HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

"[...] it's the equivalent of a bicycle for our minds." - Steve Jobs

https://youtu.be/ob_GX50Za6c

Here is a recording showing Jobs telling the story: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ob_GX50Za6c

I think I view programming as mental abstractions in action, or to put as Steve Jobs did bicycles for the mind.

https://youtu.be/ob_GX50Za6c

> In 1968 Douglas Engelbart used the wonderfully space aged term "brain amplification"

And Steve Jobs in 1990, "And that’s what a computer is to me ... it’s the equivalent of a bicycle for our minds."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob_GX50Za6c#t=25s

The Steve Jobs quote mentioned about bicycles for the mind is cool https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob_GX50Za6c . I know it's old but I hadn't seen it before. The rest of the article is kind of intellectual mush starting from saying "litigated against" in the first sentence when he hasn't and continuing in a similar vein.

⬐ monkbent

Perhaps I should litigate against people that say I haven't when they can't be bothered to follow the very next link in the next sentence: http://stratechery.com/2013/clayton-christensen-got-wrong/

Or this one, linked a few paragraphs later: http://stratechery.com/2013/obsoletive/

Here's another one, for good measure: http://stratechery.com/2014/best/

So actually, I have. Mush indeed.

⬐ peteretep

You know that when a dictionary calls a definition of a word "archaic", they mean "no longer correct", right? Using "litigate" to simply mean "argue against" or "dispute" is to confusingly misuse the word.

⬐ simonh

> when a dictionary calls a definition of a word "archaic", they mean "no longer correct",

I just checked a few dictionary definitions of 'archaic' and none of them say anything about no longer being correct.

⬐ peteretep

OED lists as:

    > Belonging to an earlier period, no longer in common use,
    > though still retained either by individuals, or
    > generally, for special purposes, poetical, liturgical

If "no longer in common use" or "for special purposes" doesn't mean incorrect in an entirely consensus-driven language, what does? It gives a motivating example of "obleege", for oblige, which I note my spell-checker has helpfully underlined in red.

⬐ simonh

Nothing about 'not common' or 'special purposes' implies 'incorrect'. There are many perfectly good words and phrases in English that are not commonly used or are only used for special purposes, but that in no way makes them incorrect.

I think Steve Jobs' "bicycle for our minds" metaphor for computers, was quite nice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob_GX50Za6c#t=0m25s

⬐ marcoamorales

There's definitely a notorious difference from the young Steve Jobs to the older Steve Jobs.

⬐ raverbashing

Yes, but I suspect it's backwards from what you're implying

Young SJ was (from multiple sources) much less humble, less forgiving, and more B.O.

Just saw another brilliant Jobs quote, circa 1991, via my svlug friend Rick Moen.

I think one of the things that really separate us from the higher primates is that we are tool builders. I read a study that measured the efficiency of locomotion for various species on the planet. The condor used the least energy to move a kilometre,and humans came in with a rather unimpressive showing about a third of the way down the list. It wasn't too proud of a showing for the crown of creation. So, that didn't look so good -- but somebody at _Scientific American_ had the insight to test the efficiency of locomotion for a man on a bicycle, and a man on a bicycle -- a human on a bicycle -- blew the condor away, completely off the top of the charts. And that's what a computer is to me. A computer is the most remarkable tool that we've ever come up with, and it's the equivalent of a bicycle for our minds. -- Steve Jobs, 1991

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob_GX50Za6c

The bicycle analogy to computers.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob_GX50Za6c

Paraphrase: The computer is to the human mind, what the bicycle is to our ability to travel.

Interview with Steve Jobs where he talks about the computer as a bicycle for the mind:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob_GX50Za6c

To put it in context, he starts off by talking about the efficiency of animal locomotion. In the animal kingdom, the condor is one of the most efficient. It uses the least amount of energy to travel a kilometer. Human walking is rather inefficient in comparison. However, with a bicycle, a man can blow away a condor.

⬐ andreyf

Right, and it was also mentioned in the article.

Alan Kay's essay by the same title is here: http://web.archive.org/web/20080107173514/http://www.iam.uni...

Some other similarities off the top of my head: Alan Kay also often speaks about "building systems", and both this article and Steve himself talked about Apple's advantage being "good system integration". Objective-C, inspired directly from one of Alan's brain-children, was at the core of the value of NeXT, which Steve started, and is still at the core of all of Apple's developer platforms.

I don't know if the two have ever met, but I think they certainly hang out hang out with similar-minded folk... ;)

Less ridiculous and more persuasive:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob_GX50Za6c