Also, if you ever get in the position of saying "X is extremely complicated and I can't explain it to you" it is because you stand to benefit by designing a system poorly, or you aren't bright enough or don't have the experience to realize that you can reframe the problem. Algebraic geometry is also complicated, but these days there are plenty of books that will explain it to you, and the tools (like sheaves) are well-established and standard.
Obfuscation is the MO of installed, configured enterprise software. If there were an incentive to create a simple, effective solution, then, lo and behold, one would be created. The incentive is almost never there.
Take Unix for example. It is simple and effective (and flimsy as all heck) but before it came along, obtuse operating systems were the norm. It is worth pointing out that A) Thompson and Ritchie are geniuses and B) there was no financial incentive.
The war over the internet is intensifying. Now, why should you care? Do you think Google is going to "not be evil" for the rest of eternity? You're already seeing politicians going down for doing stupid things...the global elite fears the power of the internet, as well they should.
The internet will know what you are thinking, and it will use that against you. At some point, a tipping point, those who control the internet will be able to control the rest of society.
The internet can survive a nuclear war. Whoever controls the internet will control the future.
FTA:
Would a leading North American journal of cultural studies -- whose editorial collective includes such luminaries as Fredric Jameson and Andrew Ross -- publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions?
He was about 10 years ahead of his time. This is more or less the formula for most blog posts. Even people who should know better throw in some bullshit because they think it will look good. Take the machine learning post that appeared here a bit ago. At the level of precision laid out in the article, model complexity and scalability are at best totally-ordered sets, and there is absolutely no way you can do a regression of any sort. The graphic, however is cute and appears to flatter the reader's intellectual sophistication.
I found this article deeply irritating. I didn't even get through the whole thing, but the message was clear. Sure it is great to be a scientist...but everyone really wants to be a movie star. This makes me want to puke. Shining a bright, glowing light on those who are already drenched in adoration and celebrity. The implication is that if you're "just" a great scientist, you still must live with the bitter knowledge that you aren't loved by the masses. And to have the gall to call this a "science" article. This is the sort of shlock that belongs in People magazine.
The brazenness...only in NYC.
Also, if you ever get in the position of saying "X is extremely complicated and I can't explain it to you" it is because you stand to benefit by designing a system poorly, or you aren't bright enough or don't have the experience to realize that you can reframe the problem. Algebraic geometry is also complicated, but these days there are plenty of books that will explain it to you, and the tools (like sheaves) are well-established and standard.
Obfuscation is the MO of installed, configured enterprise software. If there were an incentive to create a simple, effective solution, then, lo and behold, one would be created. The incentive is almost never there.
Take Unix for example. It is simple and effective (and flimsy as all heck) but before it came along, obtuse operating systems were the norm. It is worth pointing out that A) Thompson and Ritchie are geniuses and B) there was no financial incentive.