Jessamyn West, Technology Lady (2015)
medium.com
medium.com
http://www.metafilter.com/153938/No-matter-where-I-am-the-pu...
Also, everything I learned about teaching tech I feel like I got from Phil Agre.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/03/every...
http://oedb.org/ilibrarian/a-librarians-guide-to-makerspaces...
What do you think about this development? And have you noticed any other ways libraries are generating interest that aren't one-off in nature?
We've seen people do this well by combining things that are more like toolshops with things that are more like craft and home ec-type spaces (hey it's all about making things) and also recording/video studios. Anything where pooling community resources makes a lot of sense. The big deal is finding the funding and the right people working there to make it all work within library culture as well as within makerspace culture. The two cultures share a lot but there are some non-overlap areas that need to be negotiated well.
In Vermont there are a lot of older people with deep "knowledge of tools" who can find a great slot for them as they may age out of the work-all-day world but can be great mentors to younger folks who might not otherwise have these options. There's also a lot of tech ed where I am, so kids can learn some of this is school which is excellent as well.
great interview
A few others:
* Kerry Nietz - FoxTales (FoxPro, mostly pre-Microsoft)
* Mary Walton - Car: A Drama of the American Workplace
* Chase Morsey Jr. - The Man Who Saved the V8 (Ford's flathead V8)
* Dealers of Lightning (Xerox PARC)
Related to that last, there's also a great Youtube video on the development of the laser printer. It goes into all sorts of details regarding the design of the laser scanning system, some corporate politics, etc.
Many of the stories in that book are here, as well: https://www.folklore.org/
One way to deal with this situation is to disallow entertainment on certain computers. That way there are always computers available. Still, in the era of everybody having an internet-capable mobile phone, the original premise seems suspect. In fact, the people using library computers to play games seem more likely to be the ones who need it most. Many kids don't have a home PC capable of running the games, whereas pretty much everybody has the internet.
You think that someone who wants to play WoW in a library is of the same importance as someone finishing a highschool assignment in the library because their parents can't afford a computer at home?
Get real.
How about going back to library of alexander and letting the commoners play dice games in it.
> Entertainment is one of the basic human needs.
Ok, if you believe that, then fine. But where is it writ-large that entertainment == playing video games on a free, public library computer? There's lots of entertaining books in the library too. Grab one and sit quietly on a chair if free entertainment is so important to you.
Dota / LoL / CSgo matches last an hour and have severe penalties for leaving, and they are very popular at internet cafes so I wouldn't be surprised if that was what's being played.
Let's be honest: that highschooler will almost certainly spend as much or more time on Facebook than on their assignment. The poorer the person, the more likely this becomes.
Meanwhile you get to use that extremely-uncommon corner case to penalize everybody else just because you dislike video games.
Those people reserved their computer time like everybody else. You don't get a say in how they use it as long as they're following the rules. It's doubly important to protect a shared public resource: we live in an era where anyone can attack X as immoral, especially when X is harmless.
> Dota / LoL / CSgo matches last an hour and have severe penalties for leaving, and they are very popular at internet cafes so I wouldn't be surprised if that was what's being played.
Perhaps not the most fair comparison, as soon as you get into even casual raiding/mythic+ dungeons.
Who are you to dictate which fun is Proper and Allowed?
Years ago, I sent my mother-in-law our old computer when we upgraded, and I made sure to include kid-friendly software on it so my very poor nieces and nephews would have reason to get on their grandmother's computer when they were at her house. I saw this as a very important element in trying to make sure they didn't wind up on the wrong side of the digital divide. At the time, computers were not nearly as central to modern life as they are currently.
http://www.coding2learn.org/blog/2013/07/29/kids-cant-use-co...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13506283
You'd have to curate the experience to do something that forces them to learn necessary skills. I've seen those skills dressed up as games or something on occasion. Most fun apps don't do that, though.
The parents seem to have some vague concept that spending hours each evening on Facebook and YouTube will impart, by some sort of cybernetic osmosis, a knowledge of PHP, HTML, JavaScript and Haskell.
And you posit that their computer literacy will go up if we start throwing them off the public computers so they can't even use Facebook and Youtube?
Your argument that they aren't so hot currently in no way rebuts my assertion that if you start throwing poor kids off the internet at public libraries they will be left even further behind than they already are currently.
Your library may also be underfunded. This is an issue for a lot of libraries.
People have moral panics about bedbugs in their library or perverts in the library or — you’ll catch a cold from the library, like, whatever the thing is. And there’s a shred of truth to that, but realistically people are afraid of their own public, I think, in a lot of ways. And so being kind of matter-of-fact about the fact that, “Well, these really are who your neighbors are. Like, you can choose just to ignore that that’s how the world works, but you know, these are all your neighbors, and you see them all at the public library. You’re welcome.
Wait, what?
That sounds wonderful, I'm signing up.
Shortly after cortex joined, submissions and comments which did not conform to a very narrow set of socio-political viewpoints started getting censored, and these days there is pretty much no room for controversial content.
Sure, I can see that the site would look highly civil and somewhat interesting to a new user coming from, say, Reddit, but to me the fanatic censorship has turned the place into a boring echo chamber compared to what it used to be.
That's a lot like trying to dispute the effect of Donald Trump's presidency on the US by noting that he has been an American since he was born.
Eh, I don't think that's really a fair characterization. Yeah, sure, they delete dups, etc., but no one's complaining about that. The mods also delete stuff from an ever-increasing (but ill-defined) list of topics that "Metafilter doesn't do well," which basically means anything that could upset the cool kids or other favored groups.
There's a lot of hype about Metafilter's famed moderation, but all it's really done has caused the site to reach a different failure mode. Rather than discussion, you get a bunch of commenting that's bracketed by passive aggressiveness and anxiety, carefully moderated into an illusion of civility.
That's the standard justification, but it leaves a lot to be desired. For one, IIRC, even brand new topics have been moderated away because the mods judged discussion might not go in the "correct" direct (for lack of a better word). Two, avoiding disagreement to the degree Metafilter does is a recipe for tension and dysfunction.
Metafilter is like the American suburbs of the internet. Nice and tidy, but boring.
And full of anxiety and dysfunction masquerading as something else.
I personally don't see a quality hit so much as the general decline in all sites which aren't Facebook and when Google chose to cut their ad revenue by ~40% which forced them to lay off moderators:
https://matt.haughey.com/on-the-future-of-metafilter-941d15e...
But there are people commenting who say they have visited the site for a decade and got bored of it when it became an echo chamber.
Perhaps all sites like it decline. Slashdot, Kuro5hin and many others are a sad shadow of what they used to be.
Maybe HN in 5-10 years will be pretty sad too.
It's finally dead!
I think that people's memories are flawed enough that the "it used to be so great" arguments are all pretty suspect. I tend to think that it's more like "I used to not be familiar enough to realize x" combined with "I feel like I've seen these arguments before". I have the same feelings about HN plenty of the time.
The other big thing which is hard to under-estimate is how much the web has homogenized over the years. MetaFilter was where you went to find someone's personal blog, collection of cat scans, etc. and people just don't do that the way they used to: instead of blogs that largely happens on Facebook or Instagram (and it's private), individuals are competing with for-profit content mills and SEO spammers, etc.
HN has followed a similar arc – you used to see more personal tech blogs and open source but now that's competing for attention with major companies paying staff to blog as a recruiting effort. Nothing wrong with that but it feels rather different and it changes the values of aggregator sites.
The parent is dead right. MeFi was interesting was then was civil disagreement.
Everyone piling on and 'favouriting' how bad Conservatives | Trump | Business | Capitalism | Libertarians | Rupert Murdoch are is very dull.
It's still good for some funny cat pictures and stuff though.
Oh, and just for HN readers, MeFi these days seems to think Silicon Valley is full of Libertarian Brogrammers. There are comments saying how terrible HN is. Perhaps because there is more diversity of opinion here.
Diversity of opinion is important. Having people present their arguments well is important. But that goes down when it's just a festival of agreement.
Oddly, it's better at HN. Perhaps because there is less politics and more stuff where people actually have useful expertise.
It's not as if there isn't anything good to be gleaned from the site, so I'm not likely to flame out (though I do find every moderated comment provides a nice motivation to take a self-imposed break from the site and find other places to speak my mind). And it's not as if the past was a golden age of nothing but enlightened philosophers arguing betwixt hilarious quonsar shenanigans. Nor is it the case that I always feel like I'm fighting a battle and most of my comments disappear. There's plenty of my comments that are also decorated with many favorites, so I guess you win some you lose some.
But sometime in the last 3-4 years (out of the 15-ish that I've been frequenting it), the comment deletion started happening more often with rationales that looked thin to skewed to me. Along with that I think I've sensed a change in the gestalt of the site. And when stuff like the Google Memo and subsequent firing comes up, I know that even if I think the Metafilter gestalt is wrong about a handful of things among other opinions that I agree with, and I think can articulate a good thoughtful case that might be worth considering.... I know it's not a good idea to put in the time there. And my guess from the Metatalk discussions I've monitored and other interactions on with the site, Josh and the current mods largely consider that a win, believing that Metafilter is a better place without pushback on some opinions/politics/ideals, even if it's expressed politely and thoughtfully.
That's within the rights of any online publication or community, of course. Not every space has to be purely open-speech or even polite speech with a committed culture of critical review, editorial slant is and probably will inescapably be a thing no matter who you are. But I also think it's reasonable to say that it's changed notably in that regard.
That thread [1] was particularly hostile, so much so that I'm shocked to see so many people here defending Metafilter's culture. Even though I largely agree with their politics, I don't visit Metafilter very much because the echo chamber is simply too bad. One user in that thread was particularly bullying - they had 98 comments in the thread (nearly 1 in 10), and over 2300 favorites from other users. Politically I'm well to the left of the median commenter on Hacker News, but I've found Metafilter to be unbearably toxic whenever sensitive issues come up.
[1] http://www.metafilter.com/168651/Misogyny-based-on-flawed-er...
It's still mostly witty, funny, gen-x zeitgeist. There's great wordplay.
The last couple of years, however, it has had an undercurrent of seething anger. There's such deep faith in really liberal social, economic, and political policies, and an increasingly narrow orthodoxy. I don't think Bill Clinton-era democrats would make it very on long on the blue these days. Hit the wrong note, and it quickly turns to Elyse toting up her unpaid emotional labor, and Steven going from NPR to Chapo Trap House, and Mallory joining the Middlebury Antifa to beat up Charles Murray.
Similar bad things have happened on the right, of course. Kids become Milo, not Alex. But it makes me sad to see the two sides drifting. It's hard to shake the bad feeling about the future.
It's amazing what competent moderators (and a $5 signup fee) do to keep the noise down.
I've had an account since late 2000 (yes, 17 years). I still read Metafilter pretty much every day, but I have gotten to where I will not comment, because I recognize that I do not think the "right" way. I've made perhaps two comments in the last 6 years. I frequently will type up a comment but then erase it without clicking save, because I know my thoughts would not be welcome.
For example, when the thread[1] about the Democratic National Convention was underway last summer, I noticed the thread was up for 48 hours, had over 3000 comments, and barely any mention of the resignation of the DNC chair (Debbie Wasserman Schultz), which had occurred just a few days prior. Go ahead and look through that that thread now (it's long since closed). There are a grand total of four mentions of Schultz's name. That's it, out of more than 3000 total comments. That's really strange, isn't it? The chair of one of the two major US party resigning a few days before their presidential convention is highly unusual and really should garner a bit more conversation, one would think. I'm sure if the chair of the RNC had resigned a few days before the Republican convention, there would have been more than just four comments about it. I was about to point this out, but then I realized that if they wanted to talk about it, they already would have. No one wanted to hear it. The groupthink is just that strong. Shut up and toe the party line (in every sense).
I also see other folks commenting here saying Metafilter's moderation is good and that poor comments are removed, but then I frequently see things like this comment, which is the first response to a post[2] about the recently-leaked climate change report:
> thank god i'll be dead by then. enjoy your eternal life on a cinder, peter thiel
That was allowed to remain (and has multiple "favorites"), because it's apparently okay if the Earth is ruined and everyone dies, as long as some techbro Metafilter doesn't like gets what's coming to him. That's what passes for "quality" on Metafilter these days, along with near-daily posts about how horrible white people are.[3]
And yet I can't look away. I'm still there reading it every day. Don't ask me why.
[1] http://www.metafilter.com/161201/Chase-the-Clouds-Away
[2] http://www.metafilter.com/168710/Very-High-Confidence
[3] http://www.metafilter.com/168715/White-Americans-are-probabl...
[1] http://www.metafilter.com/contribute/search.mefi?q=schultz+r...
(1) $5 fee to sign up. (2) It doesn't believe in absolute "free speech" like Reddit or HN. The moderators will tell you to cut it out.
HN absolutely moderates certain speech, and every subreddit is different - I'm a mod on one, and I absolutely do not hesitate to swing the hammer when necessary.