So you worked with film at the apex of its technological development and that makes you an expert on the beginning of the color era, when that technology was exceptionally expensive?
Do you have any facts or relevant anecdotes to add to the discussion? I am very interested in other points of view. I don't claim to be right, I am only attempting to add to the discussion, providing a counterpoint to the claims made by the article. If you have some evidence supporting the article's premise, let's have it! I'd love to see more evidence about racism in photography.
It seems like your main goal is to affirm your closely held core beliefs that everything and everyone is racist. The world isn't so black and white. Not everything is a conspiracy against the black man. You also might realize that there is certainly an incentive to fan the fires of sanctimony. There's an entire industry of people who have a vested interest in finding racism under every rock.
Let's just allow for a second that film is racist. So what? What are you going to do about it? Maintaining your rage or perhaps doing something positive to actually make the world a better place? Look forward; Don't let your own hatred stunt your potential to do something positive! Chips on shoulders can be exhausting!
Remember that time where you had no idea the racist history of public swimming pools, but still wanted to be treated as an expert on what made things racist?
First, he worked with film (as did I). Did you? And what exactly makes the author of TFA an expert on the subject?
Second, film wasn't a technology solidified in the "beginning of the color era", color reproduction and emulsions changed all the time, and new films with different color repro and dynamic range were appearing frequently.
Everyone needs someone saying something like the N word in an official document before they can buy that racism exists. It's not possible that capital follows racial lines (spoiler: it does) and that therefore incentivized products to develop in a particular direction, to appeal to the folks with money? You don't need "overt racism." You don't need a guy twirling his mustache, spouting white supremacist rants.
Do you know anything about film? If you do, then please contribute; if you don't then I would encourage you to actually get educated about the topic involved rather than just knee-jerking your way to validating your own bias.
Using Photoshop as a "Mobile interaction designer + developer" does not an expert in photography technology makes. Doesn't even count actually -- the issues behind film dynamic range have nothing to do with Photoshop. As for the "darkroom experience", well it doesn't mean much. Plenty of photography enthusiasts don't know their chemistry and physics -- just barely enough to develop photographs.
If you have a specific technical comment about how they could easily optimize dynamic range in those crude early films and didn't (because of racism), then tell it.
If you also think that film companies shouldn't had optimize for the main market for a commercial product regardless. Would even a black film company owner optimize for the 20%, less afluent to buy cameras, US market?
So is film racist or not? Do you have any science? Exposure tests? Test prints? Any proof at all? Or just a hatred of the 'man'?
With so much experience, you should have lots of evidence to prove the racism of film.
The simple fact is this, black Hollywood would have screamed about this long before now if there was even a remote chance that film was racist. There would have been academic debates, a long line of evidence and years of discussions among technical and critical circles. Not just some random internet article from a non-qualified source making a claim with no peer-review or any sort of intellectual authority.
We might be bankrupt as a community; yet here you are.
So to your mind it's more likely that the author is telling fish stories than it is the dominant financial caste ended up optimizing a given piece of tech to their best interest?
It's called crying wolf. Some aspects of photography may be optimized for whites; that doesn't mean everything is designed to make life harder for blacks.
My camera apparently has the opposite problem. I can't autofocus on anything that's solid white. Did I accidentally buy the "black" model?
And you're such an angry bitter person that you automatically assume everything is racist? What are the qualifications of the article's author? You must have an exhausting life seeing racism behind every tree.
What about the guys at Fuji film? Is their film anti-white and Asian biased?
This whole discussion is absurd. Next thing we'll hear is that swimming pools are racist.
You might not like the way he says it, but go back and read the article:
Kathy Connor, an executive at Kodak, told Roth the
company didn’t develop a better film for rendering
different gradations of brown until economic pressure
came from a very different source: Kodak’s professional
accounts. Two of their biggest clients were chocolate
confectioners, who were dissatisfied with the film’s
ability to render the difference between chocolates of
different darknesses. “Also,” Connor says, “furniture
manufacturers were complaining that stains and wood
grains in their advertisement photos were not true to life.”
How is that not racist? The film wasn't an issue when it was just people of colour coming out poorly, but when it's chocolate and furniture being badly exposed, then they develop a new film.
Besides, where's the "racism" in the dominant financial caste optimizing a given piece of tech to their best interests? It's a commercial product, so you optimize it for your main market, which, for most of photography's life has been white.
Only if you have never opened a dictionary or an actual textbook.
A textbook example of racism is: "These people are inferior/primitive/stupid/immoral because they are black" (from which the colloraries come, like: "Lets exploit these infrerior people for slave labor". Or "I don't want these inferior people in my restaurant.)
This case is, on the other hand: "Black people in the US don't have us much income (a fact), and are much fewer than white people (another fact). We should better optimize our film for the most common buyer, which would be white people".
This has nothing to do with racism, it's basic economics. In fact if blacks were the most affluent or populous group, the same companies would target THEM in a heartbeat.
It's hardly an accident that one of the most successful capitalist systems in the history of the world has, since the automation of agriculture, shifted to storing millions of people (read: excess labor) in a vast, growing prison system.
I'm afraid this isn't going to produce much beyond anxiety in your candidates. This leads to the sort of interaction where I'd end the interview early, thank the interviewer for their time, and high-tail it out of there never to return.
It's a trivia quiz. And frankly, who cares if you know what iBeacons are? What's the likelihood a project requires knowledge of both iBeacons and HealthKit?
HealthKit AND HomeKit?
HomeKit AND Apple Pay?
Why ask about something as deeply specialized as Metal, a brand new 3D graphics API, when so few projects are likely even to need it—except in game dev shops?
And in what conceivable universe does someone need to know the screen resolutions of any given piece of hardware? I've been building iOS apps for six years now, and I barely remember at any given moment.
Anyone looking for great interview questions for iOS devs should instead consult Black Pixel's excellent post here:
I didn't miss it. If they find it is not as much fun as they thought and they have other options, they drop out.
I'm pretty sure, for example, that women tend to be less concerned about the potential income of their profession.
I wouldn't be surprised if women are on average less antisocial than men, for the simple reason that women are desired by the world. Men wonder how to talk to women, women wonder how to avoid being talked to (great simplifications of course). So computing would on average be less attractive (in the days before facebook anyway).
This is called the pipeline fallacy and ignores that companies hire at dramatically lower rates (0%-2% for blacks, 2%-3% for latinos) than there are graduates (4%-8%, depending on your source) for a given underrepresented background
Lower rates than there are graduates or than there are applicants to each company? Given the former, there are still numerous potential explanations for why this could be the case, none of which necessarily involve bias or discrimination on the part of the companies or hiring staff.
In the US, major carriers Verizon and Sprint have operated CDMA-based networks whose devices did not use SIM cards. I think it was the iPhone 4 that Apple once shipped 3 different versions of in the US: AT&T (GSM), Verizon (one set of CDMA bands), and Sprint (another set of CDMA bands).
But did you notice that Sprint is supported in this announcement? It is because LTE does in fact use a SIM, even on the carriers that rely on CDMA for voice. Fortunately for the iPad, it has no voice requirement.
In reality, there is the technical means to support this on ANY carrier. You just set the IMSI or ESN in software on the microprocessor and then hit an API at the carrier telling them to pair X device with Y unique ID. The difference now is that no one before Apple has had the weight to get the carriers to go along with this, since it encourages modularity and discourages device and carrier lock in.
In US you just get a phone with everything pre installed and sim tool :). So this thing does make it easier for Apple and a bit more convenient for users
what did you do prior to the advent of 10-band GSM radios?
I'm in the US and I've almost always bought cheap unlocked phones and SIM cards, but until recently I've had to hunt around to get the right variant of a phone for my preferred provider. Eg. T-Mobile uses 1700/1900/2100Mhz, AT&T uses 700/850/1700/2300.
The latest iPhones and some other phones now have radios that cover all frequencies, but those radios are expensive and typically only come on phones that cost more than $700.
Here, you got a separate SIM even with Apple phones. It's just how it's done.
The only toy I remember not having a separate SIM card was Amazon Kindle (the e-ink reader), and that's because they try to hide that the SIM is even there (and it's kind of weird).
Sure, there was no other choice. I'm just saying that if anybody was going to introduce a universal SIM in the USA, I would expect it to be Apple, and for exactly the reasons I described :)
> Rape has meanings other than non-consensual sex.
GP: Please use the word rape to the full extent provided by the english language, and let those who don't like the word deal with it.
I personally avoid using "rape" in such contexts. I don't like it. I agree with the parent comment, who says that it "is so deeply emotive and meaningful, in such an inappropriate context."
Can you tell me where you feel that I was defending bad behavior, or bad culture? My claim was that you misrepresented it. You turned that into a very personal attack. Is that OK?
Working for someone who thinks this exercise has been "cherry picking," who thinks it's the job of marginalized people to educate bigots, would be a horror show. Especially given the lack of self-awareness you've displayed here. Saying so is not only okay—it's necessary.
"Working for someone..."? Who are you referring to? The startup I work for is not a YC company. Our founder/CEO is not active on HN. One of his main hobbies is participating on an international coed Ultimate Frisbee team.
I don't think it's the part of marginalized people to educate bigots. Sorry if I wrongly assumed that you aren't marginalized.
My view is that the moral non-marginalized should speak out loudly against bigots. I was trying to encourage you to attack the bigots instead of attacking everyone else.
Edit: BTW, Everlaw has a blog. Anyone is welcome to read it and form their own opinions about our culture.
Danilo, I loved the article & thought it was much needed. Agreed that it's not the job of the marginalized to educate oppressors. Agreed that it's frustrating and exhausting for anyone to take on the task of educating others, and that your writing is an attempt at making others aware of the problems that exist. I agree that BrandonM's classification of your article as "cherry picking" demonstrates a lack of awareness of the difficulties of minorities and women in tech & at HN. However, simply because a person doesn't express a certain level of self-awareness or education about the disadvantage others are experiencing doesn't automatically quality them as an enemy nor a bad human.
BrandonM, I'd encourage you to keep educating yourself. I'd suggest reading resources like http://juliepagano.com/blog/2013/11/02/101-off-limits/ and following some "social justice warriors" via your platform of choice.
I, personally, am still very much in the process of learning about how my own privileges (white, middle-class, male, cis, het) affect me and others, which is why I find article's like Danilo especially useful.
I appreciate your level-headed response, metavida. I think you're taking the right approach in trying to quell hostility (rather than create it) and in providing links to follow up with. I am in full agreement that everyone should have an equal opportunity to do what they love, and I am quick to stand up to oppressors and bullies. I recognize the problem and agree that we need to address it.
That's the main reason why Danilo's actions bothered me so much today. My initial post basically boiled down to, "The article misrepresented Hacker News: it's no worse than other communities with similar demographics. And when bigots make themselves visible, it gives us a chance to change minds." Even I can come around to the idea that those are shitty points.
But we didn't have that discussion. Instead, Danilo used his Twitter privilege (where I have none) to level an attack at me, threatening my livelihood. To me, that seems like a different version of the exact problem he is purporting to solve.
If the "warrior" in "social justice warrior" is literal, then I suppose that tactic makes sense. But I think there's a better way. I read this today:
The biggest crime of fear is getting my mind so wrapped up in itself, I forget that that I’m not the only one who is afraid. We’ve all got things that haunt us.
Did I really deserve what Danilo threw at me today?
> Did I really deserve what Danilo threw at me today?
> Twitter privilege
Goodness. If anything, you got off easy, bub. Even now, oblivious, invoking concepts like "privilege" you clearly don't understand.
You don't get to run your mouth about things you don't understand and then escape accountability. You don't get to excuse a terrible status quo as being acceptable because it serves to educate people at the expense of the marginalized.
You are exactly the problem. Not the bigots. Not the overt sexists. Not the children posing as grownups, too young to know their indecency. The problem is mealy-mouthed folks who mistake differences of power for differences opinion. And who forgive the unacceptable on that basis.
And feel so righteous doing so.
Sorry if that's not the sort of coddling you're used to. But I'm not here for you. I'm not here to make you comfortable and I'm certainly not here to persuade you. I'm here because what you said was wrong and dangerous.
I'm a lot more concerned with the feelings of people who are being driven out of this industry because of exactly the sort of chicanery you're excusing.
Working for you sounds damn crummy. If you don't want that sort of observation leveled in public in the future, I have one suggestion:
read some books
Do the right thing because it's the right thing. Not because someone was nice to you or not on Hacker News.
> threatening my livelihood
And where is the threat to your livelihood, exactly?
If what you said was as acceptable as you claim, you face no danger.
If what you said was problematic, then why did you say it? Publicly? Flying under the banner of "Lead Software Engineer for Everlaw."
And why would you expect a public wrong to pass with impunity?
You're arguing both that you were perfectly reasonable—and that I was unreasonable to call you out for saying something crummy.
I'm female, and I work in this industry. I usually lurk, but this bothered me enough to warrant saying something. Which is this: whatever the merits of the original discussion or dissent, this level of attack is not helpful; I don't want it done on my behalf. What it has served to make me feel is precisely what I think you are trying to avoid: like I can't hold the opinions I do, because women are only allowed to think that HN is a unilaterally awful place. I feel like I have to defend how I could possibly have the chromosomes I do and yet have mixed feelings about this website - or anything else. Trying to help women doesn't make a person automatically right any more than me being a woman makes me automatically right about all questions pertaining to women. But I at least get to have an opinion on my own experience, and some of this conversation has made me feel like that's not the case. In other words, none of us (you included) has the right to feel righteous: we all have something to learn.
I'm here to fight marginalization. That's my fight, too. In quite a big way.
I respect that your approach may be different from my own—as marginalized individuals, we do have common cause.
You can and should view HN however you'd like. But there's a lot to be angry about on the merits. And a lot to be angry about when those problems are excused or dismissed. I can't apologize for that. And I must maintain my original position: I would loathe to work with someone who is this unaware.
Where I do apologize is if my tone carried a righteousness you found alienating, and if my frustrated words denied you the sense of solidarity I would aspire to offer. That's crummy and worth examination.
I'm sorry, Danilo. I did not realize that you personally felt marginalized. That certainly puts my comments, and your reaction to them, in a new light. My sincere apologies.
The story I got from your public persona was that you came up from nothing to be a web programmer who calls the Bay Area home. That story could describe me.
I hope you will forgive me for my incorrect assumptions.
>And where is the threat to your livelihood, exactly?
>If what you said was as acceptable as you claim, you face no danger.
Take anything he says, interpret it in the most uncharitable way possible, and then get him mobbed online. His company cuts off the limb to save the body by firing him. This is a tactical way of shutting somebody up, not a sign of their moral deficiency. Anybody with some numbers behind them can do it. I also got a sorta "I know where you live" vibe from how you repeated back his job to him, so I think you know this.
His words speak for themselves. His profile announced his role and place of work.
So, for me, as a person who's got a couple layers of outsider-ness from the typical tech workforce, I would be extremely uncomfortable working with this person. This is a person who made clear they supported public forums being open for bigots to say what they like.
So they can be educated.
Dang. That's awful. It suggests a terrifying lack of empathy. It's something I would want to know about. And certainly not something I'd want in a colleague.
Freedom to speak is not freedom from accountability.
You know nothing about me except that I criticized your post for being misrepresentative. That's all. You have no idea what I do in my daily life to promote equality, what I do in my workplace to make it more welcoming for all, how important it is to me to "do the right thing." You have no clue, at all.
And yet you're comfortable saying that I'm "exactly the problem", that I'm "desperately" defending Hacker News, that I'm crummy to work with. You don't know me.
When I say that I feel victimized by you, you call me more names, say that I'm running my mouth, that I'm used to being coddled, that you can't possibly have more privilege than me. Sound familiar?
Please try to have a bit of perspective on your own behavior. There are much more effective, humane ways to win the hearts and minds of others and achieve your goals.
> You know nothing about me except that I criticized your post for being misrepresentative. That's all.
I know you made the top comment on my article say you're glad when people say bigoted things so that the folks most impacted by them have to donate time to educating them. 'Bout all I really need.
> There are much more effective, humane ways to win the hearts and minds of others and achieve your goals.
Did you miss the part where I said that wasn't anything close to my goal?
Again: I expect people to demand the right things because they're the right things. Not because people are "nice" or not.
> you call me more names
Citation needed.
> When I say that I feel victimized by you
Whew. The privilege to call being disagreed with "victimization." Incredible. Tech in a nutshell, right here.
> you're glad when people say bigoted things so that the folks most impacted by them have to donate time to educating them.
What I actually said:
> It gives others a chance to provide them with some perspective.
When I said "others" I didn't intend that to mean the victims of their bigotry. I was referring to myself and the many other Hacker News members that disagree with those views. I can certainly see how my comment was unclear on that front, and I regret making such a contentious statement without making my intended message as clear as possible. ("Open views can be criticized and corrected. Subversive hate or discrimination is much harder to address," as I later clarified.)
There's a difference between a disagreement and a personal attack. We both disagreed with each other's messages, certainly. But I did not attack you or your character.
Cool story, bro.