Or is it possible he just loves programming? No doubt the filmmakers considered this option, but you can see their dilemma: how to convey the pleasure of programming—if such a pleasure exists—in a way that is both cinematic and comprehensible? Movies are notoriously bad at showing the pleasures and rigors of art-making, even when the medium is familiar.
Also:
Programming is a whole new kind of problem. Fincher makes a brave stab at showing the intensity of programming in action (“He’s wired in,” people say to other people to stop them disturbing a third person who sits before a laptop wearing noise-reducing earphones) and there’s a “vodka-shots-and-programming” party in Zuckerberg’s dorm room that gives us some clue of the pleasures. But even if we spent half the film looking at those busy screens (and we do get glimpses), most of us would be none the wiser. Watching this movie, even though you know Sorkin wants your disapproval, you can’t help feel a little swell of pride in this 2.0 generation. They’ve spent a decade being berated for not making the right sorts of paintings or novels or music or politics. Turns out the brightest 2.0 kids have been doing something else extraordinary. They’ve been making a world.
Very thoughtful and eloquent _rant_. The internet needs more of these.
There are so many quotable quotes:
> "Software is not neutral. Different software embeds different philosophies, and these philosophies, as they become ubiquitous, become invisible." — Zadie Smith
> People “reduce themselves” in order to make a computer’s description of them appear more accurate. “Information systems need to have information in order to run, but information underrepresents reality”. — Jaron Lanier in You Are Not a Gadget
> “based on [a] philosophical mistake…the belief that computers can presently represent human thought or human relationships. These are things computers cannot currently do." — Jaron Lanier in You Are Not a Gadget
3 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 20.9 ms ] threadOr is it possible he just loves programming? No doubt the filmmakers considered this option, but you can see their dilemma: how to convey the pleasure of programming—if such a pleasure exists—in a way that is both cinematic and comprehensible? Movies are notoriously bad at showing the pleasures and rigors of art-making, even when the medium is familiar.
There are so many quotable quotes:
> "Software is not neutral. Different software embeds different philosophies, and these philosophies, as they become ubiquitous, become invisible." — Zadie Smith
> People “reduce themselves” in order to make a computer’s description of them appear more accurate. “Information systems need to have information in order to run, but information underrepresents reality”. — Jaron Lanier in You Are Not a Gadget
> “based on [a] philosophical mistake…the belief that computers can presently represent human thought or human relationships. These are things computers cannot currently do." — Jaron Lanier in You Are Not a Gadget
> "Facebook: falsely jolly, fake-friendly, self-promoting, slickly disingenuous." — Zadie Smith
> "Hollywood still believes that behind every mogul there’s an idée fixe." — Zadie Smith, on Erica and Zuckerberg
> "Pay them. In the scheme of things it’s a parking ticket." — Junior Lawyer to Zuckerberg
tl;dr: RTFA.