Ivan Reese
04/01/2023, 5:39 PMJason Morris
04/01/2023, 10:14 PMIvan Reese
04/02/2023, 2:35 AMJason Morris
04/02/2023, 5:03 AMLu Wilson
04/03/2023, 5:01 PMJason Morris
04/03/2023, 5:02 PMLu Wilson
04/03/2023, 5:04 PMIvan Reese
04/03/2023, 6:05 PMLu Wilson
04/03/2023, 6:06 PMIbro
04/04/2023, 8:44 AMwtaysom
04/04/2023, 8:54 AMPersonal Dynamic Media
04/28/2023, 8:10 PMIvan Reese
04/30/2023, 4:16 AMIn general, it is more helpful to ask "what was it about this person's experience and environment that led them to view things this way? Are those things relevant to me and to now? If so, how? If not, what is different?" than to say "F--- this paragraph" or "He's wrong here."If my intention for the show was to be my pure authentic self, sharing my immediate perspectives on programming papers, your feedback here would be spot on, and I'd have no hesitation to agree. But my reply ā inviting you to ask a similar sort of "Why are they doing what they're doing?" ā was meant to suggest that I have other intentions for the show that sit at odds with your ask. One of which is that the Ivan who appears on the podcast is a . This character is played up for effect, because, again, that's the sort of podcast I like to listen to. Yes, I like listening to shows where people are occasionally crass and disrespectful ā especially when theyāre doing it in honor or service of something higher than themselves, or winkingly, or as an interplay between high-brow and low-brow, or in an āafflict the comfortable / comfort the afflictedā punching-up sort of way, or simply because it creates more hilarity and drama. For this show, I want my character to wander around the entire space of positive and negative feelings engendered by every subject we touch upon. To me, thatās the most interesting and rewarding show I can create. It's what pushes the show away from being mere pabulum, and entices people to engage with the subject matter because they're bewitched and enthralled by how we present it. So to conclude, Iāll just borrow a tired but true adage when frustrated with art. Iām making this podcast, and while I value the audience we have (so, so much ā but thatās a tangent), Iām always going to make the sort of show that I want to listen to, and I donāt for a single moment expect that anyone else will enjoy it, nor do I aim to make it to please them. Iām quite confident that, for instance, Steve Krouse doesnāt enjoy the show much at all any more ā and Iām perfectly happy with that. Steveās a great guy, but he's satisfied by a straightforward "let's talk about computers" show in a way that I'm not. Similarly, I am glad that youāve listened as much as you have, and especially that youāve taken so much time to craft these comments filled to the brim with references and wisdom. You have a wealth of knowledge about the history of our field that I doubt I have any hope of matching. If the irreverence of our discussions makes you uncomfortable, all I can say is that Iām sorry ā with sympathy, not apology. The concern you raised ā ācould cause your listeners to discount the importance of the papers or their authorsā ā I share that concern. But I feel quite differently about the mechanics of how and why Jimmy and I could bring positive attention to the history of our field. For my taste, Iād like to hear someone discuss something with a passion, or playfulness, that wanders all over every spectrum, standing on an audio stage with strange lighting and costuming, where the line between authenticity and affect is crooked and blurry, and you listen just as much for the thought-provoking ideas as for the wild way they're presented. I believe thatās the way to make the most engaging, inspiring reflection on the greatest works of our field.
Personal Dynamic Media
04/30/2023, 4:38 AMJimmy Miller
04/30/2023, 2:49 PMPersonal Dynamic Media
04/30/2023, 3:53 PMIvan Reese
04/30/2023, 4:16 PMMarcel Weiher
05/14/2023, 5:43 AMJimmy Miller
05/14/2023, 1:51 PMMarcel Weiher
05/15/2023, 6:33 AMIvan Reese
05/19/2023, 4:15 PMJimmy Miller
05/19/2023, 5:43 PMI donāt think āargument from authorityā is bad when you are setting the context/background, as the authors did here with complexity, in fact isnāt it the accepted scientific practice? After all, we canāt do the Hilbert for every paper we want to write and derive/prove the entire world from scratch up to the point that we then actually want to make in the paper.I definitely agree with what Ivan said on the characterization of Tar Pit. But I also want to say that I think there is a distinction between an argument from authority and citing prior works. Almost all the papers we've read so far have relied on prior work and cited it (Engelbart apologized for not doing it because he didn't want to make people guilty by association). But I wouldn't call that practice citing authoritative sources. It is great to cite a source to give background. But that background doesn't act as an authority. It is used to situate the reader. To give them further reading or to allow them to know your general bent. That isn't what the quotes here function as. They are functioning in the paper as an argument. They are meant to be the evidence to support the claim. This claim is a bit more than just complexity = bad, its that complexity is the single most important issue. Citing all these turing award winners is being used as evidence to support that claim, which is an invalid argument.
Personal Dynamic Media
05/19/2023, 5:49 PMIvan Reese
05/19/2023, 8:12 PM