I’m not even going to try to pullquote this fantastic, thought-provoking talk about data collection, privacy, and the Internet’s current, increasingly dystopian cultural moment. Obviously most of us in the tech business are conversant in the issues Ceglowski is raising here, but he has a talent for framing things in a way that makes you think about them differently (e.g. vast collections of behavioral user data as a kind of toxic waste). As someone who has devoted his career to developing technology but finds himself increasingly wary of my industry’s every new invasive development, I also appreciate Ceglowski’s thoughtful suggestion that privacy regulation might be a way not just protect the rights of individual users in this new era, but also a way to actually encourage creativity and innovation in the long run by setting parameters that make both developers and users feel protected.
Imagine if there was only one bar in Düsseldorf, or all of Germany, and if you wanted to hang out with your friends, you had to go there. And when you did, there were cameras everywhere, and microphones, and you were constantly being interrupted by people selling you stuff. That’s the situation that obtains with Facebook today.
When you remember a life event, you are remembering the last time you remembered it, not the actual event.
A lot of people think of memories like they would a file stored in a cabinet somewhere. When you want to remember something, you go fetch it from the cabinet, read the file, then put the file back in the cabinet so you can find it next time.
That’s not how memory works.
When you remember something, you fetch that memory from where it is stored in your brain, and then you copy it. This copy overwrites the original memory, and the copy is never perfect. The copy you make is influenced by the context in which you are remembering the memory. The very act of remembering something changes that memory in your head. Once you’re done remembering it, your brain then re-files that memory to be retrieved again. But the original memory is gone, replaced with a copied, imperfect version of that memory.
‘We asked people to look in a mirror and describe what they saw. What they didn’t know was that there were strangers on the other side of the mirror, giving their first impressions.’
This is important to everyone. Watch this!
tHIS IS THE BEST THIN G
its said that if you saw an identical twin of yourself, you wouldn’t realize they looked just like you, due to the way you perceive yourself is so drastically different than what you actually look like.
be kinder to yourself
I love this, but I wish they could have included some people that didn’t look like GAP models.
They were never alive. Adobe and the publishers crapped out a platform that allowed them to do the least amount of work to put their products on the iPad, completely ignoring any of its new abilities or potential. They were rewarded accordingly.
I disagree. To me, eMags (print replica of magazines) are as valuable as eBooks (print replica of books) = looks the same as print, but less expensive and far easier to carry (iPad). Granted, both eMags and eBooks have vast untapped potential to explore, but even in their present form, are worthwhile.
Much of the power of the UNIX operating system comes from a style of program design that makes programs easy to use and, more important, easy to combine with other programs. This style has been called the use of software tools, and depends more on how the programs fit into the programming environment how they can be used with other programs than on how they are designed internally. But as the system has become commercially successful and has spread widely, this style has often been compromised, to the detriment of all users. Old programs have become encrusted with dubious features. Newer programs are not always written with attention to proper separation of function and design for interconnection. This paper discusses the elements of program design, showing by example good and bad design, and indicates some possible trends for the future.
There is much to learn from UNIX, both the failures and successes. In particular this paper argues for small well defined functions which can be composed to build larger functionality, and against a slow and steady bloat of features — as Perlis said “If you have a procedure with 10 parameters, you probably missed some.”