I also went there, shortly before it shut down during the pandemic. A friend talked me into visiting when we’re were in town for a scientific meeting. I am so glad I went.
The museum on the afternoon we visited was nearly empty. As a result, the museum docents were happy to let us monopolize their time. I mentioned offhandedly that I had always wished I could try programming SmallTalk on an Alto, and the docent said with a grin “sure!” He reloaded their Alto with a programming environment and gave me a short tutorial. I quickly crashed the machine, but I had a lot of fun along the way.
I got to try many other machines that night. I often think with sadness about how my students will no longer be able to easily have this experience.
His sister (at his behest??) decided to lean into a smaller number of projects for his money. It does seem like a miss that they couldn't keep it going. There's enough money in Seattle that it should have been doable with the right charismatic leader and fundraising.
> His sister (at his behest??) decided to lean into a smaller number of projects for his money.
And didn't do any of the obvious things one might have done if they wanted to preserve the museum's existence, like finding a buyer or starting a foundation. She did the easy thing and scrapped it for parts.
(IIRC she was the executor of his will, trustee of his estate, and the CEO of the company he left most everything to, so she had all the agency she needed to do something responsible with the museum)
I'm bitter about the outcome too, but doesn't it seem like Paul could have _easily_ made a plan for the museum's continued existence or the donation of the computers into worthy hands? I can't see any scenario where the billionaire cofounder of Microsoft wouldn't have had those plans had he wanted them..so I can only conclude he _didn't_ care materially about the importance of the computers separate from himself.
I agree that it would have been trivially easy for him to give the museum a long-term future. I wouldn't jump to any conclusions about what he cared about.
My feeling is that the current state of the internet is just exposing how humans behave normally, the guardrails have just fallen away. Everyone is immune to shame, the threat of consequences etc. You see this in real life on the streets too.
I think the opposite. The vast majority of kind and gently people are suddenly observing a small but ultra loud obnoxious minority take the stage and burn resources like nothing else to get maximum attention. Attention wins and you don’t get it by being gentle, balanced, kind and most importantly, don’t care about maximum attention.
There is the saying "the empty vessel makes the loudest noise". This was part of the reason I eventually left Reddit, as I was getting sucked in to the habit of making empty meme-like responses to posts.
Some of the worst places for comments I've seen are on youtube - just the lowest effort ("who is listening to this in 2026?!") or the most obnoxious, or just misunderstood. Partly this is because of voting systems combined with large numbers of people. Partly because of bots I suppose.
I watched the announcement on the detection on gravitational waves on YT. The comments scrolling by were like from another world, I even made some screenshots, insane, obnoxious. Could be bots I suppose, I hear from political commentators here who advocate for thoughtful commentary "from the middle", that their social media posts are always very quickly flooded by the same kind of polarizing low-level comments that drown out any intellectual and thoughtful debate. It's probably partly bots, partly a small minority of people that get sucked into it by the bots. I have no problem believing this is Russia, or NK, undermining our democracy in a fully automated fashion.
This is the right takeaway. Before the internet went mainstream, these ultra loud and obnoxious minorities were restricted to being obnoxious within their local communities, and their speech was restricted to what they were willing to say to others face-to-face.
Now, both of those restrictions have been lifted: they can now act obnoxious in front of a global audience that will be forced to listen to them, and they no longer have to worry about the potential consequences of being obnoxious in person.
Us kind souls are not forced to listen, however, something in our nature draws us to these extremes, and then, observing a lot of these extremes, our minds label them as “common”. It’s all quite unsurprising when put like this, imho.
The antidote is real interactions, and ignoring the online extremes.
Yes. I remember reading a piece on /r/SlateStarCodex subreddit many years that said something like, "Most of what you read on the internet is written by insane people," and that had an impact on me. In fact, many articles by Scott Alexander had an impact on me, though I don't know what he's up to these days.
I'd say at least 1/3 of internet commenters clearly have GAD (generalized anxiety disorder). Most of them undiagnosed. Anxiety triggers ancient animalistic parts of the brain and the "need to do something NOW" which often then gets released into negative / angry / aggressive posts.
Depressed people are the opposite, they tend to lurk and not care that much
I remember back in the "old" internet pre-2010, there was basically zero anxious people posting.
Fear and anxiety sells best (even better than Sex). When you end up selecting procedures that ensures the maximum sales/clicks, you are actually optimizing for things that cause maximum fear and anxiety?
And the SlateStarCodex people are also, for the vast majority, batshit insane people behind a veil of "no but you see i'm a rationalist". That includes Scotty.
Yeah, I just came back from traveling a couple of weeks, and I have had such wonderful experiences with people. There were times where I just wanted to hug a taxi cab driver (ie when a Grab driver was holding an umbrella over my vomiting daughter [car sickness] and me, with his car stopped by at the side of a highway... etc.)
I came to comment the exact opposite. People are good, caring, kind, helpful, thoughtful, funny, interesting. It’s visible every day in real life beyond the streets… in both small and big interactions.
When you choose to see beyond the surface, it becomes clear this is the cause of a system. A system that is nearly impossible to escape, and which will last for the rest of our lives. But still a system, and not the people participating.
The internet has a big "dogs barking at each other through the closed gate" dynamic. People are much more rude and aggressive to each other from a safe distance.
The safe distance is anonymity. A few of the bold ones that are all in on the grift or just genuine assholes will own their opinions and behaviour.
All the little followers have a different tune when confronted with a real social situation, at least one that isn't a mob providing safety in numbers.
It's similar to the bully dynamics at school. Get one of the hangers-on by themselves and they are civil with you. When they are with the bully peer-pressure stops them from thinking for themselves.
I think it's actually inverted, the sudden arrival of this new information layer is bringing out the worst in people as they try to suddenly adapt to this new social environment. Even worse, is that it works(ed) and now the behavior is influencing real life.
This is how humans behave under anonymity, towards an anonymous crowd of people. It is something you don't see on the streets with the exception of a few assholes, but you see it a bit more on the road, where being in a vehicle puts some distance.
It is not a lack of shame and the treat of consequences. Take soldiers for instance, instinctively, they don't want the enemy they face dead, it takes a lot of conditioning to have them kill without hesitation and it often results in mental health issues later. And solders are rewarded for killing the enemy, it means the shame and threat of consequences go the other way. Normal people just don't want to hurt others.
But the more detached we become from the actual person, the easier it is to be an asshole. This is what happens on the internet where people are just entries in a database, at best a name and an avatar.
Well, the guardrails, by which I assume you mean legal and social accountability, were the norm for most of human history, which is why I don't consider the behaviour of anonymous and unaccountable humans on the internet to be "normal". Of course, humans are capable of great evil, but we are also pretty good at building social structures to prevent the worst of it. But those structures don't work so well on the anonymous internet.
> You see this in real life on the streets too.
To nowhere near the same extent, in my experience. Most people in real life are still fairly polite, even to strangers. It's insane to me how rude people can be on social media. Some of the aggressive responses I've received on Reddit (to fairly innocuous comments) I would never in a million years get in real life. (And this is also true of the 90s internet.)
Sort of the paradox of humanity. I actually like the majority of people I meet in person. But ‘humanity’ in the aggregate is just fucking terrible and constantly finds new and interesting ways to lower my expectations further.
I actually think the opposite, the hatred on the internet seems artificial to me.
In the current day when AI is so prevalent, it always makes me wonder how many posts are made by agents instructed to maximize engagement by making people angry.
We've been so primed by popular media to think that we will invent AI and it will be conscious and we will essentially enslave it. I'm open to the idea that we could invent conscious AI eventually, but the word salad generators we have now are definitely not it.
Yesterday's article about the automated CEO system indicates that AIs may soon be in charge as a routine result of capitalism. AIs are getting better rapidly, and humans aren't.
The human model of tribalistic leadership (the biggest, loudest, most confident patriarch is chosen to lead) is definitely outdated by 10,000 years or more. AI could disrupt that but I'm not sure how much better it will be, given it's a text generator.
It doesn’t take massive intelligence to sit on all the capital and charge rents. The owning class isn’t going to just give up control because the AI could run things better than them.
"The ownership class is so smart" is just ownership class propaganda. Wielding power is brutish, not smart. They keep selling us innovation as some transcendent tech that will free the masses (Arab Spring anyone?) yet every time the tech ends up shifting power up. AI will be the same.
Generating above market returns on capital is probably the most competitive arena ever. Why do you think CEOs make so much money? They typically are not the ones that own the capital. They are the people the capital owners pay extremely well to maximize their returns. If it didn’t matter who they picked they would just pick someone and pay them a few 100k and keep the rest.
Scrapers won't be stopped by needing an account; in the recent discussion [0] about this, someone mentioned that there's even a JSON API you can use - by appending .json to any post! It's to drive engagement... for the advertisers. They gotta keep the valuation up after the IPO.
I exposed this JSON API in the same style as their original API at api.reddiw.com and they banned my account without warning. I explicitly included my reddit username in the user-agent so that they could reach out if they had a problem with it. Nope, straight to banning my decade old account.
True, and the explanations about "solving big problems" are each engineer's personal brand and justification for having a job. I'm sure some of those people exist, but they probably aren't the ones doing it rote on forums.
>it's one of the only north Seattle neighborhoods vaguely affordable to buy in
Most north Seattle neighborhoods north of Ballard are more affordable to buy in than Ballard. Exceptions being North Beach / Blue Ridge, Windermere, Laurelhurst and similar.
I can’t tell if this is a ‘whoosh’ over my head or what, but saying Laurelhurst is more affordable than just about anywhere besides Medina is wild. They literally had enough sway to have the hospital reroute their flights (it was actually a children’s hospital and they got enough flack about it only this year did they relent [0]).
reply