Post B0hcx643RY8VRHrnMW by etchedpixels@mastodon.social
(DIR) More posts by etchedpixels@mastodon.social
(DIR) Post #B0aElbXQqBnEZWsKmW by tess@mastodon.social
2025-11-24T17:51:37Z
1 likes, 4 repeats
Some helpful advice for all you software devs:- You cannot solve social problems with code- You cannot improve a system until you understand why it works the way it does- You cannot produce tools for someone else without understanding how they work and what they are trying to accomplish
(DIR) Post #B0aEli9EGZan4UbbWq by tess@mastodon.social
2025-11-24T17:51:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(these are all actually the same advice)
(DIR) Post #B0agrCYJRojJXAkDtg by nickrauchen@c.im
2025-11-25T01:12:49Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@tess Nice!Reminds me of this quote: "A major problem occurs when those who suffer from technology's deficits and those who benefit are not the same people." -- Donald Norman
(DIR) Post #B0eBKuQYyr7e6h56dk by jeffcliff@shitposter.world
2025-11-26T19:28:31.099686Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@tess all 3 are wrong.
(DIR) Post #B0eBYaFum8THbEcZm4 by jeffcliff@shitposter.world
2025-11-26T19:30:59.649792Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@tess all 3 are wrong.1) You can solve social problems with code by allowing people to coordinate better (see: julian assange's conspiracy as governance) 2) you can study systems by black-boxing them, and learning about them improve at both critical and noncritical points. Generally: 'you need to understand the whole thing' style thoughts are how you get paralyzed by fear of changing anything and fixing anything3) general purpose tools exist that can help everyone, and you can make more of them.
(DIR) Post #B0hcx643RY8VRHrnMW by etchedpixels@mastodon.social
2025-11-25T12:59:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tess old trope and factually dubious. Code is just an implementation of a set of processes, and processes can solve social problems. The fact you solve more social problems by removing than adding software is more about the fact people working in software and systems ought to be qualified in systems practice.If you think software can't help solve social problems then remove all the software from the water supply system and see how long society lasts.
(DIR) Post #B0hcx7Ug831js9KZV2 by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-11-28T11:21:56Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(1/?)@etchedpixels > Code is just an implementation of a set of processesTrue. But beware the 'all fish are trout' fallacy. Just because some processes can be expressed in code, that doesn't mean any process can.> processes can solve social problemsNot the kind you can automate, or set and forget. Which is the kind you can turn into software.@tess
(DIR) Post #B0hdHTjt8B3Gem9XPs by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-11-28T11:25:41Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(2/2)> If ... software can't help solve social problems then remove all the software from the water supply systemThat's definitely at risk of an 'all fish are trout. Just because removal of software creates certain social problem, that doesn't mean all software removal does. As you say yourself, the opposite is true at least as often.More importantly, removal of infrastructure software creating certain social problem isn't actually evidence that software can solve social problems anyway.
(DIR) Post #B0hdt3UBBkvoEmitPs by etchedpixels@mastodon.social
2025-11-25T13:04:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tess Also you can improve a system without really understanding how it works. You do it every time you read a book and learn something. Indeed Ashby's law says you can never understand yourself - yet self improvement is possibleYou can design effective systems when you don't know how people will use them It's harder and requires expertise. However the statement is mostly a misunderstanding. Systems evolve and the software design, implement, deploy, run away model is what is broken
(DIR) Post #B0hdt4NTs9AR0Ib3c8 by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-11-28T11:32:28Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(1/?)As for this post, the first part is a bunch of strawmen slaughtering.@etchedpixels > you can improve a system without really understanding how it worksWhat @tess said was;> You cannot improve a system until you understand *why* it works the way it does(Emphasis mine)Understanding how and why are two very different things on dancing with systems.
(DIR) Post #B0he1xYWbaOcS709pI by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-11-28T11:34:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(2/2)> You can design effective systems when you don't know how people will use them It's harder and requires expertiseThis is hubris. Comparing years of watefall vs (genuine) agile practice strongly suggests otherwise. If you are a representative sample of the software user yourself, then you know how people will use it. Otherwise, best to talk to people who are, right from the start of the design process.
(DIR) Post #B0heSg8FUiwEESS4Q4 by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-11-28T11:38:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(1/2)@jeffcliff> You can solve social problems with code by allowing people to coordinate betterThen it's the people who are solving the social problems with the improved coordination, not the software. Its helping, but that's not the same.> 'you need to understand the whole thing' style thoughtsThis is slaughtering a strawman. Understanding *why* a system works the way it does it totally different from understanding everything it does and exactly how.@tess
(DIR) Post #B0heeMW2Fm9Yrt9I0m by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-11-28T11:41:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(2/2)@jeffcliff> general purpose tools existThis is an 'all fish are trout' fallacy. Just because some tools are general purpose, doesn't mean all or even most tools are general purpose. Arguably the ones that help best with addressing social needs are highly customised, and ideally co-designed (see the Agile Manifesto).
(DIR) Post #B0hhR5RMjAWC0YKH0y by etchedpixels@mastodon.social
2025-11-28T12:12:12Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey @tess I possibly should have used the word "why". However I will simply note that the statement I made is equally true if you substitute the word how for why.We don't understand how or why our brains work in full (and Ashby says we probably never can), but we still know how to change them by observation of what happens when we change the inputs and outputs.
(DIR) Post #B0hiFRBi9329w50r3Y by etchedpixels@mastodon.social
2025-11-28T12:21:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey @tess I don't follow your reasoning here at all. Code can implement a subset of all processes (the computable subset, in reality the computable in reasonable space/time subset).Systems based upon code can and do implement things that change over time and can evolve. The "fire and forget" model is just broken software design as I said earlier. The code that solved the "we can't scale with telephone operators" problem is not the code we use today nor could it be. Systems evolve.
(DIR) Post #B0hiJhxhimHv7NUuW0 by etchedpixels@mastodon.social
2025-11-28T12:22:05Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey If you think water supply was not historically a social problem then I am not sure how to have a rational debate with you.
(DIR) Post #B0ioXVU7hXnZMGaHYW by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-11-29T01:06:34Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@etchedpixels> If you think water supply was not historically a social problemWater supply is an logistical problem, not a social problem. You don't seem to understand what the phrase "social problem" means, which probably explains why you kicks keeping missing the goal.If you think constantly moving the goalposts to make your every kick a goal ...> then I am not sure how to have a rational debate with you
(DIR) Post #B0ip7j9uL6A6ByOqrw by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-11-29T01:13:05Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@etchedpixels > Code can implement a subset of all processesAgain, this is hubris, typical of SillyCon Valley technoutoianism. Please write code to implement the process of negotiating the Good Friday Agreement, deescalating and ultimately ending the sectarian violence in Northern Ireland.Not all processes can be expressed in software, and social processes are the least amenable to this.@tess
(DIR) Post #B0ipKtcqjeAKQ2DUGm by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-11-29T01:15:29Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Putting aside your refusal to acknowledge the difference between operationalisation (how) and purpose (why) ...@etchedpixels > we still know how to change them by observation of what happens when we change the inputs and outputsSometimes we can, sure. Can we systematise it to the point that it's reliably repeatable and suitable for automation?@tess
(DIR) Post #B1Qr8YihNvlAyBQyi8 by worik@mastodon.social
2025-12-20T07:02:52Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey @etchedpixels @tess I do not think name calling helpsSaying "you cannot solve social problems with code" (I'm guessing at quote as I cannot see it as I tap) is not to be taken literally as "no social problem can be solved with code" or equivalently as "social problems can be solved with code"It is rhetoric, it is saying a higher truth pitted against "software will eat the world" tech bros....
(DIR) Post #B1RRqc8BvZxz6oQ3qC by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-12-20T13:54:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@worik > Saying "you cannot solve social problems with code" (I'm guessing at quote as I cannot see it More or less. The OP by @tess is here;https://mastodon.social/@tess/115605942957826285
(DIR) Post #B1RRt9SqxymT4MIHLM by worik@mastodon.social
2025-12-20T07:08:15Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@strypey @etchedpixels @tess ....people who thought they could code a money system that removed the need for trust....people who thought AI algorithms could remove bias from criminal sentencing ...people who thought gig workers would be made freeI have spent a large part of my life studying and acting in the social and political sphere. Objectivity is not useless, but if you rely solely on objectivity, only accepting things that are objectively true, then you cannot be of any use...
(DIR) Post #B1RRtFHjKFRr7b8Tq4 by worik@mastodon.social
2025-12-20T07:12:55Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey @etchedpixels @tess ...lastly one of the most surprising things I learnt in my years in politics is the best, and most effective way to tell lies was with facts. Not made up facts, like Trump, but actual facts.Code is pure objectivity, it is not useless, but it is no where near sufficient