my vision. Several personal setbacks have
slowed my progress but in the end the timing couldn't be better. Growing
dissatisfaction with the status quo and limitations of Open Source
"business models" are becoming apparent. We need alternatives, we need to
get organized and we need software to stand on it's merits, not on how much
advertising it can sell. I'm trying to provide at least one edge/corner
piece to help solve this complicated puzzle. It will take time and patience
but it is important work.
yeah.
it is like compilers and video-codecs, pretty much everyone sees them as
magic black boxes, they don't know or care how they work.
those who do know, can't see them as applicable to any use-cases outside
the narrowly defined niches the mainstream options fill (or see it as
trying to ram the other use-case into an established niche).
like, what are technically the bests option for something like YouTube,
are not necessarily the best options for remotely controlling a robot.
I think robotics are finally going to start becoming both useful and
mainstream. You may find your interests will become more and more relevant
in the coming years.

I'm optimistic about the future of programming but I think we need to
change a lot about how we go about developing software. We need to change a
lot of our basic operating assumptions and practices if we are to scale to
meet the demands that will be placed on systems going forward, especially
in the areas of trust and security.

Take care.

Alan
Andrey Fedorov
2015-10-03 23:52:54 UTC
Permalink
A little more on the original topic: www.addconnectionssettlement.com
Post by Alan Moore
BGB,
Thanks for your response, see mine inline below...
Post by Alan Moore
Paul,
I think you are spot on - the software industry (and many others) are
driven singularly by profit (marketing spin and self delusion aside) with
little consideration for being thorough and doing right by the end user.
There are a number of reasons for how we got here but clearly things need
to change. This is the reason I'm subscribed to this list and why I work
nights and weekends trying to figure out a better way (I'd do it as a day
job but the job I want doesn't exist ... yet.)
but, this is assuming most people care about much of anything beyond profit.
IME, often they do not, so everything from the level of businesses down
to interpersonal relationships is driven mostly by money, profit, or
sometimes other goals (interpersonal gets more complicated, but mostly
boils down to each person using others as stepping stones to try to get
whatever it is they hope to accomplish, typically money or possessions or
similar, or a line of communication to help them leverage benefits from
those higher up the chain...).
That is probably true for many people. However, there is a substantial
number of others that realize that working for mutual benefit can result in
greater gains than if they went it alone. There are a lot of engineers
willing to give away code for free, usually in return for other less
tangible benefits, usually having to do with reputation or simply because
they enjoy it.
Human motivation is varied and complicated as you pointed out. I don't
expect a majority of engineers will want to work as a cooperative but I
think a non-insignificant number of us will. We don't need very many to be
effective in putting together a profitable venture. Beyond financial gains
cooperative principles promote fairness, transparency and sustainable
development practices. Many people don't know this but cooperatives are one
of the most stable forms of enterprise outside of governments and
institutions and often outlive their "competitive" counterparts. Instead of
profits being siphoned off to VC investors, as would happen with a typical
startup, much of the generated income can go back into further development.
Post by Alan Moore
for a company, the main use of end-users is in terms of getting them to
give them money.
the best-interests of the user are secondary, mostly in terms of how it
may influence the users' actions.
Yes, most enterprises are maximally profit driven but that doesn't mean
there aren't alternatives. There is value in the aligning with user's
interests and not everything needs to be a race to the bottom.
Post by Alan Moore
while it doesn't seem to be "ideal" by any means, as far as I can tell,
this is basically how it works.
That is probably more true in non-differentiated markets and products.
However, software tends towards monopoly so I think it resides at the other
end of the spectrum.
Post by Alan Moore
a person who doesn't have much, or have much to offer, is effectively
seen as useless and is pushed aside.
How sad. I don't see things that way but I guess everyone has their own
experience.
Post by Alan Moore
Some of these changes will come from technical innovations and rethinking
basic assumptions about computing, programming languages, storage,
security, etc. but I think fundamental positive changes will only come from
a cultural shift. We need an alternative to the perpetually late projects,
the underfunded projects and the projects that are designed primarily to
exploit the end user for profit rather than making their needs and concerns
a priority. We need to be as innovative in our approach to cultural issues
as we are to the technical side of things.
well, it is basically like you give the people a slot machine. they pull
the arm hoping for an outpouring of quarters, but the provider has little
reason to care beyond that the user has on-average more input of quarters
than they receive back out.
can society be changed? I really don't know.
Maybe I'm tilting at windmills but in any case I'm having fun doing it :-)
Post by Alan Moore
in any case, things need to be considered carefully, as unintended
consequences or disastrous results are also something to be avoided, and
the application of a policy more often goes where it wants to go rather
than where the creators intended it to go.
Agreed - I think our culture has gone too far down the dog-eat-dog path
and I think many are craving a sense of agency in their work. I think
people want more of a say in the direction their company takes and don't
want to be just a cog in someone else's machine. IMHO cooperatives offer
employment that is democratically owned and operated rather than being a
strict hierarchy with just a few "winners" at the top.
Post by Alan Moore
My contribution to bring about a cultural shift is to promote the use of
the cooperative business model as an organizing principle for software
development (see: coopsource.org.) If we can organize ourselves more
effectively developers will be driven less by quarterly profits and more by
engaging with our end users using sustainable business practices that serve
all of us.
dunno.
I have pretty much resorted to doing programming almost solely as a hobby
at this point (little chance of me making any money off it).
I've been doing it for a very long time and am able to find work. I don't
know where you live but it could be a geographic thing - I've lived and
worked in the SF Bay Area since junior high so I there are a lot of jobs
there. YMMV.
Post by Alan Moore
the rest is mostly special-purpose stuff, like code related to some of my
recent electronics and robotics projects (I have been working some on
things like building small robots and other things, have built 3-phase
inverters/VFDs for running 3-phase induction motors, ...).
some of this is things like real-time signal processing on "moderately"
limited hardware (such as a Raspberry Pi), as well as some stuff using
hardware a fair bit more limited (8 or 16 bit microcontrollers).
comparably, you don't exactly have lots of resources on an 8/16 bit MCU.
Sounds like you have some mad programming skills to me. I love that stuff
too but don't get enough time to play with them lately... sigh.
Post by Alan Moore
however, it tends to have rather little real "general purpose" appeal,
* mostly so that I can do green-thread switching at 250kHz to 1MHz, and
have predictable latency.
* the normal Linux OS scheduler falls well short of the latency
requirements.
I had for a little while worked on starting to port a BGBScript (loosely
based on ActionScript, C, and C#) variant to run in this VM, but this has
been slow as it is a lower priority. the performance and latency
requirements make things a little more complicated (as well as having to
pay attention to memory footprint, as the ARM SoC's don't exactly have a
whole lot of RAM).
unlike the PC version, this version would also not use a GC, instead
using mostly a mix of statically-determined lifetime analysis, RAII, and
manual new/delete. it would retain optional dynamic classes and dynamic
typing, as well as a restricted form of the delegate-scope model (only
statically visible delegation paths would be used).
My day job is doing "embedded systems" programming but it isn't anything
like it used to be. There is always the tradeoff of development time (e.g.
time to market) and making guarantees about performance and reliability,
etc. HW is getting so powerful (and cheap) that it is often better to spend
more money on a better processor than spend time/effort on writing
efficient code...
Post by Alan Moore
likewise goes for a newer video codec intended to run on the same
hardware (for encoding and streaming video from an image sensor, it can
encode 480p30 in real-time on a 700MHz ARM11). it focuses a fair bit on
encoder speed, while also trying to have decent video quality and bitrate.
it is based on VQ technology rather than DCT. likewise, it is designed to
be used with the encoder encoding and streaming the image in small pieces
(over UDP over WiFi) rather than sending whole frames at a time.
it also encodes reasonably quickly on a desktop PC, so is fairly useable
for screen capture (*).
it doesn't seem to be quite as fast as some of my other designs, but it
does get better bitrate and image quality.
*: most of the "standard" options don't really work acceptably on my PC,
generally because they either kill the HDD or the CPU, or both. I also like
capturing my desktop at full resolution (1680x1050 at 30fps).
I have observed though that pretty much no one cares.
Except for those who work in the professional video industry - which I do.
Contact me offline and maybe we can work something out.
Post by Alan Moore
We have a long way to go to seize control of our destiny instead of
leaving it to the tech giants in our industry. I'm in this for the long
haul - fifteen years ago I promised myself that I would take a slow and
deliberate path to building my vision. Several personal setbacks have
slowed my progress but in the end the timing couldn't be better. Growing
dissatisfaction with the status quo and limitations of Open Source
"business models" are becoming apparent. We need alternatives, we need to
get organized and we need software to stand on it's merits, not on how much
advertising it can sell. I'm trying to provide at least one edge/corner
piece to help solve this complicated puzzle. It will take time and patience
but it is important work.
yeah.
it is like compilers and video-codecs, pretty much everyone sees them as
magic black boxes, they don't know or care how they work.
those who do know, can't see them as applicable to any use-cases outside
the narrowly defined niches the mainstream options fill (or see it as
trying to ram the other use-case into an established niche).
like, what are technically the bests option for something like YouTube,
are not necessarily the best options for remotely controlling a robot.
I think robotics are finally going to start becoming both useful and
mainstream. You may find your interests will become more and more relevant
in the coming years.
I'm optimistic about the future of programming but I think we need to
change a lot about how we go about developing software. We need to change a
lot of our basic operating assumptions and practices if we are to scale to
meet the demands that will be placed on systems going forward, especially
in the areas of trust and security.
Take care.
Alan
_______________________________________________
Fonc mailing list
http://mailman.vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc_mailman.vpri.org
Loading...