| layout | title | permalink |
|---|---|---|
page |
401.44 Reading Notes |
/401-R44/ |
(On this article by Bill Sourour)
I appreciated Sourour's deeply personal account of his own past participation in bringing a client's unethical project to life. The ability to abstract is generally an asset in coding, but considering real code work only in the realms of "problem domains" and "solutions" removes all human context. Functions all seem benign, and even front-end assets can be explained away as fitting someone else's design. Compilers don't care. The description of developers as "last lines of defense" seems apt, and acknowledges that an effort can and should be made to assess impact before simply creating what was requested. To technical people, it may be easy to see their tools only as plowshares and lose sense of their sharpness.
As the rate of data creation continues to climb, we are long since past the point where one individual can see or experience a non-negligible portion of human information. We see and expect more and faster content of all kinds, generated at rates that even the full supply of human creators will not be able to keep up with if tastes become ever more granular and products more precisely targeted. In addition to the challenges of mass obsolescence beyond the fields of agriculture, manufacture, and most services, the mere question of exposure hangs heavy. Serendipity will not suffice, if it will survive at all -- as more information is created and controlled, the ability to access, restrict, and direct what people are able to see and learn will likely influence individuals and populations to a degree never before possible. Data is not itself understanding though, and errors in core assumptions cannot be addressed with sheer quantity of information collected, even when motives happen to be pure.