HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

I remember watching his TED talk 11 years ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj8IA6xOpSk and buying a couple Klein bottles afterwards. This brings back memories!

Clifford on TedX https://youtu.be/Gj8IA6xOpSk

⬐ CliffStoll

Whew - that spoutathon was 10 or 15 years ago. I had put together a 1-hour talk and just before going on stage, I learn that I’ve got 18 minutes. So, I did what I learned in grad school: talk fast and don’t give ‘em a standing target...

The call to learn by Clifford Stoll https://youtu.be/Gj8IA6xOpSk

I love this guy, I first saw him in his TED talk [1]. He kinda reminds me of Richard Feynman (similar mannerisms and enthusiasm for science).

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj8IA6xOpSk

Here's a link to the actual TED talk, since mattyohe's link is actually to one of Google's promo videos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj8IA6xOpSk

Clifford Stoll kind of debuts the Klein bottles in this video here => http://youtu.be/Gj8IA6xOpSk?t=4m24s

Clifford Stoll has explained this far better than I could [1], but aside from the sheer intrinsic value and altruism of taking time out to be an amazing teacher for some students, it can also serve some really practical benefits: if you want the next generation of adults to have a firm grasp of science and technical issues -- whether they later operate a cash register, enter a career in politics, or build the next Amazon -- then it makes sense for us to find the time to teach these skills to students.

If you want open source software to take over the world, teach programming to kids. If you want sensible social policies where science and technology are concerned, then teach science and technology to kids. If you want more rational discourse in the future, then teach logic to kids.

Saying, "this is somebody else's job" -- even if you're also saying that it's a valuable job and they should be compensated well for it -- is not just self-serving, it's short-sighted.

[1]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj8IA6xOpSk

⬐ Retric

<evil>I don't care about future generations, if you want me to teach you need to pay me real money to do so.</evil>

Clearly there are people willing to significantly sacrifice their family's financial future for the good of the community. However, there are not enough such people. Thus paying more money allows you to pull in talented people who don't feel the need to sacrifice for their community.

PS: You don't actually need to pay market rates. You just need to reduce the sacrifice enough to attract talented people. EX: I would be willing to take a small paycut to do scientific research, but I am unwilling to take the massive paycut it would take to do so.

⬐ thaumaturgy

Then you all are getting exactly the world that you deserve.

⬐ marvin

You can sit on your high horse forever if you want, but altruism only works when everyone is altruistic. Do you really expect technically competent people to work in an environment where free thought and initiative is punished and bureaucratic nonsense is everywhere...while being paid a third (or less!) of what they would be paid in the industry? That's the choice potential teachers like me face. Personally, I would love to teach, but the pain just isn't worth it. The choice seems like a no-brainer.

Going into teaching would be stupid because (1) I'd be miserable if I had to fight the bureucracy (2) said bureocracy would prevent me from having the full impact I could have as an instructor and (3) I wouldn't be anywhere near properly compensated. Is that much pain really worth the joy of making a small difference? You're selling yourself short to a stupid and old-fashioned system.

Perhaps changing this would be possible if there was some parallel school system that was completely private and received support from the government in addition to fees from students/parents. Ironically, this is the system we currently have i Norway, but the creation of new private schools is in practice outlawed by the government..severely restricting the possible avenues of teaching and probably limiting the wages of the teachers who want to work there.

⬐ thaumaturgy

> ...but altruism only works when everyone is altruistic.

Not a big fan of open source then, I take it? Or volunteerism in general?

> Perhaps changing this would be possible if there was some parallel school system that was completely private and received support from the government in addition to fees from students/parents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_school

Also, after-school programs. Or, getting involved in a school board.

There are numerous and ample opportunities for someone with the means and motivation, but I think the real issue here is:

> I wouldn't be anywhere near properly compensated.

I've been wrestling around lately with an ever-widening sense of dismay I have at HN; it's only a problem for me because it's the last community of sorts that I participate in. There are numerous other hobbies and interests that all have their own groups of people, but the advantage to online communities is that they're always there when you need them and not there when you don't.

Anyway, I was whining to a good friend recently about this, because I'm having some trouble adjusting to the idea of not being a member of any communities anymore, and he tried to tell me, "Fuck the money-chasers."

I fundamentally can't relate to what seems to be the majority here on certain issues. It doesn't at all make sense to me that anyone could have this thought process that goes, "Here is a problem ... and I will complain about it ... and I have the power to change it ... but I won't."

How do you think bureaucracies change? They change when enough strong-willed individuals get involved.

Are you waiting for them to change themselves? Nothing changes all by itself; every single improvement in society is brought about by someone who worked for that change.

Where do you think the funding for teachers comes from? Teachers get their funding from voters, and all voters have been students. If students don't go through school and see, really see, that there was value in their education, then they won't be motivated to vote to spend more money on it.

The silliest thing is that we're constantly surrounded by examples of altruism working. The recent "offer HN" series -- which seems to have died out now -- were triggered by just a couple of people choosing to donate their efforts. The recent popular memorial post for Luke Bucklin and family (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1861964) is another example of the impact that a little bit of altruism can have.

And then there's you. I don't think we could ever reach a point of mutual understanding on this topic, because -- and I mean this with no disrespect -- nobody can afford to pay you enough to be altruistic. It looks like more people here see your point of view than mine.

How could I expect to be able to get usable advice on my business from HN then? The odds of my finding anyone here that would understand my motivations and limitations are looking pretty slim.

There seems to be a rampant social disease right now, where "hard" problems are concerned, in which those are always somebody else's problem. A lot of talented people are happy to pour effort into building social networks and other trendy things, because there's money and prestige in that, but when it comes to problems like education, public policy, government, and community development -- those are all somebody else's problem.

That makes me a little bit concerned for the future.

Anyway, this is probably all just a colossal waste of my time and yours. I haven't got anything else to contribute to HN.

⬐ prodigal_erik

It's not just about hoarding cash. When you act so as to maximize your income, you have found society's consensus that what you are doing is the most important and valuable thing you could offer. Altruism disregards all that feedback from everyone else, in favor of doing what you think we should want most from you (even though we demonstrably don't).

⬐ thaumaturgy

> When you act so as to maximize your income, you have found society's consensus that what you are doing is the most important and valuable thing you could offer.

That's not how economics works.

⬐ Retric

For a wide range of economic situations it is true. Ignoring theft and other edge cases where the system breaks down the fact that Google's founders made a ridiculous amount of money directly relates to the value they created. Do you really think they would have created more value for humanity at larges as kindergarten teachers?

There are many ways that this breaks down. In a world of finite resources Money provides a feedback loop which says "repairing and selling car X is worth it but nobody will buy car Y so it's not worth repairing." It also says becoming a Dentist has more value than a Plumber and Poor artists should find something that creates more value.

PS: Conceder that the world is not filled with identical copies of you. Individuals have different values, goals, talents, and resources. Finding the best way to utilize humanity and its resources is a ridiculously complex problem, but the act of buying / biding on what you want communicates your desires. It also bribes people into doing things that they don't want to do because they can then get other people to do things that they want.

⬐ thaumaturgy

I made a number of points in my diatribe, and the only one that was responded to was the implication that some people are more concerned about hoarding cash. Among my first points was an example of the value of volunteerism that many on HN should find relevant.

Frankly, I find the notion that money is the only indicator of social value not only despicable, but fundamentally wrong in the context of economics. I also think that there are so many utterly obvious counter-examples in so many industries and in so many areas of the world that anyone who still holds this view could not possibly be convinced otherwise. So, I don't see any point in continuing this conversation.

⬐ illumin8

This. Why does it have to be evil to be interested in providing for your own family first? For example, I want my children to be able to go to a nice school and get a good education, before I can worry about other children. This means getting paid something higher than a teacher's salary.

Society needs to stop chastising the individual for "not being altruistic enough" and look in the mirror. If we are not willing to pay qualified teachers enough, what does that say about our society as a whole? What does that say about the legacy we leave for our children?

⬐ RiderOfGiraffes

Previously submitted - top link on this search: http://searchyc.com/submissions/clifford+stoll?sort=by_date

Here is the YouTube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj8IA6xOpSk

⬐ maximilian

He has these eery calm moments when he's focused enough to stop the twitching. Like when he was saying that to know the future of society, we should ask kindergarten teachers.

All my professors are just super smart and busy all the time. No time for absentmindedness for them.

⬐ daltonlp

That's a rhetoric technique. He can slow down and focus whenever he feels like it. The stage antics are great for keeping attention. When he slows down to make a point, it really grabs the viewer's focus.

It's the public speaking equivalent of using headlines and layout and typography to create a good reading experience.

Teachers (and comedians) do stuff like this all the time. His presenting style is pretty well developed, especially for being so loose :)

⬐ pmorici

Maybe he as Aspergers syndrome like the character Jerry on the television show Boston Legal.

⬐ None

None

⬐ bayareaguy

Is there a transcript or summary of this anywhere? I just can't stand to watch or listen to this guy.

⬐ nickb

Clifford Stoll on Internet: http://www.newsweek.com/id/106554

⬐ ojbyrne

Damn. Same thought, less karma!

⬐ ojbyrne

That would be the guy who produced this: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=143333 It's fun to see him live having enjoyed his books.

⬐ noonespecial

I like him. He must be a good teacher, whether his "act" is contrived or not.

When you do something the first time, its science.

When you do it the second time, its engineering.

When you do it the third time, its technology.

Brilliant.

⬐ TrevorJ

That guy rocks. What makes me sad is I just realized I had a chance to hear him speak once and didn't know who he was and I didn't go.

⬐ phony_identity

That's an act and I don't trust him. For the real thing, watch Steve Wozniak.

⬐ RichardPrice

This is wild, but terrific too.

⬐ ChaitanyaSai

He needs one of those nourishment pouches that adorn marathon runners. His will have Ritalin.

Also, listen to him and pay no heed to his ideas about the future; he wrote a book about why the internet was going to be a dismal failure.

⬐ cdr

He puts on a nice act. No doubt he's had plenty of practice. And of course the TED audience eats it right up.

⬐ rms

He'd be a hell of an 8th grade science teacher...

⬐ a-priori

No doubt. I wish I had him as a science teacher.

My grade 8 science teacher didn't know the difference between microwaves and radioactivity (true story).

⬐ daltonlp

I see the same false claim in a lot of comments - "That guy said the internet would suck, therefore he sucks".

That's not what Stoll said and wrote.

His articles and books (there are several books, all good reading) were written in response to the brainless hype that was so prevalent then. This was right in the middle of the dot-com bubble.

He said that pure technology won't solve human problems, and that we shouldn't assume more benefits than we can prove. He wrote that the internet doesn't do magic.

And Stoll didn't say "Hey, the internet sucks because I say so and I am me". He did some research and discovered that people have said the exact same stupid stuff about television, and about radio.

TV and radio did cause societal changes, but they never came close to living up to the grandiose claims made when they were new.

Stoll said "hey, maybe the hype about the internet isn't all entirely true either".

And he didn't try to tear down the whole internet as worthless. He tried to find some examples of things it couldn't do. Not just any things, but major things - things that if you screw them up, you really regret it.

Specifically, he claimed:

1) The internet can't teach kids to read and write.

2) Some types of human interaction don't work over the internet. And these happen to be some of the really important kinds of interaction.

That's about it.

If there's one thing I think Stoll may not be considering, it's the ability for human society and culture to evolve and accommodate.

I guess we'll see about that.

Right now, it's pretty hard to disprove the fairly narrow claims he makes.

⬐ ChaitanyaSai

Research's always going to throw up some cautionary tales that the author will add as a caveat to not come across as a complete fool. Here are some of the claims he has made:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/106554

There's a specific claim here too: baloney to people buying books on the internet

I am not saying he's an Andrew Keen or a James Glassman, but he is a pretty middling futurist, which is to say he is no better than a coin flipper.

As for the idea that similar grand claims were made about television and radio and they did not pan out, well they weren't democratic media that allowed equal participation. This of course doesn't mean that the internet is the second coming of a virtual Jesus, but basing predictions on few archaic data in a dynamic environment doesn't make you a futurist, it makes you a bad historian.

⬐ Tichy

Well, did you buy Yahoo or Google stock in time and became an internet millionaire? If not, why not? Perhaps because you didn't predict their success? So why should we listen to you?

if you put your thoughts on the line, you risk being wrong sometimes. It doesn't invalidate all your other thoughts.

⬐ ChaitanyaSai

Revealing the thought process as he did does allow me to draw conclusions about his general predictive success.

My definition for a futurist is someone who is a standard deviation better or reasoned in his/her predictions than the median. Let us say that I am no good at presaging, so of course you shouldn't give much credence to any predictions I might make. However, predictions aren't what I am offering here. It is a critique of his ideas and the generative process behind them.

⬐ anewaccountname

Nice prediction, Nostradamus.

⬐ Tichy

You predict that his predictions are bad.

⬐ mrtron

I became an internet hundredaire!

⬐ xirium

It was a reasonable assumption to assume that selling books online was unviable. It was enevitable that the cost, speed and quantity of data online would exceed all printed books. However, quality and conciseness hasn't been exceeded in the general case. (Encyclopedias are a debatable exception.)

The reason may be a case of game theory. If I cannot immediately find the information online then my choices are to search harder, find an expert, derive the answer myself or buy a book. Of course, when anyone takes the latter option, it discourages said information from becoming freely available in the near future in its entirity.

⬐ BrandonM

I voted your original comment down because I didn't really like the Ritalin comment (it's refreshing to see someone so exuberant and happy to be alive), but I voted this one up for the link and the insight into the differences between TV/radio and the Internet.

The main shortcomings in his predictions seemed to be underestimating our ability to solve what looked like (to him) impossible problems: search and secure transactions. He did, however, have some good insights about the negative social changes the web (and other technology [1]) has introduced.

Physical human interaction is a powerful means to evoke empathy and understanding towards others. It's much too easy to look at text on the screen and forget the person behind it. As we spend more time interacting in such media, we spend less time interacting physically. Will we reach a point of extremely limited physical interaction, or will we eventually lose interest in spending our time reading text from a screen?

[1] I have considered a few times how different it must have been to hang out in libraries or walk across campus before the invention of iPods (actually, I guess before tape player + headphones). These days, it is rare to talk to a stranger that you happen to run into because they are typically immersed in their own audio world. I suspect that may be one reason we don't see student activism on the level of the Vietnam riots these days: there aren't as many diverse individuals interacting and sharing ideas.

⬐ trekker7

To add to your great post, here are some questions listed at a website for one of his books:

Does the internet really bring us together ... or does it isolate us from each other?

Suppose the network replaces newspapers, books, libraries, and teachers. Is that a good thing?

Who is hurt by computing & networks? (it's not who you think!)

Do computers and networks really belong in the classroom?

Why does the network promise so much, yet deliver so little?

Source: http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~stoll/silicon_snake_oil.html

⬐ greendestiny

He wrote most of that well before the bubble. I think the interesting thing about his criticism is just how big the websites that solved (or worked on) his criticisms are - google, amazon, facebook, ebay, digg, wikipedia. I think its fair to say he had some fairly good insight into significant challenges to the web before most people saw them, he was just wrong to say they couldn't be solved (or lessened).

⬐ alyx

It is amazing and inspiring to see such energy and enthusiasm in another human being. I gave him a standing ovation when the video finished, not because he would care but because I had to show my appreciation.

⬐ rms

You could also buy a klein bottle!

http://www.kleinbottle.com/

⬐ dcurtis

I felt a similar need to show appreciation that I have never felt before when finishing a video on YouTube.