|
|
|
|
|
|
by itsdesmond
47 days ago
|
|
|
You’re bringing so much weird baggage to this. A viral hit? This is a ~2,300 word piece, equivalent to an article in The Atlantic introducing a 30 page PDF tutorial and code repo which is ran as a workshop in hacker spaces and at conferences. It isn’t a proposal for a new scale industrial process seeking VC funding. You’re critiquing it for not being something you value, but it isn’t trying to be that thing. They’re not doing the thing you think they are badly, they’re doing something you haven’t bothered to understand. Honestly, I think the only way one could look at this and bring that critique is if they both didn’t look at shit but the pictures and saw the word “feminist” used and began to intellectually infantilize the authors. |
|
|
The "weird baggage" I bring to this is thst I run an electronics lab at the university level. Of course this means I have seen a lot. My criticism by the way doesn't have a lot to do with these projects themselves, more with how a specific type of writing is treating these projects and how readers with insufficient background knowledge would then misunderstand it.
A comparable thing is when scientific writers talk about how a promising first material test is likely the battery technology of the future. How do you feel after reading decades of these articles?
And don't get me wrong: I do believe that these efforts can ultimately lead to actual change. We just need to be transparent what it is and how long it takes to introduce actual change.