The Rise Of The Artist - <AUTHOR> http://techgnotic.deviantart.com/journal/The-Rise-Of-The-Artist-You-Are-The-Future-356840683 <comment><USER5> Picture a writer. You've seen him countless times in tv shows and movies. Brow furrowed, pencil gripped tight between teeth, hunched over a typewritter, tearing pages out and throwing them into an overflowing waste basket, staring at the ceiling praying for inspiration.

Picture a developer. Brow furrowed, hunched over a keyboard, the room is dark but he glows from the light of the monitor, a pile of empty mountain dew cans littering his waste basket, slamming his fist on the desk in frustation.

Creativity is noticing the absence of something and knowing how to bring from the void into reality. You sketch it. You poke it and prod it. You shape it until it is just so. You love it until you hate it enough to call it done.

Sounds a lot like coding, at least if you are doing it right.

Please, learn how to code. Learn how to draw. Learn how to think. Learn how to write. Learn how to solve problems. Learn how to do everything until something sticks. Not until you find something that you 'love', but until you find something that you just can't not do. And when you grow tired of it, do something else.

<comment><USER6> I don't think you can compare coding and writing so closely. I don't know about you, but I've never thought of coding as involving much _creativity_.

Or is your point that good writers and artists and such are not actually being creative?

<comment><USER7> >I've never thought of coding as involving much creativity

Truly?

Programming requires a whole lot of creativity (sometimes enough to sap it from your other creative endeavors). Not necessarily in the part where you write the if, else, for and while stuff, but the part before that - <USER2> you're figuring out what you actually want to DO.

I've spent hours simply thinking about the best algorithm to use for a task. Sitting there with a notebook, sketching different possibilities over a simple example, thinking about its algorithmic complexity and whether there's a way to do it better. Considering what data structures I need to implement it, and the trade-offs between those choices. Whether I might just need to start over altogether (and I have; on some of the more challenging algorithm assignments, I've gone through 4 iterations of implementation before I hit one I was happy with).

You might call that engineering. But, the act of actually COMING UP with new algorithms and implementations that might solve the problem? That's creativity. And the harder the problem, the more it takes to solve.

Maybe it's just that I'm still a student, doing some projects on my own and doing a lot of homework assignments. I don't know what kind of coding you're doing, but if you can do it mechanically, without requiring any creativity whatsoever, then it doesn't sound like a very good use of your time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm an artist.

Honestly I'm not gonna hold my breath for this GIANT SOCIAL CHANGE where ART IS IMPORTANT!!!! to happen. Right now pretty much all creative media that are digitizable are passed around online. Music, movies, comics, still art - <USER3> it's not painfully obscure, you can probably get it for free on the bittorrents.

Hell, if it's painfully obscure, you can also probably get it for free. Maybe you'll tell your friends about it, the thinking goes, and maybe eventually a friend of a friend will feel like buying a book or a t-shirt or pay for a download or otherwise put money in the artist's pocket and give us some faint hope of (a) making enough money to keep a roof over our heads while making the stuff we want to make and (b) actually having people beyond our immediate peers reading/watching/listening to/whatever our stuff.

If we DO actually manage to get to a place where enough people are well off enough in general to be able to spend a lot of their time making art instead of scrambling for enough to live on in a dark caricature of a capitalist nightmare, then it'll only get worse. Because then there will be a LOT more people vying for your attention with their creative work.

Meanwhile, right now? If you're an artist you pretty much have to engage in a constant scramble to look for work to do for other people unless you are at the very top of the food chain. If you're a halfway decent programmer you just have to announce that you're unemployed on LinkedIn and you get spammed by headhunters.

I dunno, maybe I'm just feeling especially valueless because I've just spent all day sitting in a lonely corner of a comics convention, watching maybe a couple hundred people wander by out of the several thousand who are attending the con, and having exactly one person buy something. (If you're in Seattle and doing ECCC this weekend, stop by booth 2503 and say hi!)

<comment><USER9> Rambling here, but there seems to be some similarity of artists' plight and programmers' plight.

One of the "problems" with art is the low barrier to entry. I've known a lot of people who were 'artists' who didn't really work at anything solid but rather spent some time emoting when the mood struck them then tried to capture that emotion in some sort of sketch or painting or poem. (I also know artists who are working _very_ hard, have their own modes of expression and are trying to keep things together to make a living. Maybe I'll ramble back to them...)

One of the things that has happened to programming in 'recent' years (I'm old) is the barrier to entry for programming has dropped dramatically. _For people who have an analytical bent_ , it's pretty easy to set up a linux box with a bunch of programming tools (even Windows box I suppose), find some tutorials for building web page widgets, and start building stuff.

They can put themselves out on a freelancing site and make short money building crap software. I've hired some freelancers, and every now and then come across one that thinks he is "all that" but he's really crappy. (I had one recently that tried to upsell me to his servers. Now get this: I have my own, with ssh key access, and told me to send me his public key. He sent me his PRIVATE key. He sells hosting. HOLY SHIT!)

There are a lot of people out there that don't know the difference between good and bad- and, for the moment, they don't care enough to ask the questions that allow them to distinguish. They just want their damn blog up with the mouseover animation- or whatever. And they'll pay for it.

At the higher end, programmers have more of a credentialing mechanism (degrees) which aren't perfect, and perhaps are archaic, but can nevertheless provide a first barrier.

As the person who wants the blog with the mouseover widget, I don't know shit about design or art. If I'm buying art, how do I know what's good? How do I know what's worth paying $300 for and what's worth paying $30000 for?

What's different about the people at the top of the food chain? There's a lot of garbage in the system (does every artist still 'play guitar?') and it can make it a real challenge for the authentic practitioners to be visible without some help with the filtering process.

<comment><USER8> _One of the "problems" with art is the low barrier to entry_

I used to work in animation. Most people in animation will tell you that it takes you about five years to go from "kid who likes to draw" to "someone who's worth employing in an entry-level job and teaching how to REALLY do things".

 _As the person who wants the blog with the mouseover widget, I don't know shit about design or art. If I'm buying art, how do I know what's good? How do I know what's worth paying $300 for and what's worth paying $30000 for?_

It's a lot EASIER to start to figure this out IMHO. Everyone has eyes, everyone can look at art and say "I like that" or "I don't like that". If you're looking for web design graphics, look at someone's portfolio, does it look good? Hooray, maybe you'll hire them. Code, on the other hand? Nobody but other programmers can look at it and say "this is beautiful/ugly".

It gets harder once you get into the GALLERY art world, where you have a culture that eschews representation and raises up stuff that makes people say "My three-year-old could do that". Honestly I don't understand that stuff either, I am quite happy to be a "lowly" commercial artist who mostly draws sf/fantasy comic books.

<comment><USER9> Yes, the gallery stuff is difficult. I am working with someone who is trying to crack it. She's someone who works very hard, has developed her own (recognizable, and sometimes featured) style. Still, galleries are tough.

I think my point is that, as an untrained person, I can look at something and say, "I like that." But, how do I know that I like the right stuff? Maybe it doesn't work with the message surrounding it (does that even make sense?). I have no idea how to judge that. How do I know who does?

For the coding analogue, I don't think it's "pretty/beautiful" code (except by proxy). Suppose I write something for you that shows off the art that you want to sell. This is a unique app to you (let's say)- Your plan is to generate traffic by blogging about art, and have your stuff tactically displayed throughout to prompt people to buy it. I build the app, you click on it and it works exactly the way you think it should.

Now, you take the app, integrate it into your site, and stick on adwords because you need to make some short-term cash while you iterate your long-term strategy. But my coding sucks, and my script doesn't play well with adwords, and your site fails in a way that you can't see- perhaps you don't get the credit for the clicks you actually generate.

Mind you, I'm not claiming to have answers (I wish I did). But it may be helpful to compare and contrast the plight of artists with that of other professions that are self-identified. When I was growing up, car mechanics were among those professions also. What creates distinction?

Maybe there are two types of distinction to consider: professional prestige and financial success. Some authors, for example, have high professional prestige but you can't find their work at Hudson News (airport book store). Others are quite the opposite.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This talk of "right-brain" revolution has become so popular that no one even realizes the fundamental irony of it all. The fallacy that the "creative" arts have been under appreciated in society is the largest piece of bollocks I've ever heard. I voluntarily teach math at a school here in MN, so i get some insight into what's going on at the schools and the fact is, while the politicians and corporations are sounding off about STEM, at schools people are still talking more about funding "the arts". Before the rise of the "geek billionaires" guess the largest form of cultural philanthropy: "the arts" (probably still is). We have more people who graduate with degrees in dance than we do people who graduate with degrees in mathematics. Hollywood probably has more failed actors than the valley has failed entrepreneurs. We have more art and history museums than we have science and engineering museums. Unless you've made a lot of money and you've been on the cover of Forbes, or you put an autonomous vehicle on Mars while wearing a Mohawk, telling people you're a programmer/mathematician/scientist is more likely to get them to presumptuously assume you're some mechanistic robot than for them to say "wow, interesting stuff". This new wave of complaining about the lack of attention to "the creative arts" reminds me of that good old cultural phenomenon known as mansplaining. But these are "the arts" so I guess they're artsplaining (badum-bam)

That "left brain/right brain" business is the stupidest, most egregious display of a lack of understanding of basic neuroscience. It is a metaphor. You know, that thing the "creatives" love so much. it is a metaphor used to explain different psychological states. There is no physical hemispheric dominance (edit: with regard to how one thinks about things, not with regard to physical processes.), there are just ways of thinking. Those who examine things more deeply are said to be "left brained" and those who make connections at the high-level are said to be "right brained". It is not an excuse for why people suck at math or programming. It is not some genetic gift/curse only placed on a few people. As a matter of fact nobody is ever always right-brained/left-brained. People go with the mode of thinking they feel is appropriate for the situation. Besides STEM, analytical thinking is necessary in philosophy, literature, economics, sociology, and all other forms of the humanities, because they're not just a bunch of people sitting down, looking for the best way to jerk off their egos by saying the "deepest" thing (at least they're not supposed to be).

Second, this resurgence of math envy is merely a reflection of the fact that the importance of science and math are finally being recognized in society. So the author shouldn't get his panties in a bunch; no one is dragging the humanities down from it's privileged societal prestige. We simply don't have to scramble for answers to give to kids when they ask why all this algebra stuff is important. In reality, it's important in the same way history, literature, and civics is important: it's not. None of them are. Are you telling me high school history and civics left you with the propensity to be a more informed voter? Are you telling me you really genuinely explored the theme of revenge in Hamlet? Or did you just read the spark notes? Henry Ford couldn't read well and famously didn't know the date of the American Revolution, he still rose from a farm boy to becoming one of the richest men in this country (he was also a good engineer). STEM is important to know in the same way humanities and "creative arts" are important in that they are ways to help you understand the world. Simple as. The only difference is it's a lot harder to convince them that "physics is what powers your car" than it is to BS them about how history makes us a more informed society (seriously, have to taken a look out there? it's a freakin' jungle!)

Third, and most important. He's right. Don't learn to code, learn to draw. Fuck it, learn to ride a bicycle. Next week, I'm going to start swimming lessons - in my twenties! Our senseless push to get kids to learn to code is like this senseless hyper-aggrandizing of the "creatives". We should be teaching kids to learn to think. It's easy to do stuff. It's easy to train kids to learn some task for some as-at-yet determined future purpose. It's easy to code. It's easy to draw. What's hard is thinking, and that's where the creativity is. As a matter of fact, not only is the cultural perception of coding and math as more mechanistic in contrast with humanities and the "creative arts" wrong, the opposite is , in fact, the case. Anyone who has every learned a musical instrument and doesn't look back on it with rose- colored glasses can attest to the mechanistic heartlessness of the piano or the guitar. Drawing is merely the act of building a motor skill. So is dancing. But guess what, once you're done with the hours of torture to get good, then you realize the fun. When you come back from school and drop your bags and you bang out a perfect rendition of Chopin's Prelude No 4, then you truly understand the magnificence of the piano. Much in the same way, when you've crammed the ifs and elses, the fors and whiles, the variables and constants, the pointers and pointers to pointers, and pointers to functions, and pointers to pointers to pointers to functions, and then you go on to build that thingamabob or model that gene sequence or understand that earthquake, then you realize the true power of what you've been working with. So this false dichotomy of "creatives" and mechanistic science robots propped up by people who simply don't want to learn math and are mad that not knowing math and science is less of a badge of honor in society anymore misses the point. And while it reads nice (hey, it has nice fonts, man) and could be a nice rallying cry for people like him, what he should understand is that he is not defending creativity, he is defending ignorance. He is defending a one-seided traditional view of creativity - which is where the irony of his essay lies. And at the end of the day, the only true creativity is the one that comes out of understanding. That is a creativity a series of pretty pictures can never embody, only the artist, geneticist, programmer, linguist, or even the swimmer (did I mention I'm learning to swim? :) ) So to anyone else who feels a divide between their "creative arts" and "cold logical science" my advice: learn some science, then you can have an opinion of science. But hopefully after actually peeking in to see what it's about rather than making flawed generalizations based on traditional views of an emerging way of seeing the world, you would have learned a new way of looking at the world.

<comment><USER11> _"I voluntarily teach math at a school here in MN, so i get some insight into what's going on at the schools and the fact is, while the politicians and corporations are sounding off about STEM, at schools people are still talking more about funding "the arts"."_

From what I understand, if you are a math teacher you virtually have a guaranteed job at many, many highschools across the nation. If you're an art teacher, good f'ing luck.

The cold, hard fact is that art, music, dance, and theater are not considered serious occupations by the overwhelming majority of people in the US (despite their worship of celebrity artists, musicians, and actors). If it's their kid, they want the kid to be a doctor, lawyer, or (more recently) dotcom billionaire.

Art/music/dance/drama class just does not fit in to this very narrow-minded view of the world, where profit and fame are king. Some kids are so driven that they might take an art class (usually their first semi-serious one is in high school.. and by then, how many math classes have they had?) or even study it at university. But if they do study it at university, it's either as one of many electives or (if as a major) against their parents' objections -- because most parents know how hard it is to "succeed" in this society as an artist, musician, dancer, writer, or actor.

If you are an engineer or programmer, nevermind doctor or lawyer, you're going to usually be taken much more seriously and get more respect from most people than any kind of non-celebrity artist. And funding in the schools generally reflects these sad but all too common views.

Unfortunately, scientists and teachers are often in the same boat as far as lack of respect as artists are. But even there, the amount of funding given to educating more scientists and teachers is far greater than that devoted to educating various artists.

The dollar is king in America, and the overwhelming majority of artists are near the bottom rung of the money ladder in this country. Odds are you'll make far more money working at McDonalds than you ever will as any kind of artist. And, a bit of philanthropy notwithstanding, the rest of society reflects this monetary bias.

<comment><USER10> If you're talking about the economic prognosis of art, I'd like to direct you to the world of high-end sports cars. There are many people who can afford to buy and maintain them in this world. Not all of them do. Just like many people can afford to buy works of art, but not all of them do. Why? Because one doesn't really need a sports car, just like one doesn't really need an art piece. The author's essay isn't one of the lament of the hard times of an artist. It is a lament of the diminishing of creativity because his definition of creativity is rooted in a traditionalist idea of creativity as resting solely in the lap of artists. Before the PC revolution no one would want their kids to be programmers. "Programmers were smelly fat white kids". Now it's a hot commodity. Welcome to the markets. Mathematicians were "useless theorists" till a couple of decades ago (as a matter of fact many people still think this). Until industrialization, scientists were a bunch of "rich white guys, not in tune to the needs of the common man". And more importantly, up until recently, engineers were little math nerds, easy bait for the MBA alpha dudes.

You're confusing economic safety with societal respect. If you're talking about the economic aspect, as far as being a professional artist, well guess what; when I was a kid I wanted to be a poet. Poems wouldn't keep a roof over my head and hell, at the time, neither would code. Hasn't stopped me from writing poems in my spare time and engaging in my other pursuits. If ever a time comes when one could sustainably make money selling art, then I'm sure many artists and even non artists will flood the market. But economics isn't the author's thesis.

<comment><USER11> _"as far as being a professional artist, well guess what; when I was a kid I wanted to be a poet."_

You were certainly not representative of the typical American kid.

 _"If ever a time comes when one could sustainably make money selling art, then I'm sure many artists and even non artists will flood the market."_

I'm not. Not until they can make a better living at it than most other professions.

The sad fact is that not only is making art looked down on in this society (as "emo", or "gay", or as not serious or worthwhile), but most people are not interested in expressing themselves artistically (partially as a result of the education system, and partially because of social attitudes towards artists and art).

Maybe as kids, a minority of Americans enjoyed an art class here and there, but they probably never dreamed of creating art for a living -- even if it somehow could earn them a decent wage (which it can't now.. not even remotely).

So I don't think even economic parity with other respected professions would suddenly flood the market with artists. Not until societal attitudes and the education system changes pretty radically. Until then, people will still want to go in to a more respectable and "achievable" career path.

Sure, if there's suddenly a swarm of artist billionaires like there has been of dotcom billionaires, then many money-hungry people will swarm in to the art field (as they have in to the startup industry). But I for one am not holding my breath.

<comment><USER12> _"as far as being a professional artist, well guess what; when I was a kid I wanted to be a poet." You were certainly not representative of the typical American kid._

I think now kids say, "I want to be a rapper".

If you define art as "that thing that is emo" then you've created a tautology about art.

But if you look at art as things like: rap, creating electronica music, writing screenplays, etc... I think you'll see that society as really embraced art. It's just not called art anymore. It's the same fate as AI.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Not a rebuttal, but--

This post reeks of wish fulfillment.

1) Underdog Rises fantasy

2) Everyone thinks they're creative

3) Talent evaluation is difficult enough in the current paradigm. Hiring/promoting based on 'creativity' is even harder. How can super-creative types 'rise to the top' if we mere mortals can't identify them to begin with? (Before you answer with platitudes about track record or whatever, ask yourself how well your solution is even faring right now. There are a gazillion recruiting startups for a reason.)

4) Author takes several paragraphs to explain an idea that requires two sentences.

</comment><comment><USER14> Some of the assumptions made here are absolute nonsense:

1\. Programming is purely science: If so, then why can't we teach the computer to do it?

2\. Coding is not a "conventional skill" that should be taught: Schools teach physics and math because they make up the system of which we live in, then why not software? It is an integral part of our day to day lives.

3\. Software and computers are at a point where they can operate wih minimum human interference: to any programmer this is ridiculous because we all know that we still live in the Stone Age equivelant of what software engineering should be like.

</comment><comment><USER15> While I entirely agree that creativity is the future, I do not understand why people think you need to draw or compose music to be creative. My most brilliant creative moments have always been with my code, not my music. I may consider myself more of an artist than an engineer, but my code is my most precious work of art.

That said, by pure chance I happen to be re-re-re-re-attempting to learn how to draw this year.

<comment><USER16> I feel that the different mediums are mutually beneficial. Stories can be told through music, code or a drawing. Often a new perspective can be found in a different medium that applies to another you may be struggling with.

<comment><USER15> I agree - I am more concerned about telling kids to draw _instead of_ learning to code, when it would be much more beneficial to do _both_. This is a glaring flaw in an otherwise prescient essay.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> What I find lost in the cracks by many "artists" is the fact that creativity is found in _all areas of human activity_ \- it's seductive for systems thinkers to painters to consider their "clan" or "way of thinking" is the sacred and the rest of the world as secular. In truth, there's a beautiful creativity in Music, Painting, Writing, Mathematics, Engineering, Programming, Gardening, Architecture, Exploring, &c...

Also, if I'm not mistaken, painting came about because people studying mathematics were studying geometry and how to relate the real world (using geometry) onto a piece of paper.

</comment><comment><USER18> The guy supposes that instead of learning how to code, one should learn how to draw, for it is a better way to become more creative.

Why on earth programming should be considered less creative than drawing? In no way does drawing require less technique and training than programming. Also, in no way programming and visual arts are opposite; art can be, and for decades has been, created through programming.

</comment><comment><USER19> "But in the next 50 years, those that excel in creativity-- big picture thinkers, artists, inventors,designers -- will rise to the top."

Let's ignore inventors (because unless you're inventing "the Snuggie", there's a very high chance you have an STEM background) and big picture thinkers (which is a meaningless term). The tone of the article suggests that the author is talking about art for arts sake (e.g. a band) and not design for a product i.e. industrial design or graphic design. If he is including products, who will actually create the products, now that all of the engineers are gone? If he is not including products, then for every million artists, only one will get meaningful recognition, as why would anyone consume less than the best content?

"The illiterates of the future will not be those who cannot read and write or code, but those who cannot connect the dots and imagine a constellation."

A constellation, and connecting dots? That's so uncreative! I hear the stars sing to me, and they tell me that I'm a big picture thinker.

"A recent IBM poll of 1,500 CEOs from 60 countries and 33 industries identified creativity as the No. 1 "leadership competency" of the future (more than rigor, management discipline, integrity and even vision)."

Because of course, creativity in this context means ability to draw.

"Education and parenting should aim to provide the conventional skills (math, problem solving, and test taking skills) while also encouraging creative, out- of-the-box type thinking. Computers are no match for the average fourth-grader when it comes to creativity."

Again, is the author talking about creativity in the context of drawing, playing and instrument, etc, or "out-of-the-box" thinking? If it's the second, what does he think problem solving skills are? And what exactly does he think programming is?

"Instead of encouraging your child to major in engineering, you might encourage her to study philosophy, ask smart unsettling questions and practice making unusual and unexpected mental associations."

Yes, I've never heard of an scientist or engineer asking unsettling questions, or making mental associations.

"Albert Einstein said; I have no special gift. I am only passionately curious."

Unfortunately, Einstein's background was in physics. So, while he was curious, he can't be considered to be creative. He should have studied philosophy instead.

<comment><USER20> I see this a lot here and I feel that I should point it out; industrial design is an engineering discipline. It is similar to architecture in many respects.

<comment><USER19> Thanks for the clarification. I actually watched "objectified" - <http://player.vimeo.com/video/50944978> today, a good documentary about industrial design.

<comment><USER20> It's a great documentary, certainly one I'd recommend to everyone here. If you haven't seen them already, I highly recommend Helvetica and Urbanized.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I think this person underestimates that creativity required to write code and engineer systems.

Would they have the same opinion of an architect or structural engineer who builds buildings in a creative way?

</comment><comment><USER22> I agree with the sentiment. Although coding, can be(and often is) a form of artistic expression. The same way Math is; unfortunately, people believe that math and coding is a very strictly left-brain activity. This notion is entirely untrue.

For instance, when I grew up, I really want to make a game. Now, the problem is that I can throw together a game pretty quick; yet, I can't ship a game without good graphics. One could argue that I could go minecraft style, but I want a pretty game. This requires a lot of art.

This is, but one reason, why I married my wife who has a studio art degree and draws amazingly well.

</comment><comment><USER23> I appreciate the effort it requires to draw, and create art. But I don't think the author of this page quite understands how difficult it would be for a computer to program another program.

You can tailor aspects of a language to your program, but you cannot simply design a program to think of unique ways to tackle an issue. Math and programming are left-brain activities in _practice_ \- but this ignores the slew of abstract thinking that occurs _before_ you set key to the page, as it were.

Coding may not look as pretty as art, and I'm not saying it's more important. But it is wrong to say programming is _any less organic_ than art is. Having a computer automatically generate code is like having it generate ASCII - impressive, but both pale in comparison to what human talent offers.

</comment><comment><USER24> This should be taken with the massive grain of salt that is the history of DA. For anyone who's been involved in it since the beginning -- I ragequit with the Jark debacle long ago -- shrugging off their particular brand of bullshit is second nature.

Don't make the mistake of thinking anything done on DA is done for art. It's done for cash. Not that that's a bad thing, but it's an important distinction, and that's the basic truth the more in-depth rebuttals here outline.

</comment><comment><USER25> Disclaimer: By writing the following I do not wish to discount the value of art (in its classic visual, musical, etc. forms) as an encouragement of creativity, or in general.

That said, it is a mistake to say that technical ("systems") capability is in any way contrary to creativity. In every art form, there is a technical prerequisite before expressing creativity. When a person learns how to draw or play an instrument (not to mention architecture, woodworking, product design, or programming), they grapple much more with the technical challenges in creating the image or sound that they imagine much more than with creativity. What facilitates creativity most is a mastery of techniques (craftsmanship) to the point that the technical is mainly subconscious. This is true of all of the above mentioned activities. Or another way to think about it is that technical incompetence can crush creativity and make people abandon projects that they would like to create.

(As a side note, I've actually been encouraged about the state of creativity in our culture by seeing that a lot of the people who are excited about programming have come to it in order to create, not in order to find technical solutions to technical problems.)

</comment><comment><USER26> Those who don't know about computers have two choices. Accept that it is a lack in their knowledge. Or fight fiercely that their ignorance is somehow justified.

<comment><USER27> You can replace computers for X in that statement, where X is any field of study, and it will still be true.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I'm more than a little irritated that his idea of "systems thinking" is "understanding how computers works".

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_thinking>

</comment><comment><USER29> The argument's fine, given the usual caveats about the validity of its assumptions - I'm more concerned that the author's writing off mathematics as a "conventional skill" by conflating it with mechanization, and it's certainly not _his_ fault. (I'm _very_ aware of this - just about to be passed through the GI tract of high school, and there's nothing like poring through boiled down revision guides to make you feel miserable about what you're doing with your life.) In fact, I'm convinced the problem of attempting to convey a high- level appreciation of the sciences and mathematics is intractable, given the pressure we _already_ put on the education system. And it's a pity - we'd all like to say that we're far better off investing in giving a kid a grand unified appreciation of what a mind can do (the arts bleed into rhetoric bleed into mathematical formalism and so on and so forth). (Un)fortunately, self- motivation seems to be a prerequisite.

But the argument works both ways: I've seen, for that matter, just as many people going through my school's art program end up still inarticulate about _what_ their art means (you _can_ make a cogent argument that art doesn't have to mean anything, but I haven't seen anyone take that tasty intellectual biscuit) or even _what_ they appreciate in the subject.

So I find it annoying to claim that art is inherently special _because_ it is something inherently better to occupy the mind with - it's true by observation, but there was nothing much to observe in the first place.

</comment><comment><USER30> I'm all for drawing, and a lot of what is being advocated here, but I hope we at least make an attempt to consider things like programming and mathematics to be artistic/creative disciplines. I mean, there's a reason many universities intentionally award Math students a BA, as opposed to a BS or BEng. There's a subtle beauty to mathematical precision, and well-made code, so I don't like seeing these areas dismissed as cold, grey cubicles for the hopelessly left-brained.

</comment><comment><USER31> > _For the past few centuries, society has richly rewarded strong systems > thinkers, logical, analytical, objective people such as computer programmers > who build software, engineers who build bridges, lawyers who write > contracts, and MBAs who crunch numbers._

No, it hasn't.

Maybe it looks that way from your office.

But singers, actors, entertainers and athletes have been more than handsomely reward and esteemed.

Computer programmers? Not so much. Just that we needed more of them than we need actors or athletes.

</comment><comment><USER32> "the importance of creativity will trump systems thinking..."

Systems ARE art. Freud was a systems designer. Religious metaphors are introspective systems.

These are systems as metaphors of the human condition.

Do they describe the human condition? No - bigger - they create it. Freud invented a lost continent that allowed us to pronounce ourselves.

As computers and consciousness continue to intersect.. great artists will be expressive, critical, abstract engineers.

</comment><comment><USER33> "I don't know how to draw" -many of my friends, simultaneously dismissing drawing as out of reach and as a challenging hobby in which they fear they could not be good at - at least in the crucial initial stages (the fear of peer judgement)

If you want to learn how to draw, you can learn how to draw. You start out drawing lines and blocks, move on to cylinders, than to pots and pans, shoes, chairs, simple still-lifes and make the leap to live models. If you really want to become a legitimate skilled artist, you can become one. It just may take 9 years... [1] Like anything, you will need to work on it as often as possible - to the point where you just enjoy doing it (the classic doodling for fun). Doing art for money isn't realistic for most people [2]. There were always be people who are natural artists, people who make skilled drawing _look_ effortless - remember as a coder - what you do is not easy - and it makes money - and it can exercise our problem solving creativity - all the while being a marketable skill.

I've been taking a progression of art classes for over a year and a half now. This is actually a long time in art class world. Really enjoying the escape from coding. It rocks because you lose yourself (like when you are on a focused coding tear). Have gotten much better yet have still so far to go. Have plateaued many times.

Drawing is all about the relation of shapes to each other. Drawing is about drawing what something actually looks like not what you think it looks like (drawing what you think something looks like and having it turn out to be what it actually looks like is the artistic equivalent of 'perfect pitch')

I've always wanted to be able to draw portraits. Portrait drawing is about the relation of shapes - but has the additional constraint of very little tolerance for off-by-one errors. Everyone is particularly attuned to facial recognition - lines that are off by even a millimeter or a fraction of an inch (by position or more generally - the angle) - you notice that. It is the difference between a portrait that looks like someone, a portrait that looks like someone else (but not her).

The thing that has troubled/stopped me most was trying to draw what I thought the eye/nose looked like and actually drawing what it looks like. My internal model of what the eye/nose looks like is flawed because I lack experience.

If you want to get better in portrait drawing and don't have the luxury of a live model posing for you, don't draw from pictures. Draw from live TV (like a newscast where the poses are relatively static but still fluid).

As an aside, if you look at other people's portraits of the model - there is usually part of the portrait that resembles them.

One of my teachers was amazing. She could take a blank piece of paper and in 15 min. create the person's portrait, capture their essence. If she worked on it more and more, it got even better. But she got the basic essence in a very short time. She didn't make mistakes in positioning - like most of us in class did (we did get better by the end of the course) - to draw fast - you need to draw very accurately and with confidence. Mistakes can be corrected, up to a point. If you don't draw the eye as it really looks, you can easily end up with something that looks like an egyptian mummy. There is a very clear orbital socket that needs to be shaded/drawn - without that the eye isn't an eye. Shading is so, so important.

Adding the little stuff to your drawing - like adding a little more shading to the half/side of the pupil that is on the dark side (away from the light) makes a difference. By itself, it doesn't add up, but it makes it look better - when adding all the other little stuff.

Now, drawing in public (e.g. someone's portrait for money in 15 min.) is a whole different ballgame. At least, starting with a controlled environment (precise teacher feedback) is a start. I believe the key is to have the basics down (and basically do a Mr. Potato Head from your experience drawing the basics)

[1] "Journey of an Absolute Rookie: Paintings and Sketches" 9 years...

<http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=870>

[2] [http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/11/22/how-the- futu...](http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/11/22/how-the-future-looks- from-high-school/my-dreams-of-broadway)

<comment><USER34> I've never been great at drawing (freehand, I can do mechanical stuff okay), but I realize it's mostly because I don't put the time into it that I could and so I'm much slower at it than someone who is an expert and does it all the time (so that eventually leads to frustration). I do try to use that as a reference point for explaining to people that think they cannot learn how to program though (or learn to be better programmers). If I took the time to do draw more often, I would improve and probably learn to be halfway decent at drawing.

It's mostly about dedicating the time and working through the frustration and embarrassment (either from imaginary judgment or real). I would imagine to be an expert in drawing/painting, one has to delve into theory and concepts, such as much as a programming requires as well (Computer Science, Mathematics, etc). Sure there are people that are naturally talented in both, but to understand the "whys" of a subject, it takes more than a superficial approach to the subject.

<comment><USER11> _"I don't put the time into it that I could and so I'm much slower at it than someone who is an expert and does it all the time (so that eventually leads to frustration)"_

I have devoted a lot of my time to making art, and I can tell you that frustration is a fact of life for me. I'm virtually never as good as I want to be. My work rarely turns out the way I want; and this doesn't even begin to touch on issues of coming up with ideas and creativity/originality. Learning to deal with and live with failure is just something many ordinary artists have to do constantly.

"Fail early and often" is as much of a maxim to live by for artists as it is for entrepreneurs.

Perhaps 1 in 100, or 1 in 1000 works will be something you're pleased with, and then you can count that as a success. Or perhaps the journey can be counted as much or more of a success than the destination. A lot depends on your expectations.

William Staford was once asked how he was able to write a poem every day. He answered, "I lower my standards."

<comment><USER34> Sounds very similar to programming then :).

We typically think our code is never good enough and can always be improved. Learning when something is "good enough" or as you mentioned "lowering one's standards" can lead to a more productive and happier life.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> The author here makes bold, sweeping predictions about the future. While these might come true, Hoffman offers no concrete evidence to bake up the claims.

Hoffman suggests that because computers are becoming more powerful, the people who work closely with them will be less marketable, and their skills less valuable. Maybe I'm short-sighted, but I don't see this as coming true.

</comment><comment><USER36> My brain can't do art. I have tried for 20 years. I am never happy and keep going to try and make it perfect. And I never succeed. I end up tossing it in the bin after my attempts at perfection make it look like like a mess.

I like code since it works or it doesn't. Sure, it could be better but as long as it works and is secure I don't really care. And yes, 90% is using PHP.

<comment><USER24> "It works or it doesn't" suggests you either limit yourself to extraordinarily simple projects or your clients don't care what happens as long as it's not a 500. Development is not such a black and white pursuit if you're working on projects with any sort of complexity.

I'm better with programming than I am with charcoal, but I can say with certainty that while my art is hanging in a few living rooms, my code gets a lot more scrutiny (appropriately) and evolves much more. That's not because it can or should be perfect, it's because the result and the scrutiny is less subjective.

<comment><USER36> I'm not talking about design or features. I constantly think of ways to make what the user sees better. I was talking more about refactoring.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Economically, it has never been the case that a country became a leader because it was competent in the arts. The sciences are more important in people's minds because they provide for economic prosperity, an aftereffect of which is the flourishing of the arts.

It's not clear why the author seems to be optimistic. Maybe because the recent economic crisis has led the prices up in the elite art market? If anything, the examples of youtube, deviantart etc. prove that (the visual) arts are becoming increasingly a cheap commodity. So, from the standpoint of "creating an impact" the visual arts (and the performance arts) in particular seem pretty doomed. How long can it be before we have screenplay-to-movie generators? On the other hand, storytelling and music seem to be having a renaissance.

In any case it's bad advice to tell people to study only art or only science as both are necessary for the "advancement of the human condition".

</comment><comment><USER38> "The creative application of scientific principles to design or develop structures, machines, apparatus, or manufacturing processes, or works utilizing them singly or in combination; or to construct or operate the same with full cognizance of their design; or to forecast their behavior under specific operating conditions; all as respects an intended function, economics of operation or safety to life and property."

First definition of "engineering" to pop up on a google search (Wikipedia).

The problem is that it is damn harder to be creative when your creations have to actually work, and you have to know some science to make that happen, than it is when the creations just need to be "beautiful, inspiring or thought- provoking".

</comment><comment><USER39> I don't understand how thr author contrasts "creativity, intuition, and the marshaling of original solutions" in opposition to "systems thinking".

I can't imagine a better foundation for "systems thinking" than "creativity, intuition, and the marshaling of original solutions".

<comment><USER17> The author appears to warp his argument and land his primary criticism on _machines_ and not the people that _program them_. Which is odd - you should not learn to code _because machines are not creative_? Much like saying you shouldn't learn to draw because paper + pencils aren't creative...

Machines "aren't creative" is a naive assertion too (forgivable though because not everyone outside of our industry may be aware of the happenings) - <USER4> are some truly amazing programs people are building that can evolve creative solutions to many things that no human could ever dream of.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Code lets you magnify your creativity more than any pencil or sketchpad. Its currently one of the greatest forms of leverage for the human mind and creative minds of the future will necessarily need to understand it to realize their true creative potential.

</comment><comment><USER41> Personally I found "learning to draw" process quite slow. Like most people, I thought it would be like learning a new language and probably bought some sort of tablet and started reading up on some tutorials. However I found the process almost unrepeatable when doing it on my own intuition. Ive been told I was much better at drawing when I was younger so I thought I would try and revive that "talent", and it was no easy process. I still have my wacom tablet, and still look in awe at the amazing illustation and digital artwork that people have done with these tools on DeviantArt.

If anyone has any suggestions/links to things that helped them the most in the process I would like to hear.

</comment><comment><USER42> I have to echo to some degree the opinion of those who say that this essay is presenting a false dichotomy. I went to MIT, but all throughout my grade school education and high school education, I was required to study English, which was largely about writing creative essays of one sort or another. And if I hadn't done very will in those English classes, MIT would not have accepted me. And then as a student at MIT, we were required to take a full year of humanities. I assume this is because the MIT culture understands that you need to be able to think in all sort of different ways, and with your entire brain, to successfully solve problems.

</comment><comment><USER43> I'm not sold on this rallying cry, and I say that as both an artist and former volunteer staffer of DeviantArt. There will always be paces for systems brainiacs and for aesthetic wizards. The two broad categories are not mutually exclusive, and in my opinion actually overlap in a lot of ways.

I have worked in high tech for 15 years, and have consistently found some of the most technically adept, logical thinkers to also be closet creatives (usually in music, but also in visual and performance arts). These people synthesize the left/right brain output into something better than just leaning one way or the other.

</comment><comment><USER44> I think the future requires a balance of both logical and intuitive intelligence. Both are needed in creating art, ideas, things, and experiences that matter to people.

Einstein was a violinist and a physicist. Why not develop both skillsets?

</comment><comment><USER45> In an article about the importance of creativity, it's sad to see a quote promoting drawing over coding.

To me, the use of computers to advance art, taking out as many steps as possible between idea and artwork, is the most exciting way to think about visual art. (I know the article didn't mention visual art specifically, but it seemed to be implied.)

Anyway, the site I've been working on for the past year is based on drawing. You might be interested in trying it out if learning to draw is a goal for you, or if you have ideas related to visual art.

<http://www.sketchport.com/>

</comment><comment><USER46> >Artists have always feared that they are unappreciated and that the march of progress comes only from business, science and their machines. 1984 was imagined by an artist projecting these exact fears.

1984 is about authoritarianism and censorship. The "futurology" section of its wikipedia article is about predicting a future in which the dystopian state depicted in the novel is stable, and persists indefinitely. (That is, the one discussing futurology as a theme of Orwell's work. It has nothing to do with machines taking over art or whatever nonsense the author has projected onto Orwell's work.)

That 'artists' shy away from systems thinking is a ridiculous assertion. The first person who comes to mind is Leonardo Da Vinci:

From the wikipedia article bearing his name,

"Renaissance humanism recognized no mutually exclusive polarities between the sciences and the arts, and Leonardo's studies in science and engineering are as impressive and innovative as his artistic work.[17] These studies were recorded in 13,000 pages of notes and drawings, which fuse art and natural philosophy (the forerunner of modern science), made and maintained daily throughout Leonardo's life and travels, as he made continual observations of the world around him.[17]" [0]

I would argue that systems thinking and understanding the world around us is essential to produce art that isn't descended from something like a cargo cult.

>Over the next 100 years, the importance of creativity will trump systems thinking due to the rapidly escalating power of computers.

First of all, systems thinking is more than just computer programming. In the same way that cybernetics is more than just computer programming. Writing programs that do what you want and do what you mean without actually specifying the operations involved is something that I would think is an AI complete problem.

In other words, to explain the problem you must first understand the problem, hence systems thinking.

>No, I'm not talking about an apocalyptic "Rise of the Machines," but rather about the future ascent of people who excel in creativity, intuition, and the marshaling of original solutions, things that computers won't be able to do for a long time.

I'd bet money computer algorithms that can write code can draw you a picture. (That is to say, 'creativity' is also an AI complete problem.)

>In the United States, the key predictive score to spot a good systems thinker-- our future leaders-- has been the SAT and IQ tests.

I think the biggest name on wikipedias "list of mensans" is Buckminster Fuller. With a membership of 110K, I would expect a larger list if IQ was an almost 1:1 predictor of success.[1]

The rest is just design dressing.

[0]: Taken from the article, Fri Mar 1 23:26:15 PST 2013 (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_da_vinci>)

[1]: One could argue that wikipedia may not have an exhaustive list of MENSA members who went on to do great deeds. My reasoning is that because wikipedia is a community project, the people who would compile a list like that are probably MENSA members who want to brag. Therefore the list is probably fairly inclusive of most famous MENSA members. (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mensans>)

[2]: I'm citing wikipedia yes, but the OP cites nothing.

</comment><comment><USER47> Drawing realistic fine art is a rare skill, which like many skills can learned with sufficient devotion. 10000 hours, I think.

That said, contempory artists like Kelvin Okafor whose renditions of Heath Ledger, Rihanna, Princess Diana still amaze me.

Do enjoy - <http://www.flickr.com/photos/kelvinokaforart>

His blog also contains tutorials of sorts - <http://kelvinokaforart.blogspot.com>

</comment><comment><USER48> My mathematics teacher once said that being a research mathematician was one of the most creative jobs in the world. I agree with this, since I can see this situation: as a painter, you have a near infinite number of possible subjects. It seems that much of it will not stretch boundaries revolutionarily. But as a mathematician, you come across a difficult problem. How do you solve it? You may be forced to look at things in a new light, or else fail.

</comment><comment><USER49> Or learn how to code in order to produce a wider range of art.

</comment><comment><USER50> Learning to draw has been on my todo list for quite some time. I've started reading "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain" and I bought a Wacom tablet. I can just never seem to find the time.

I think I need to find a class (Manhattan anyone?) so I can dedicate the time. It's easy enough to Google any computer language or system and learn at least the basics in a few weeks. Unfortunately, learning to draw seems like a very slow process.

</comment><comment><USER51> Good article. As we build products and services, the art direction, design, and visual appeal become more and more important in order to stand out. And most people spend the bulk of their time on the web consuming content. Where does that content originate? In the mind of an artist, composer, writer, designer, or videographer. As we seek to generate better and better content, these roles will become increasingly important.

</comment><comment><USER52> I've been coding for over 20 years now and I absolutely suck at drawing. The only kind of drawings I've ever done are circuit diagrams, but I don't think they count. I bought a copy of Betty Edwards' "Drawing on the right side of the brain" over a year ago but never got around reading. Maybe I should dust it off and start with it.

Does anybody have any recommendations for coders learning to draw?

<comment><USER53> As others have said, find a great teacher.

I thought I was completely unskilled at drawing. Heck, stick figures were beyond my grasp. And then, by chance, I ran into an awesome teacher at LACMA (Los Angeles County Museum Of Art). I went to his class to humor my partner - she's an artist and wanted me to learn more.

In the _first_ class, we started sketching the human figure (based on a statue) - and the guy was good enough to make me understand what to do and how to get a realistic depiction. Now, granted, that is still miles from what any decent artist could do, but he made things click for me.

Reading a book won't do that for you. Find somebody who can teach you in person what drawing _feels_ like. Who can, if necessary, take your hand and draw with you. Who can relate the ideas behind painting in a way that makes sense to _you_.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> Or, instead of focusing on "becoming an engineer" or "becoming an artist," you could realize that both require immense time investments and are equally deserving of respect. Instead of disregarding artistry, try developing your own artistic talent and learn to respect the craft so complementary to our own.

</comment><comment><USER55> "Over the next 100 years, the importance of creativity will trump systems thinking due to the rapidly escalating power of computers."

Right, because more technology has always led to less demand for math/technical skills. And where are the numbers to back up such a claim? Oh wait.. well at least there are pictures..

</comment><comment><USER46> I like to think of this as a response to the "learn to code" propaganda.

If it seems like it's missing the point, or underestimating the "other side", I'm sure it's entirely intentional. Or at the very least a reflection of how videos like "what most schools don't teach" come off to 'artists'.

</comment><comment><USER56> An artist with a decidedly analytical and systems-thinking bent: <http://worrydream.com>

This one is more established: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_da_Vinci>

</comment><comment><USER57> As they say,beauty is the exercise for our heart, it keeps us healthy. I will try to learn drawing this year, I want to understand/enjoy beauty more.

Throughout the whole process of my education, to create beautiful things is of least importance in people's eyes, I think that was sad.

</comment><comment><USER58> No. Learn to code and draw and write and play an instrument. They are all the same thing really.

</comment><comment><USER59> Why not learn both?

</comment><comment><USER60> Coding allows me to be hugely creative. It is a power tool. Ok, you can be creative with drawing. However the value of working software is often a lot bigger than a drawing.

He is right be creative. But coding and being creative go hand in hand.

</comment><comment><USER61> I don't disagree, but I dislike the reasoning.

If you truly believe in art (or engineering or plumbing), you do it for yourself, make it happen regardless of whatever "big societal shifts" that may happen in the next 30 years.

Don't over-calculate the future.

</comment><comment><USER62> I find it absurd to argue that computers will be enablers of the future direction of society while at the same time arguing that the people who will _create_ such machines will not be the drivers of that society.

</comment><comment><USER63> New products can only created by those who have the toolsets to create them.

</comment><comment><USER64> There's some (small) wisdom in there. History shows there is less and less correlation between technology and jobs lost the more an industry relies on creativity.

</comment><comment><USER65> First off, I definitely think learning how to draw is very valuable.

However, the main premise of this article is off in two ways. For one, what it terms "systems" thinking is not going away; if anything, increased computing power _increases_ demand for this sort of thinking! This is something like Jevons Paradox[1]--the more computing power we have, the more we use it. And by extension, the more programming we do!

[1]: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox>

I've recently been working a bit on program synthesis. This is perhaps the most direct and obvious way to use technology to eliminate programmers: we literally use absurd amounts of CPU to generate programs. But not to worry: this particular approach is not nearly scalable enough to replace programmers in the near future. In fact, it does the opposite--the most successful uses of synthesis I've seen are very limited and enable non-programmers to program rather than replacing actual programmers.

So as people have access to more and more computing power, more and more of them are going to have more and more reasons to use it effectively. Combine this with more accessible tools and we see much _more_ programming in the future. However, this is not really going to supplant actual, professional programmers: after all, somebody is going to have to develop tools and abstractions.

Moreover, as we get increased computing power, demand is also going to go up for non-programming uses of computers. People are going to want to do more and more with there increasingly capable machines and so they're going to need more and more programs--more and more programmers.

Really, that's the keyword in the whole field: more.

The second fault of the article is in contrasting "creative" and "systems" thinking. In practice, the very best programmers stand out not because of their technical prowess or even logic capability but because of their creativity. There is a reason the ultimate compliment in math and programming is not "complex" or even "capable" but " _elegant_ ".

Perhaps I am biased, and perhaps I am simply envious, but I believe that the field with the most creativity and the most beauty is abstract mathematics. The interesting proofs, theorems, abstractions, constructs in mathematics require immense creativity and carry immense beauty.

Yes, math is a field of rules. But, just like music, the real innovation often involves changing or going around the rules. Or just inventing new ones. It is really not that different from art.

Programming is also like this, to an extent. I don't think most programming is quite as beautiful as much of math. But it _is_ beautiful. That sort of beauty is a testament to creativity.

Anyhow, I really _do_ think you should learn to draw. And a bit about design. Typography. Writing. But not for the reasons outlined here. And certainly _not_ at the expense of math, CS and programming!

</comment><comment><USER66> Maybe this is off topic but the first I did when I got past page-2 was to look at the page source. An amazing attention to detail

</comment><comment><USER67> I can't stand this jibberish. There's only two things I've ever gotten from an artist that I actually appreciate.

1\. a UI

2\. a 3D movie

Most 3D artists I know are 100% self taught.

</comment><comment><USER68> What about both? <http://ellatoons.quora.com/>

</comment><comment><USER69> Except that nowadays creativity develops best when you are proficient in programming!

</comment><comment><USER70> Yknow, to hell with "making stuff". Do you really want do dance with dead crap?

</comment><comment><USER71> What websites do people here suggest if one did want to learn to draw?

<comment><USER72> Whilst I don't condone this articles sentiment I have used these sites in the past for learning to draw (digitally).

If you like Photoshop:: Free <http://ctrlpaint.com>

These guys are amazing:: Paid <http://www.thegnomonworkshop.com/>

and others:: Free <http://www.proko.com/videos/>

<http://theroundtablet.com/>

Some inspiration:: [http://conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?870-Journey- of-a...](http://conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?870-Journey-of-an- Absolute-Rookie-Paintings-and-Sketches)

<http://www.deviantart.com/>

Probably the biggest factor stopping you from teaching yourself something is your own motivation.

<comment><USER71> Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER73> anyone can learn to code. but can anyone really learn to draw?

<comment><USER74> I'd say a better question would be: Anyone can learn to code or draw, but can anyone really learn to code or draw well?

<comment><USER11> And drawing well really depends on your standards, the time you devote to the pursuit, and your dedication.

If you are past retirement age and want to achieve the technical proficiency of a DaVinci or Durer while painting on the weekends, then I'm sorry to tell you, but that's probably just not going to happen.

If you are young and incredibly dedicated, and devote a lot of time to it, maybe you can achieve something like that (on a purely technical level, though it arguably takes much more than this to achieve anywhere near as much on an artistic level above sheer technical skill).

For those of us with lesser ambitions, a lot can be achieved without becoming very technically proficient. There's a lot of satisfaction that can be had from emotionally stirring, but perhaps not technically perfect work.

This is a much more realistic goal. But it's still a difficult one because you have to get beyond completely cliched depictions (unless that's what you're aiming at), and achieve some sort of technical proficiency. This will likely take some time and effort, but should be achievable for most people who can devote sufficient time and effort to the pursuit, and not give in to discouragement.

And then there are the so-called "naive" and "art-brut" sort of artists, who may have no technical proficiency at all and yet make work that is satisfying to themselves and/or others. There, by definition, they have no training to speak of, but often make art through obsession, mental illness, or for a wide variety of other reasons.

Finally, there are the so-called "weekend painters", who work infrequently, at their leisure, and usually without extravagant aims or demands on themselves. They can also be quite pleased with their output, and often create just for the sheer joy of it, or with a very modest aim of achieving a little technical proficiency. This is quite doable and quite satisfying for many.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> why not do both?</comment>


Launch of new personal security device (Crypto currencies, FIDO, PGP, SSH) - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@Ledger/ledger-nano-s-secure-multi-currency-hardware-wallet-65b0574cfaa1#.qjhwor9s3 <comment><USER2> This product has the particularly to be architectured around a secure element and be open source (not with Java Card, not powerful enough for these usages, but BOLOS)</comment>


John Carmack explains VR at 5 different levels [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akveRNY6Ulw&list=PLibNZv5Zd0dyCoQ6f4pdXUFnpAIlKgm3N <comment><AUTHOR> If you like this video, watch the other 5, too, esp. the ones about quantum computing and on CRISPR are great. I find the challenge taken on in these videos fascinating. Too bad they haven't posted new ones lately. I would love to see a channel like this with other topics, e.g. string theory, how stock market works, etc.

There are other great learning channels that summarize complex topics, e.g. Kurzgesagt, 3Blue1Brown, but the multi-level approach is what makes these so interesting.</comment>


Show HN: I copied SoundCloud's playcontrol with a offline local storage pubsub - <AUTHOR> https://simon-frey.com/tabsub/ <comment><USER2> Crazy, this is literally what I've been working on all day, too. I started using localStorage but then switched to using BroadcastChannel, did you look into that?

[https://caniuse.com/#search=BroadcastChannel](https://caniuse.com/#search=BroadcastChannel)

<comment><AUTHOR> Did not check it out yet. Looks like a promising alternative :D</comment></comment>


Digging Through Someones Past Using Osint - <AUTHOR> https://nullsweep.com/digging-through-someones-past-using-osint/ <comment><USER2> This is well documented article on how to research someone's past online.</comment>


Show HN: CTRS – Notes on Category Theory in Rust - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/damienstanton/ctrs <comment><AUTHOR> The idea: Rust's documentation and doc-test system allows for a very literate style of writing about code. I have decided to publicly document my implementations of Bartosz Milewski's Category Theory for Programmers course as a CI-tested Rust crate. Even lesson 1 has already improved my knowledge of Rust's generics and trait bounding, so I am looking forward to see where this takes me.</comment>


Dogecoin Soars $40M in Value Following Chinese Exchange Opens - <AUTHOR> http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/dogecoin-value-soars-40m-follow-chinese-exchange-opens-1436085

<comment><USER2> I don't really get the appeal of Dogecoin. I really like its intention to to keep some inflation going forever. That combined with the low transaction fees seems like it could be a currency that actually ends up being spent instead of hoarded. But, it's still 100% proof of work, so if it really does take off, a good chunk of the world's energy is going to be used to find the first n digits of SHA hashes (or whatever work Doge uses).</comment>


Defensiveness, Politeness and the Presumption of Hostility - <AUTHOR> https://srconstantin.posthaven.com/defensiveness-politeness-and-the-presumption-of-hostility <comment><USER2> Interesting post. I think it is related to my observation that people (like myself) who smile a lot and try to be friendly to everyone are pegged as being less intelligent. The silver lining is that it is nice to be calibrated upwards when people actually get to know me.</comment>


Open source 5G core network - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/free5gc/free5gc <comment><USER2> For those interested, this project seems to be a rewrite of [https://nextepc.org/](https://nextepc.org/) into Go. Alternative projects include [https://github.com/facebookincubator/magma](https://github.com/facebookincubator/magma) and [https://github.com/openairinterface](https://github.com/openairinterface).

You can start your own telenetwork with these projects (but of course doing such would be highly illegal without a spectrum license), but first, you need a gNB or eNodeB which is lingo for a base station. It is possible to buy an SDR and use software like [https://github.com/srsLTE/srsLTE](https://github.com/srsLTE/srsLTE) to make the SDR receive and broadcast LTE/5G connections. After this, you need to have blank SIM cards to code. For example, this post instructs how to do so: [https://cyberloginit.com/2018/05/03/build-a-lte-network- with...](https://cyberloginit.com/2018/05/03/build-a-lte-network-with-srslte- and-program-your-own-usim-card.html). You might also consider writing eSIMs [https://github.com/bagyenda/njiwa](https://github.com/bagyenda/njiwa).

After this, you should be able to use a commercial phone to connect to the network.

In general, these networks function quite well even on commodity hardware. Some tests I worked on produced end-to-end latency of around 20ms on LTE, and throughput of around 7MB/s. This was using NextEPC on a 400 euro computer with a 50 euro router and a Nokia base station. Further, it was possible to make the system to work in a Heroku like manner by exposing PaaS endpoints and running Kubernetes in the access network: [https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Open-source-RANs-in- Pr...](https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Open-source-RANs-in- Practice%3A-an-Over-The-Air-for-Haavisto- Arif/38aa0fcd59646de9cf54fdae812349def01fb02a)

I think it's quite likely that sooner or later we will have 5G networks with intra-services running as edge-services, providing us low-latency. It's worth noting that with the latest LTE versions 5G and LTE access latency is virtually the same. The real latency-optimization would be, at least to my perspective, to allow software to be deployed _into_ these cellular networks to minimize network hops.

<comment><USER3> I'm not an expert, but there are variants of LTE and 5G (LTE-U and 5G NR-U) that support operating in the unlicensed 5Ghz band.

That said, I'm not sure a commercial handset would connect to anything in that range. You could probably get an SDR-based UE (UE is telecom-speak for "thing that connects to a cell network") to work.

<comment><USER4> [https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https...](https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fprkele.prk.tky.fi%2Fwiki%2FHamLTE)

Apparently, there are overlaps between common LTE bands and both ham radio bands and unlicensed (... low-power) ones... the above page states that any device with the right bands will work (... and they even got them working presumably?)

<comment><USER5> Newer iPhones support band 42 TDD, which is 3400 to 3600 MHz. The amateur radio 9 cm band in the US is 3300 to 3500 MHz, so you could have a setup contained in single ham band. However, the open source eNodeB products typically don't support TDD.

<comment><USER6> This is the CBRS band, and the idea behind CBRS is that people should be able to gain access to it on an ad-hoc basis by making a request for it, when it isn't being used for marine radar on the US coast.

I believe OpenAirInterface can handle TDD, although it was firmly "research grade" code last time I looked at it.

The positive from CBRS is that it should (or at least is intended to) spawn a new generation of lower cost small cell base stations, using this band, and speaking the CBRS "protocol" for spectrum access coordination. And that has potential to help reduce prices of radio equipment.

Handset compatibility is coming on this band quicker because some existing mobile operators have purchased PALs (priority access licenses) for CBRS spectrum, and intend to use this for some extra capacity.

P.S. just as a very minor technical correction, CBRS is defined for band 48, rather than 42, although with some overlap. B48 is 3550 to 3700 MHz, while B42 is 3.4 to 3.6 GHz as you said. Therefore when looking for devices, it's best to look for B48 (although at a push, if you're doing your own R&D, B42 will be fine for use in the lower 50 MHz section of the band).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Can't find where COVID-19 infection code is. Is it not implemented yet?

<comment><USER8> Let's hope nobody finds out about Presidential Alerts. Basically, it lets you send Tweets to any mobile user.

<comment><USER6> Fairly straightforward to use these in other core networks. Not sure if this one implements the signalling for it.

Fun fact though - if a phone is without signal on its home network, it will attempt to join any valid 3GPP network it sees, and the cell broadcast/emergency alert will be triggered on the handset (even without a valid SIM) - no authentication takes place.

<comment><USER8> I think this vulnerability potentially has the biggest real-world impact. This has been shown in a couple of proof-of-concepts… Merging this into public repos would have zero positive impact, I think.

<comment><USER6> I'm inclined to agree with you there. Anyone that wanted to do it could figure it out anyway from the standards docs and broadcast the right data in the SIBs, but it is probably better not available as a "click and run" type setup.

Although in saying that, this is unlikely to change any time soon, as the idea of CB/PWS is to provide an emergency message that can be highly time sensitive in some scenarios (earthquake, tsunami, etc.) without delays due to authentication etc. Failing to show the message could be higher risk than showing a false message in a very localised area (based on what someone with an SDR can send.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> rob-olmos Somewhat related recent curiosity: Is there anything new about 5G tower/backhaul infrastructure for edge computing that wasn't already feasible for 4G?

<comment><USER6> Nothing hugely different to "late stage 4G" (Release 14). The main difference with 5G (that was available in Rel14 but not widely used by anyone) is control and user plane separation, which means some network traffic can leave the user plane at the base station, and go elsewhere, rather than be routed all the way back to the core network.

That enables edge computing by allowing traffic for the edge computing node to be routed to the local edge node directly, without it going down the backhaul.

This is very much a software change though in the implementation of the base station.

<comment><USER9> exactly, control-userplane separation is the primary differentiator for "5g." the whole point is to eliminate backhaul and allow closer CDNs and caches..

<comment><USER10> Is it? So Netflix is going to install a massive rack of storage in every cell tower, with expensive power and cooling and risk of vandalism and theft? Even if you cached the enterity of netflix, it's still only 10% of Internet traffic.

Backhaul is becoming less and less of a problem as more and more sites get fibre backhaul. Point to point links can easily do 10gig/sec now even if they don't have fibre (to another tower with fibre). That is almost certainly as much if not more than the total capacity of most cell towers even with a stupendous amount of spectrum allocated.

<comment><USER9> The userplane doesn't run on the cell tower. The mobile network backhaul is multiple stages, and the tower is just the first hop.

The problem with backhaul isn't the availability of fiber, it's the _concentration of bandwidth_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> So will this let me run a 5G baseband? I've read about Osmocom but I've never tried it out.

<comment><USER12> Not quite, this is the "core network" which handles things like handset authz/authn, billing, base station attachement etc.

A 5G basestation is called a gNB, and a handset is called a UE. This project doesn't involve the radio interface of 5G, so neither of those are included. There's another comment on the post outlining how you might go about standing up an actual network using this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Is this really what constitutes a "5G core network"? Does it mean that I can buy Huawei for the rest of it and set it up in the UK?

<comment><USER6> This is a few components that make up the very baseline of some aspects of a standalone 5G core.

If you want to add commercial base stations to it, you'll find you're missing a few non-standardised things missing from all "open source" solutions - you'd need base station orchestration and control, to handle configuring and managing the base stations and getting them to behave in the ways you want.

For one or two base stations you might cope without it, if you can figure out how to configure the radios, and they happen to work. But generally, there's a load of integration to be done that isn't part of the standards, and that you'll need in addition to this. You'll also need to handle scaling up and clustering some of the components that need to scale up with traffic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> This won't have a chance to win unless e.g. Cisco/Google/Apple/FB somehow decides to fund a few thousand developers each yearly. And they won't do that unless there's clear incentive for them.

In a way I really hope they won't. How could anything good come out of that?

From an engineering perspective: the software stack is conceptually (if you squint enough) a bit like webkit/chromium, but on top of that you also need cutting edge radio/antenna development.</comment>


MS veteran comments on how independent devs make far better apps than Microsoft - Lx1oG-AWb6h_ZG0 https://np.reddit.com/r/windowsphone/comments/2re2gr/how_can_independentunknown_developers_make_better/cnf6ed0

<comment><AUTHOR> This is indeed an interesting read. Thanks for sharing.</comment>


Obama fights ban on indefinite detention of Americans - <AUTHOR> http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-indefinite-detention-forrest-070/

<comment><USER2> Really sad about this. It's such a slippery slope.</comment>


Google celebrates its 15th birthday, here is our tribute to their 15 years - <AUTHOR>

Here is our sites tribute to the last 15 years of Google - getinspired35.com/google<p>N.B. Videos autoplay. <comment><AUTHOR> Clicky - [http://www.getinspired35.com/google](http://www.getinspired35.com/google)

</comment><comment><USER2> Google changed the Internet and the way I read blogs (irony) for worse.</comment>


Notes on Nike Missile Site SF 88-L - <AUTHOR> https://www.charlieharrington.com/notes-on-nike-missile-site-sf-88l <comment><USER2> Fascinating. Thank you for sharing.</comment>


Stuxnet Worm Used Against Iran Was Tested in Israel - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/world/middleeast/16stuxnet.html <comment><USER2> See <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2108199></comment>


Forget self-driving car anxiety: In the early days human drivers were the fear - <AUTHOR> https://timeline.com/forget-self-driving-car-anxiety-in-the-early-days-human-drivers-were-the-fear-55a770262c10 <comment><USER2> And they were right to fear them...?

Not to mention the cars were much less safe in the early days, and getting a driving license was probably a much less strict process. It's only after much criticism over decades that those have improved. And cars still kill tens of thousands every year.</comment>


It's time to stop guilt tripping white people - <AUTHOR> http://thewisesloth.com/2016/03/27/its-time-to-stop-guilt-tripping-white-people/ <comment><USER2> Well this article nailed one thing "apathy". I just don't give a shit anymore. College burned me out with preaching about diversity and the media and SJW's are burning me out on hearing about this shit. As a white male that grew up poor and has paid for everything I own and struggled to finish an undergrad (which left me in debt), I do not feel privileged. I feel tired... and I'm only 34. So now I am a selfish bastard that only cares about the needs of my family.

</comment><comment><USER3> This sounds awfully like #NotAllMen but for s/sexism/racism/

</comment><comment><USER4> This is attacking a straw man. People aren't trying to guilt-trip white people, although guilt is a negative, unintended side-effect of the real effort.

The real effort is for white people to understand their privilege. The article addresses this:

> _not all white people are majestically privileged_

This is simply untrue. There were explicitly, literally racist federal housing policies until only a few decades ago. Law enforcement is still racist. For example, more black people are arrested for drug use than white people, even though all races use drugs at roughly the same rate.

The degree to which white people are privileged varies a lot, and some white people are genuinely not benefiting at all from their privilege. Society should do something about that. Solutions for black people should serve people of all races.

White people shouldn't be guilt tripped, but they shouldn't argue that they don't have automatic advantages from being white, either.

<comment><USER5> What do you think you're gaining by walking up to a white homeless man freezing on the street and explaining to him how much better his life is because of his "privilege"?

If you think that was an unfair summary, well, a) it was, and b) it also quite clearly explains why "privilege" is a losing argument if you're actually interested in increasing the amount of justice in this world. Privilege sounds automatically unfair and feels unfair and people's minds will slam shut. Do you really want to expand the reach of your ideas, as opposed to just virtue- signal to fellow activists? Then drop "privilege."

<comment><USER6> I agree. I'm a white guy who's gone through some very difficult stuff. When SJWs talk to me about my privilege, it just enrages me. Academic left discourse turned me from a middle-of-the-road guy to someone adamantly against the entire program of social justice.</comment></comment></comment>


Are Geeks The New Alpha Male? - <AUTHOR> http://www.techvibes.com/blog/are-geeks-the-new-alpha-male

<comment><USER2> _To feel safe, secure and taken care of, girls are now turning to men with brains. These women see a direct correlation between brains and dollah-dollah bills y'all and geeks have brains for days._

It's a weak correlation; there are plenty of poor geniuses. Displays of wealth probably work better than displays of smarts.

<comment><USER3> _Displays of wealth probably work better than displays of smarts._

And displays of social status are better than both.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> _The alpha male has long been achieved by means of physical prowess (meow)._

First, not after high school, no. Second, being the alpha male has more to do with how other men think of you than about how women seek mates. Third, women have always found intelligence inherently attractive, and smart people who have a hard time with the ladies have always avoided acknowledging that because it would mean acknowledging they have other defects that hold them back.

<comment><USER5> Being physically larger and stronger makes people look to you for leadership. It's hardwired biological behavior. Maybe in a million years this'll change.

<comment><USER4> Height matters. So does general health. That's not the same as "prowess." Now, I don't deny that prowess is helpful. Julius Caesar was known as an excellent horseman and a brave leader in battle, Vladimir Putin milks his judo black belt, etc. But the claim that athleticism has traditionally been the key to power is clearly overblown. Bill Bradley, Jack Kemp, and how many others? "[T]he leader of the pack has long been achieved by sweat and blood" is simply untrue.

Being a good athlete may make other kids look instinctively to you, but that's just an opportunity to learn leadership skills. Other kids have different opportunities, and after high school, those opportunities multiply and diversify. Prowess doesn't guarantee that you'll develop alpha male skills, and even in high school, there are star players who don't have much influence over their peers. Likewise, on any high school football team, you'll find one or two starters who aren't the best performers at their position but provide valuable leadership for the other players.

People really need to sort out two distinct concepts: social rank and masculinity. Geeks talk a lot about "alpha males," but they're also jealous of the beefy guy down the street who washes his Corvette shirtless and always has a girl hanging around. It doesn't matter whether that guy gets ordered around by a short bald guy _and would have been in the Paleolithic, too._ The dude is masculine. And he gets chicks (which I suspect is the common factor that creates geeky interest in both social rank and masculinity.)

While social rank and masculinity are not entirely unrelated, geeks conflate them way too much, and I think this article is a prime example. Rough, tough, strong, assertive guys can end up as leaders _or_ followers, socially climbing _or_ falling relative to their origins, and that's been true in every complex society, meaning the phenomenon has been around for thousands of years. Geeks are interested in both social rank and masculinity and would benefit from treating them as distinct ideas, but they prefer to lump them both under the label of "alpha male" because it sounds more intellectual (and probably less homoerotic, to boot.)

[Sorry for the huuuuuge edit after I was already modded up once....]

<comment><USER6> When did we last elect a fat President? When did we last elect an ugly one?

Since the invention of television and the dawn of universal suffrage, politicians have gotten taller, fitter, and more attractive. There's a reason.

<comment><USER4> Bill Clinton was fat, even when he was elected. As for the general trend in favor of tall, attractive presidents, the top dog out of a field of millions is going to have most of the major helpful assets. There's no disputing that height and attractiveness are helpful.

<comment><USER6> He was 6'2" and weighed around 225 pounds. So he was chubby, but I have never met a woman who would admit to finding him ugly.

"Helpful assets" is one way to put it. But I'm advocating a stronger hypothesis: when lots of people can vote, and they can watch candidates on TV, we will not have an ugly President. We'll have very charismatic average- looking presidents, or really stupid great-looking presidents. But we won't have ugly, brilliant ones.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> No, our genes aren't that smart. For the same reason that sex doesn't stop being enjoyable when using birth control, women won't stop being attracted to socially dominant men because the shy geeks have better earning potential.

<comment><USER7> Well, given enough time, women will prefer men who provide more advantages to her children.

Of course, "earning potential" actually doesn't matter much either, in a wealthy society where death from poverty is rare. Instead, look at the people who are having lots of kids vs. few or none. Don't underestimate the power of vertical memetic transmission, either--breeding rapidly is more viable today than ever before as a means of promoting ideas.

Genetic engineering will probably throw everything out the window long before selection pressures could do much anyhow.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> <http://roissy.wordpress.com>

</comment><comment><USER9> If we accept this writer's theory, it would be more plausible to say that women desire to get impregnated by jocks (w/ physical strength and social intelligence) but then have their kids raised by geeks (w/ money and abstract intelligence).

I've read a stat somewhere that claimed at least 10% of fathers are not raising their actual sons (and they are unaware of it). Unfortunately I can't find the study.

<comment><USER4> Why do you assume jocks have social intelligence?

<comment><USER10> Because they usually have a lot of friends.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> No.

Related side note: the researcher that coined the term alpha male recently redefined it.

According to him, the alpha male that typically comes to mind is a misconception as alpha wolves aren't alpha wolves through some violent usurpation. Rather, they become alpha males in much the same way that a human Dad does. As the oldest and provider for the familiy, he is the natural leader.

</comment><comment><USER12> No.

</comment><comment><USER13> From my own experience, women of above-average intelligence and education tend to seek men who are at least as intelligent and educated as they are. Within that pool they will still prefer men who are are socially well-adjusted, good looking, and rich, probably in that order of importance.

So if you're a male geek looking for love, whether your IQ is 130 or 160 (the pool of women doesn't increase much from one to the other), you need to work on your social skills. Actually you boys in the 160+ range need to work a bit harder as you spend so much time thinking about esoterica your 'game' is probably quite weak.

</comment><comment><USER14> In my short life (in miami), I've experienced the following:

Young women (18-24) seem to be trending towards males with influence of some sort & a sense of humor - so if you're "well connected" but not well off, "chicks can dig that" or if you're "well known" (where people stop you on the street) & of course, if you're rich or appear to be rich.

I suppose all of them _could_ require brains, but not all of them do.

<comment><USER7> Humor and social skills _absolutely_ require brains, though. Social status games are what our brains are _built_ for; abstract and analytic thinking may be the intellectual power behind the march of technology, but in all likelihood that's probably just an accident, in evolutionary terms.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Wealthy men have always been the alpha males. Geek doesn't necessarily = wealthy.

</comment><comment><USER15> It's good to differentiate between who girls are willing to date(ie have companionship and sexual relations) versus who they will marry(ie. Have kids, Pool resources, Grow old together if they are particularly romantic).

Attractiveness is so much more important when dating as the only real advantage of a dating partner over a friend is the sex. So you tend to date based on attraction. Where as when you are thinking long term, you look for a larger set of attributes, such as earning power, emotional stability, communication, etc. (Of course some people date with the intent of find a partner. But the point is easier to make if you think of it in terms of the extremes of dating for fun versus dating to find 'the one')

Either way, there are guys who are both highly intelligent and athletic. They are going mop the floor of either extreme overall anyway. So in the end, yes brains matter more now, but good luck competing with taller more attractive and nearly intellectually equivalent guys.

</comment><comment><USER16> HAHAHA. Only on sites like this and reddit.

</comment><comment><USER17> ESR writes in his 'How to be sexy' essay: "Being an alpha male in some status hierarchy changes your body language, your sex-hormone levels, and the smell of your sweat. Women home in on men with these traits [...]".

The idea is that if you're a core developer on a project, you will gain alpha- male status from it. It doesn't really matter what kind of project it is. So this is a way in which hackers can become irrestibly attractive to the other sex.

The essay is at <http://catb.org/~esr/writings/sextips/sexy.html>

<comment><USER18> Quantify the advice you receive. <http://lilug.org/w/images/a/a2/Esr.jpg>

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> First read "How To Win Friends and Influence People." If you apply the rules in the book and are at least an average looking guy you should not have any problems finding dates.

Add in some gym time and some pop culture into your daily RSS feeds and you're all set.

When you find a girl you like, slowly introduce your geek side. She'll think it's cute. Plus, nowadays everyone uses computers in one way or another so any geek tendencies are not going to be that big of a stretch to understand.

Really, it's not that hard.

</comment><comment><USER20> Important to realize he is using the term "geeks" to refer to smart people as a whole (not techies). After that the article makes a lot more sense.

</comment><comment><USER21> No, I don't believe most women see a correlation between brains and money. I believe they see a correlation of displays of wealth and money. Duh.

</comment><comment><USER22> Reminds me of a line from Revenge of the Nerds:

"Jocks only think about sports, nerds only think about sex. "

</comment><comment><USER23> No.

<comment><USER24> Why is this comment at -1 while another comment with the same content posted a few minutes later is at 18?

<comment><USER25> I've seen this happen a couple of times and wondered about it. This is a particularly good example of it because there are so few comments, its likely that both are visible to most readers. "No" should universally get 0 because it adds as much to the discussion.

All I can offer is shalmanese is an old account with much karma and EliRivers is a new account with none. Also the higher scoring one was posted 4-5 minutes earlier.

<comment><USER26> Usually "no" adds nothing to the discussion. However, in this context I read it as "Obviously, no. The post author clearly hasn't put much thought on what they wrote, so let's not even bother dissecting it". In a way, it is a constructive comment in the sense that it prevents fruitless discussion.

Of course one could just flag the post but that isn't as visible.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


How to get work done on vacations - <AUTHOR> http://avc.blogs.com/a_vc/2008/03/working-on-vaca.html <comment><USER2> I would suggest not working when you're on vacation.

There's a reason it's called vacation, and if you relax and have fun you'll get much more done when you get back.</comment>


Faster List Intersection Using Skip Pointers - <AUTHOR> http://www.skorks.com/2010/03/faster-list-intersection-using-skip-pointers/ <comment><USER2> The indexable skip list (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skip_list>) is another interesting structure for this kind of problem.

It's an expansion of the concept described, with a probablistic twist. It has O(log(n)) insertion, deletion and random access time, and linear traversal time, for a log(n) space overhead over a standard singly linked list.

The main drawback is that, in order to get that kind of performance, you have to know roughly the expected size of your structure in advance (although it should be fairly easy to create one whose "added machinery" grows with the list).

Example implmentations:

Python : <http://code.activestate.com/recipes/576930/>

Lua : <http://love2d.org/wiki/Skip_list> (a port of the former by yours truly, with some added functionality).

Both are released under the MIT License.

<comment><USER3> Java also has one as part of the 6 concurrency additions:

[http://java.sun.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/C...](http://java.sun.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/ConcurrentSkipListMap.html)

There's a ConcurrentSkipListSet too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Another HN'er is busy with something that comes close to this but has a bunch of twists.</comment>


Speakeasy JavaScript – The "Mad Science" JavaScript Meetup - <AUTHOR> https://speakeasyjs.com <comment><USER2> I'm the host of this event. Lmk if you have any questions!</comment>


The Hippocratic License – An Ethical License for Open Source Projects - <AUTHOR> https://firstdonoharm.dev/ <comment><USER2> Analogous to how the Hippocratic Oath forbids doctors from treating soldiers and border guards.</comment>