|
|
|
|
|
|
by gonehome
1456 days ago
|
|
|
We clearly disagree and that's ok - but the example of people being generally bad at abstract mathematics, but good at playing with machines points towards making something more accessible and usable, not less. It's why haskell is hard for people. In a lot of ways stuff in Urbit (while unfamiliar) is more usable than the older stuff, but it is different. It's hard to put yourself back in the mindset of someone new to computers and all the jargon and complexity you get inundated with. I'd argue what you see as intentional obfuscation is just something new/unfamiliar. I also suspect your dislike for his politics is making it hard to separate the tech from the person. I don't agree with the politics either, I don't agree with Peter Thiel's politics or Palmer Luckey's politics, but I can recognize the value of the companies and tech they help build independently of that. Similar arguments were made going all the way back to early computing and the web (protests against computing because it was used by defense agencies). IMO it's not a good framing for evaluating a technology. |
|
|
I first encountered Nock and Hoon ten years ago, so these are neither new nor unfamiliar to me at this point.
> I also suspect your dislike for his politics is making it hard to separate the tech from the person.
Why should I separate them? My hypothesis is that the tech is a vehicle for advancing his politics.
> I can recognize the value of the companies and tech they help build independently of that.
So can I. The fact that I don't call Tesla or PayPal cults should led more credence to my position on Urbit.
I've read the Urbit literature and I've taken a pretty deep dive into the code and I've reached the conclusion that Urbit does not have any valid value proposition. I could be wrong, but that is my assessment, which will be of value mainly to people who know me and trust my judgement. If you're not such a person, well, my opinion comes with a money-back guarantee if you aren't satisfied.