rc3.org

Strong opinions, weakly held

Author: Rafe (page 36 of 989)

Life, the good parts

JavaScript: The Good Parts is one of my favorite computer books ever written, not just because it’s an excellent primer on JavaScript, but also because the title alone provides guidance to a way of living that’s worth pondering.

This week, PHP: a fractal of bad design is making the rounds. It’s a lengthy list of thoughtful criticism of PHP as a programming language (and Web development platform). The PHP core team should read it, although the truth is that most of the problems can’t be addressed without breaking old PHP applications, and the PHP folks are generally reluctant to make those kinds of changes. PHP has a massive installed base on shared hosting servers — breaking old applications reduces the adoption rate of new versions.

Here’s the deal, though. For all of the complaints about PHP, thousands of businesses rely on it, and millions of people use it with varying degrees of expertise. I personally have spent thousands of hours hacking on PHP applications, sometimes with much frustration. None of the problems listed in that blog post have prevented me from getting my work done in that time.

The secret to using PHP effectively is the same as it is for JavaScript … focus on the good parts. It turns out that works out for most everything in life. When I eat at a restaurant, I don’t have to like everything on the menu, there just has to be one dish that I enjoy. The number of bad dishes on the menu don’t really matter, what counts are the good dishes, at least if you willing to be an educated consumer.

We all choose the set of tradeoffs we’re willing to accept. I’m happy to take advantage of the opportunities working with PHP provides and do my best to stick to the good parts.

Farewell and thank you to Jack Tramiel

Today we learned that Jack Tramiel, the founder of Commodore, died at age 84.

The first computer I owned was a Commodore 64. It was the best Christmas present I ever received. I still remember typing in program listings from computer magazines by hand just so that I could see them run. The next summer I saved all the money I made from mowing lawns to buy a Commodore 1541 floppy disk drive so that I could copy games. If Commodore hadn’t offered an affordable alternative to the Apple II at the time, I probably wouldn’t have had a computer at all.

I’m very grateful to Commodore and Jack Tramiel.

Rev. Dan Catt on the New Aesthetic

From the “you should read this” pile: Rev. Dan Catt has a really thoughtful take on why the New Aesthetic is about the future (or at least the present) and not the past.

For background on the New Aesthetic, read this post by James Bridle and this essay by Bruce Sterling.

Why pre-screening applicant Facebook accounts is a bad idea

Reg Braithwaite’s (hypothetical) resignation letter makes it perfectly clear why companies demanding to pre-screen applicant Facebook accounts is a terrible and potentially self-destructive idea. Aside from the very real problems he mentions in his letter, there’s also the fact that if you are even tempted to do this, you need to grow up.

Documenting the harm caused by airport security post-9/11

Today Bruce Schneier writes up the actual harms caused by airport security policies imposed after 9/11. It’s easy to decry these policies for their stupidity and costs, but describing the ways they cause actual harm is more work. This piece is a must read — here’s a snippet:

This loss of trust—in both airport security and counterterrorism policies in general—is the first harm. Trust is fundamental to society. There is an enormous amount written about this; high-trust societies are simply happier and more prosperous than low-trust societies. Trust is essential for both free markets and democracy. This is why open-government laws are so important; trust requires government transparency. The secret policies implemented by airport security harm society because of their very secrecy.

Cleaning up after DNS Changer malware

Paul Vixie (the guy who wrote the BIND DNS server) talks about his efforts to clean up the effects of the DNS Changer malware, which changes the DNS settings on the host computer (and sometimes the routers they use). DNS Changer was, in essence, a black hat advertising network. If you paid them, they would alter the malware victims’ DNS searches to redirect them to sites that promoted your products.

After the DNS Changer network was taken down, Vixie’s job was to come in and stand up replacement DNS servers to take the place of the bogus ones, so that victims of the malware didn’t suddenly lose the ability to perform DNS lookups. In the meantime, the working group is trying to remove the malware from hundreds of thousands of devices before the new DNS servers are taken down by court order on June 9.

Interesting look at a tough problem.

Understanding offensive football in two paragraphs

Let’s say you are a casual football fan who doesn’t really understand how football strategy works. Chris Brown explains the purpose of every offensive scheme in two paragraphs:

With 11 players to each side, every play — but particularly run plays — often comes down to how the offense does or does not account for one or two particular defenders. In the modern NFL, if all of an offense’s players block their counterparts on a running play, the defense will have two defenders unaccounted for: The counterpart for the running back carrying the ball and the counterpart for the quarterback, who most likely has handed the ball off. Good quarterbacks like Peyton Manning seek to control their counterpart by faking a play-action pass, so that a deep safety must stand in the middle of the field.

But the ballcarrier still has a counterpart. NFL offenses work extremely hard to dictate who that guy will be — with motion, different blocking schemes, and even using wide receivers to block interior defenders — but at some point the math is the math. Until the quarterback is a threat, the math will always work against the offense. But spread coaches, without subjecting their quarterbacks to undue brutality, have learned to change the calculus.

That’s from an article on how the New York Jets will use Tim Tebow, but if you understand those two paragraphs, you will understand more about football than most people who watch it all day every Sunday.

Distributed systems do not provide free reliability

Distributed database creator and LinkedIn engineer Jay Kreps pokes a hole in the widespread myth that systems that scale horizontally are inherently reliable. This is an important post, because intuitively it seems like a system that scales horizontally and makes provisions for fault tolerance should be reliable. Indeed, that’s the value proposition for many people. Rather than having to be smart enough to provision big servers intelligently and figure out how to make them fault tolerant, you can just throw commodity hardware at the problem and be ready to swap out systems when you encounter the occasional hardware failure.

If you enjoy that article, move on to Daniel Abadi’s post on Replication and the latency-consistency tradeoff. It’s not about system failure but about the performance characteristics of distributed systems. This is the sort of real-world issue that is glossed over when you talk to people about distributed systems a lot of the time.

The hype about the new distributed database systems is that they make life easy. The truth is that they’re incredibly complex, but they make it possible for small companies to achieve things that were out of reach for all but the largest companies until very recently. I’m just starting to wrestle with some of this stuff and you can expect more posts about this topic.

The Mike Daisey scandal in a nutshell

I’m going to let you skip listening to the Retraction episode of This American Life. Here are two short snippets from the transcript. First, This American Life made it clear what they expected from Daisey. This bit is from an email that This American Life producer Brian Reed sent to Mike Daisey before the original episode excerpting Mike Daisey’s show aired:

Being that news stations are obviously a different kind of form than the theater we wanted to make sure that this thing is totally, utterly unassailable by anyone who might hear it.

And why did Mike Daisey lie to everyone? Here’s why:

I think I was terrified that if I untied these things, that the work, that I know is really good, and tells a story, that does these really great things for making people care, that it would come apart in a way where, where it would ruin everything.

The rest is just details.

Mike Daisey, Sandra Fluke, and the importance of credibility

The big news in my little corner of the world today is This American Life’s retraction of the show they did that included a long excerpt of Mike Daisey’s one man show, The Agony and Ecstasy of Steve Jobs. In the show, Daisey contrasts the Apple products that are known and loved by both he and most of his audience with the labor conditions under which they are produced in China. Much of the emotional power of the story derives from the fact that Daisey travelled to China himself to meet workers in the factories. In his show, he alternates between telling the history of Apple and his own first-hand accounts of meetings with the workers.

Today we learn that This American Life has issued a retraction because they fact-checked Daisey’s story and found that it was not 100% true. The translator Daisey hired features prominently in his stories, so This American Life asked to contact her to verify his story. He gave them a fake name for the translator and claimed he could not get in touch with her. They wound up locating her themselves and found that she disputed significant portions of Daisey’s tale.

Daisey claims to have met a 13 year old worker in the Shenzhen factory. He did not. That said, Chinese factories do employ underage workers to build Apple products. Daisey claims to have met workers who suffered permanent damage because they are forced to use n-hexane to clean the screens of devices. That chemical is not used in the factories he visited. Even so, that chemical is used in other factories that assemble Apple products. He claims to have met a man whose hands were twisted due to repetitive stress injury caused by assembling iPads who had never actually used an iPad. According to his translator, that did not occur. Can there be any doubt that nearly all of the factory workers in China never get to use the products they assemble?

The problem for Daisey in terms of credibility is that he tells these stories in the first person. He went to China to find out what was really going on, and this is what he found. Much of the power of his story derives from this personal connection — he is telling you first hand what he heard. You can find the same facts using Google, just like I, and presumably he, did. The personal narrative is the hook. People who find stuff on Google and tell you about it have blogs, not critically acclaimed stage shows. Unless the “Mike Daisey” in the show is a fictional character, the audience expects that his first-hand stories are true. When we learn that they are not, the air leaves the balloon.

People tend to pay more attention to stories when they are personal. Let’s look at the example of Sandra Fluke. Her Congressional testimony made a couple of essentially non-controversial points — many women use contraception for reasons other than birth control, and that it can be difficult to afford if your insurance doesn’t pay for it. You can find any number of politicians, reporters, public health experts, doctors, and random people on the street who will confirm them.

When a story pricks at our conscience, our brains tend to look for a way out and the easiest way out is to dismiss the story because we don’t trust the person who told it. So it’s easier for Rush Limbaugh to attack Sandra Fluke than to attack her testimony. His goal was to make people feel that she could be safely ignored, and he went about it in just about the most disgusting way possible.

Because the power of stories is so tightly coupled with the credibility of the teller, it’s especially important to avoid self-inflicted wounds. Here’s what Daisey says:

I stand by my work. My show is a theatrical piece whose goal is to create a human connection between our gorgeous devices and the brutal circumstances from which they emerge. It uses a combination of fact, memoir, and dramatic license to tell its story, and I believe it does so with integrity. Certainly, the comprehensive investigations undertaken by The New York Times and a number of labor rights groups to document conditions in electronics manufacturing would seem to bear this out.

I’m sympathetic to his argument. All the stuff he talks about really did happen, if not to people he talked to. The problem, though, is that the impact of his story hinges upon his credibility as the teller. He must have known that when he tried to prevent This American Life from getting in touch with his translator.

Fortunately for the workers in China who deserve to work under better conditions, their story has taken on a life far beyond The Agony and Ecstasy of Steve Jobs. Finding out that Mike Daisey was more interested in telling a powerful story than telling a true story is not enough to let Apple or its customers off the hook. He should be thankful for that.

For reasons of thoroughness, here’s Rob Schmitz’ report on his investigation into Daisey’s show. I also note with sadness that Cathy the translator does not seem to wear overlarge glasses that always need to be pushed up.

Update: This American Life digs deeper this week.

Older posts Newer posts

© 2024 rc3.org

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑