← Home Archive Currently Reading Finished Reading Stats 🙃 Also on Micro.blog
  • With Anne-Marie Willis, professor of design theory at the German University in Cairo.

    Another world is possible. But what of worlding? How to world?

    When a Farley’s barista is a strong current; wow the level of shine escaping her mouth. And I loved it. The slightest tickle of maple syrup was a great recommendation!

    Per usual I sent myself something to read and didn’t cite the source so I’ve been having that weird kind of drifty, but tethered, Pong ball experience. Was it mentioned by someone in a Paper in Systems discussion? Maybe a content of the fediverse’s systems thinkers briefly held in place by my thumb.

    As I like to say (with often different verses), I do software development because it’s a phenomenological wonder of people, text, code, time travel, non-determinism – and always pluckily avoids fitting neatly into capitalist fetish.

    Like, software projects (already “bad” (incomplete, inaccurate) lexicon) of any substantial scope are only delivered on time accidentally.

    Frederica Frabetti supports this axiomatic chiste of software, noting in her book Software Theory:

    “The central problem of software development is thus the impossibility of following a sure path in which a system is completely and exhaustively specified before it can be realized.”

    and

    “Stability is something that happens to the system, rather than being scheduled and worked towards.”

    Look how software was virtually helpless to build complex systems that are designed to become eventually consistent.

    For me, software is philosophical-ing. An ontological milieu. Therefore Willis' essay is soooo good for those of us who are philosophical-ing, but not academically trained – and who can drift into this kind of theoretical reasoning easily, especially in an essay like Ontological Designing which onboards us you into hardcore theory with a ton of grace. Willis doesn’t need to spend her initial breaths on defining “ontological” and and Heidegger’s “being”, and (re)introducing us to the failure of the Western metaphysical tradition. But she is generous; and that’s likely the point. A broader appeal.

    Which, in turn, helps the mind Pong around during an essay about pervasive push and pull.

    I’m reading this essay about how we effect social change but also thinking through the systems reasoning and how it vibrates into software ontology. Well, there are references to IT infrastructure and other “equipment” of our present epoch – though they do not supersede other kinds of equipment. For Willis, our contemporary technologies can function both as examples of any designed material, as well as juxtapose with the immaterial (organizational structures, administrative systems, etc…) to demonstrate how they are equivalent as objects/outcomes of the ontological design circularity/looping, bi-directional reach – Heidegger’s grabbing Cartesian dualism by the shoulders and shaking them. (“Ontological designing refuses such one dimensional understandings of (human) being-in-the-world, which are worn-out fragments of enlightenment thinking and Christian morality sloppily stitched together.") As Willis notes, Heidegger themself reaches for the simple household jug to work with in his pursuit of how things, thing.

    “The jug gathers and unites these.”

    These being: water, wine, sky, earth. Gathered/outpoured.

    But she talks about tech in a way that tickles, for sure. Especially it’s excess as it frenetically infinite loops rather than unlocks potential:

    Rather than inducing us into a world of multiple creative possibilities (as software advertisers would have it), [computers] design us as users into their horizons of possibility – which by the very nature of horizons (in Gadamer’s sense) always have a limit. In fact, the proliferation of options within even a basic operating system or software application becomes a tyranny of choice, a maze of seemingly endless possibilities, a dazzling instrumentation for its own sake, all means with no end in sight.”

    Maybe free software never will be truly free.

    → 3:03 PM, Jul 4
  • Naur, goodies, 1985 years after Jesus Christ

    There are so many goodies in Naur, 1985. Filter, some():

    • Declares there’s no right way to write software
    • (Further) rebukes the scientific method
    • Calls out lack of empirical study of software methods
    • The programmer as “manager” of computer activity

    Thank you ceejbot for further distillations.

    → 9:29 AM, Jun 8
  • Naur, the optimist, 1985 years after Jesus Christ

    The year is 1985. Certain kinds of optimism abound in programming circles. From Peter Naur’s Programming as Theory Building:

    "It may be noted that the need for revival of an entirely dead program probably will rarely arise, since it is hardly conceivable that the revival would be assigned to new programmers without at least some knowledge of the theory had by the original team."

    The infamous “shit mouse” bug (that became an iconic team joke with its own concomitant laptop sticker swag) that I pushed to production in 2018 was a direct result of software abandoned in the wake of parting team members (before my arrival). Picking up dust-laden software seems like a common occurrence these days, no?

    In their reading-with of Naur, Ceejbot offers a valuable remediation technique for deleterious knowledge vacancies. It’s one that I personally strive for in everyday software practice: gross amounts of maintainer documentation.

    Don’t waste time documenting what can be seen through simple reading. Document why that function exists and what purpose it serves in the software. When might I call it? Does it have side effects? Is there anything important about the inputs and outputs that I might not be able to deduce by reading the source of the function? All of those things are clues about the thinking of the original author of the function that can help their successor figure out what that author’s theory of the program was.

    and

    …the program exists to solve a problem, some “affair of the world” that Naur refers to. What was that problem? Is there a concise statement of that problem anywhere? What approach did you take to solving that problem statement? What tradeoffs did you make and why? What values did you hold as you made those tradeoffs? Why did you organize the source code in that particular way? What belongs where?

    → 8:56 AM, Jun 8
  • Power Moves

    During her novel workshop on estate planning, Sarah Deluca of Move Money Shift Power poses the question:

    Is holding onto control after your death something you want?

    If part of our life’s work is to strengthen connection, relinquish power, share power, redistribute, does a Trust actually violate the moves we’ve been making at the speed of small “t” trust? Individualistic posthumous scheming is not the invention of communities, but of corrupted powerfuls. It would seem.

    A few days later I found myself in the next Paper in Systems disucssion led by Dawn Ahukanna and Shauna Gordon-McKeon. On the table was Shauna’s essay Interpretive Labor: Bridging the Gap Between Map and Territory. Wherein you’ll find a rich investigation – and then interrogation – of the lopsided power distribution between those that labor to imagine, construct models, maps, and those that sit with the effects of the implementation – who interpret, navigate, bridge the chasm between theory and material outcomes.

    I was called in. Software engineers do wield an outsized power from behind the desk. Although the tower isn’t deathly bleached, because 1) we do some interpretive labor at the seam between business requirements and software building (system design, theory of, code/text writing), and 2) failures reverberate back to us pretty hard (midnight pages) – at least more acutely than through the beauracratic layers. (Do the capitalists get to feel much of anything?) Nonetheless, we probably aren’t the ones screaming during the scream test. What do we do with this power?

    Jorge Luis Borges self portait
    Jorge Luis Borges - Self Portrait
    → 6:00 AM, Jun 6
  • Redis Poem

    set things
    set them to expire
    set them to be exclusive
    set them to expire, be exclusive

    (inspired by a chat with mike b)

    → 12:22 AM, Jan 8
  • RSS
  • JSON Feed
  • Micro.blog

Hits count: