Pretty sure anyone who knows even a tiny bit of Bletchley Park history is well aware of Tommy Flowers.
He should have been involved in 1950s computing. But he went back to the Post Office Research Station to work on phone switches again. He did good work on phone switches.[1] But vacuum tubes in phone switches were never a good idea, and the technology of phone switches was its own little world. Fully electronic phone switches were several decades away.
[1] https://www.communicationsmuseum.org.uk/emuseum/electronicsw...
Also, his grandson often sits in front of my Mum and Dad at football matches! Although I only found that out a lot later.
If you asked me for some names in early computing, I'd come up with Babbage, Ada, Turing, Zuse, Eckert and Mauchley, perhaps Atanasoff and Berry. I don't think I'd have come up with Flowers.
I'll do my best to right that wrong, but it really takes effort to rewrite history when something's declassified. In the same way that we all celebrated the SR-71 when in fact, the A-12 flew higher and faster, earlier, but it was classified, there's a mountain of material out there still claiming the SR-71 held all those firsts, when in fact not a single one of them was true.
Until Flowers' name rolls off the tongue as easily as Turing's, we have work to do.
It’s a sad commentary on western culture that being in a movie seemingly has the importance that it seems to.
It’s relevant whether or not they were depicted in a movie because that is the context of this thread, because that is the topic of the fine article itself.
If it's sad then it matters, if it doesn't matter then it isn't sad.
> I don’t understand why it matters whether someone was in a movie or not.
This is calling into question that it matters in the first place, essentially muddying the waters of the discussion. I think you are mistaken; they didn’t say it doesn’t matter directly but they imply that whether it matters or not is irrelevant, which is the entire point of the whole post and thread, so it’s not encouraging thoughtful discussion, either. I did appreciate the discussion anyway, but I believe every silver lining has its cloud, and vice versa. It’s all a matter of perspective, expectations, intent, and effort.
I’m determined to give a good faith reply to every comment that merits one from me, but I usually am of the opinion that others are better able to wring some meaning from the content than I am, so I’m content not to post much most of the time.
That said, I believe youre honestly mistaken about what they said or meant. It’s not really ambiguous that they were nebulous about the comment that they replied to, but their word choice and approach made clear their disapproval or disagreement with their interlocutor.
> their word choice and approach made clear their disapproval or disagreement with their interlocutor.
Certainly it's disapproval, but this is a non sequitur that doesn't contradict my statement.
Note that he wrote
> It’s a sad commentary on western culture that being in a movie seemingly has the importance that it seems to.
... again stating that it matters to people. He's sad that it does. I simply pointed out that he didn't say that it doesn't matter--I didn't pass judgment on whether he's correct.
I won't respond further to people so confused about the clear meaning and logic of a comment.
P.S.
> Have you considered the distinct possibility that you might be honestly wrong also?
Good grief ... I certainly won't deal with this sort of extremely bad faith offensive whataboutism. Of course I consider whether I might be wrong, on every single occasion.
> HN isn’t a place for adversarial tones, so take your bad attitude and ill manner with you as you go.
Is it even possible to be more hypocritical than this?
Cultural artifacts such as films are as legitimate as the letters and scratchings thereof. It’s a fine thing that folks use the tools at their disposal to communicate the meaning of the days and times.
> > has the importance that it seems to.
> ... again stating that it matters to people. He's sad that it does. I simply pointed out that he didn't say that it doesn't matter--I didn't pass judgment on whether he's correct.
It’s fine and good that movies move people. It’s easier to find fault than it is to build, and I take issue with your suggestion that motion pictures don’t matter, the implication being that you both know better, and I am saddened myself to see folks discount their importance to individuals and to the wider culture.
> I won't respond further to people so confused about the clear meaning and logic of a comment.
To withdraw from a discussion is fine, but to declare victory as if this is an argument tips your hand. HN isn’t a place for adversarial tones, so take your bad attitude and ill manner with you as you go.
P.S. if you want to reply to this comment, make a new reply (click the timestamp). You’ve been editing away, but I’m only responding upthread, whereas you are replying below, which is bad faith, the same you baselessly accuse me of.
I'm sorry if this doesn't make sense to you but the intent here is quite unambiguous. It's nothing more than an attempt at moral posturing without a basic understanding of how culture propagates.
Like it doesn't take a genius to understand that one of the most widely consumed cultural product in history is going to influence who the public recognizes and pretending otherwise is just performative ignorance.
Note that he wrote
> It’s a sad commentary on western culture that being in a movie seemingly has the importance that it seems to.
... again stating that it matters to people. He's sad that it does. I simply pointed out that he didn't say that it doesn't matter--I didn't pass judgment on whether he's correct, but you have a lot to say about that.
> Like it doesn't take a genius to understand that one of the most widely consumed cultural product in history is going to influence who the public recognizes and pretending otherwise is just performative ignorance.
This comment is a strawman and extremely rude and offensive.
I won't respond further to people so confused about the clear meaning and logic of a comment.
> There was no need for you to involve yourself in the discussion to begin with given that you misunderstood every single comment that has been made, it's for the best that you refrain from further involvement.
There are evil people here.