Profile

Cover photo
Martin Hecko
91 followers|1,811 views
AboutPostsPhotosVideos

Stream

Martin Hecko

Shared publicly  - 
 
Enjoy a live DJ set playing right now: http://www.mixify.com/metadekk/live/hump-day-bootie-shake

You know you need your bootie shaken !
1
Add a comment...

Martin Hecko

Shared publicly  - 
 
Minimum Viable Pants. That is all. (via Hackernews)
2
1
Add a comment...

Martin Hecko

Shared publicly  - 
 
For your Friday consideration I give you Kveto's film "That's a Movie." (~6min). It's designed to blow your mind! If you like it, please spread the word. http://vimeo.com/28436138
1
Add a comment...

Martin Hecko

Shared publicly  - 
 
From now on only proper typographic punctuation from me. No more ..., ", '. Instead I will use …, ‘, ’ , ”, “ whenever possible. Come one everyone, let’s make the Internet a prettier place!
1
Add a comment...

Martin Hecko

Shared publicly  - 
 
Trying out Google+ as a Twitter replacement/substitue. Adding people in my "Following" circle that I am not friends/acquitances with, but want to hear what they have to say.

Suggestions? I far I got +Andy Hertzfeld and +Matt Cutts ? Any other good personalities, geeks, CS, math, arts people on here?
1
Add a comment...
In his circles
97 people
Have him in circles
91 people
Peter G's profile photo
Ronald Decker's profile photo
Daniel Loftus's profile photo
Alexandra Kotrecová's profile photo
Brian Brantner's profile photo
Lon Smith's profile photo

Martin Hecko

Shared publicly  - 
 
Jean-Baptiste Quéru originally shared:
 
Dizzying but invisible depth

You just went to the Google home page.

Simple, isn't it?

What just actually happened?

Well, when you know a bit of about how browsers work, it's not quite that simple. You've just put into play HTTP, HTML, CSS, ECMAscript, and more. Those are actually such incredibly complex technologies that they'll make any engineer dizzy if they think about them too much, and such that no single company can deal with that entire complexity.

Let's simplify.

You just connected your computer to www.google.com.

Simple, isn't it?

What just actually happened?

Well, when you know a bit about how networks work, it's not quite that simple. You've just put into play DNS, TCP, UDP, IP, Wifi, Ethernet, DOCSIS, OC, SONET, and more. Those are actually such incredibly complex technologies that they'll make any engineer dizzy if they think about them too much, and such that no single company can deal with that entire complexity.

Let's simplify.

You just typed www.google.com in the location bar of your browser.

Simple, isn't it?

What just actually happened?

Well, when you know a bit about how operating systems work, it's not quite that simple. You've just put into play a kernel, a USB host stack, an input dispatcher, an event handler, a font hinter, a sub-pixel rasterizer, a windowing system, a graphics driver, and more, all of those written in high-level languages that get processed by compilers, linkers, optimizers, interpreters, and more. Those are actually such incredibly complex technologies that they'll make any engineer dizzy if they think about them too much, and such that no single company can deal with that entire complexity.

Let's simplify.

You just pressed a key on your keyboard.

Simple, isn't it?

What just actually happened?

Well, when you know about bit about how input peripherals work, it's not quite that simple. You've just put into play a power regulator, a debouncer, an input multiplexer, a USB device stack, a USB hub stack, all of that implemented in a single chip. That chip is built around thinly sliced wafers of highly purified single-crystal silicon ingot, doped with minute quantities of other atoms that are blasted into the crystal structure, interconnected with multiple layers of aluminum or copper, that are deposited according to patterns of high-energy ultraviolet light that are focused to a precision of a fraction of a micron, connected to the outside world via thin gold wires, all inside a packaging made of a dimensionally and thermally stable resin. The doping patterns and the interconnects implement transistors, which are grouped together to create logic gates. In some parts of the chip, logic gates are combined to create arithmetic and bitwise functions, which are combined to create an ALU. In another part of the chip, logic gates are combined into bistable loops, which are lined up into rows, which are combined with selectors to create a register bank. In another part of the chip, logic gates are combined into bus controllers and instruction decoders and microcode to create an execution scheduler. In another part of the chip, they're combined into address and data multiplexers and timing circuitry to create a memory controller. There's even more. Those are actually such incredibly complex technologies that they'll make any engineer dizzy if they think about them too much, and such that no single company can deal with that entire complexity.

Can we simplify further?

In fact, very scarily, no, we can't. We can barely comprehend the complexity of a single chip in a computer keyboard, and yet there's no simpler level. The next step takes us to the software that is used to design the chip's logic, and that software itself has a level of complexity that requires to go back to the top of the loop.

Today's computers are so complex that they can only be designed and manufactured with slightly less complex computers. In turn the computers used for the design and manufacture are so complex that they themselves can only be designed and manufactured with slightly less complex computers. You'd have to go through many such loops to get back to a level that could possibly be re-built from scratch.

Once you start to understand how our modern devices work and how they're created, it's impossible to not be dizzy about the depth of everything that's involved, and to not be in awe about the fact that they work at all, when Murphy's law says that they simply shouldn't possibly work.

For non-technologists, this is all a black box. That is a great success of technology: all those layers of complexity are entirely hidden and people can use them without even knowing that they exist at all. That is the reason why many people can find computers so frustrating to use: there are so many things that can possibly go wrong that some of them inevitably will, but the complexity goes so deep that it's impossible for most users to be able to do anything about any error.

That is also why it's so hard for technologists and non-technologists to communicate together: technologists know too much about too many layers and non-technologists know too little about too few layers to be able to establish effective direct communication. The gap is so large that it's not even possible any more to have a single person be an intermediate between those two groups, and that's why e.g. we end up with those convoluted technical support call centers and their multiple tiers. Without such deep support structures, you end up with the frustrating situation that we see when end users have access to a bug database that is directly used by engineers: neither the end users nor the engineers get the information that they need to accomplish their goals.

That is why the mainstream press and the general population has talked so much about Steve Jobs' death and comparatively so little about Dennis Ritchie's: Steve's influence was at a layer that most people could see, while Dennis' was much deeper. On the one hand, I can imagine where the computing world would be without the work that Jobs did and the people he inspired: probably a bit less shiny, a bit more beige, a bit more square. Deep inside, though, our devices would still work the same way and do the same things. On the other hand, I literally can't imagine where the computing world would be without the work that Ritchie did and the people he inspired. By the mid 80s, Ritchie's influence had taken over, and even back then very little remained of the pre-Ritchie world.

Finally, last but not least, that is why our patent system is broken: technology has done such an amazing job at hiding its complexity that the people regulating and running the patent system are barely even aware of the complexity of what they're regulating and running. That's the ultimate bikeshedding: just like the proverbial discussions in the town hall about a nuclear power plant end up being about the paint color for the plant's bike shed, the patent discussions about modern computing systems end up being about screen sizes and icon ordering, because in both cases those are the only aspect that the people involved in the discussion are capable of discussing, even though they are irrelevant to the actual function of the overall system being discussed.
2
Add a comment...

Martin Hecko

Shared publicly  - 
 
Here is your daily dose of satire.
1
Add a comment...

Martin Hecko

Shared publicly  - 
 
Looking for a pair of high quality home use surround sound wireless headphones. I want to watch movies with my boyfriend late at night, but since I live in an old building in San Francisco sound carries a little too well.

The requirements are that the headphones are comfortable, support surround sound processing and are wireless. Ideally there should be one sending base station that can support two pairs, but I am willing to get two base stations, if I must. They should also not interfere (at least too much) with WiFi.

So far I looked at the Sennheiser RS 180 and Ear Force (no, seriously, that’s the name of the headphones) PX 5. Anybody has experience with these?

What do you say +Leigh Caplan, +Colin Bayer ?
1
Duncan Clark's profile photo
 
No experience with those models specifically, but having set up wireless headphones for people, I have noticed that sometimes you need to move the wireless away from being between the couch and the TV to make it work correctly. But usually as long as the WiFi is not directly in between, I have not had too many issues.
Add a comment...

Martin Hecko

Shared publicly  - 
 
Really wish Google+ had a way to do boolean operations on my circles. For example I would like my default stream be all people minus the people in my Following circle.

I am trying to use the Following circle as a Twitter replacement, but there are few prolific personalities in it. This means Friends/Family/Acquaintances circles get drowned out.

Alternatively it would be great to be able to have subcircles or be able to group circles together.
1
Martin Hecko's profile photoDaniel O.'s profile photoPeter G's profile photoDuncan Clark's profile photo
4 comments
Peter G
 
yeah! and be able to do it by dragging the circles, moving them, none of this clicking check boxes crap... lets move FORWARD in the way we do things people! I moved away from Windows for this very reason!
Add a comment...
Martin Hecko was tagged in a photo.

Martin Hecko

Shared publicly  - 
1
People
In his circles
97 people
Have him in circles
91 people
Peter G's profile photo
Ronald Decker's profile photo
Daniel Loftus's profile photo
Alexandra Kotrecová's profile photo
Brian Brantner's profile photo
Lon Smith's profile photo
Basic Information
Gender
Male
Story
Tagline
Emperor in training
Links
Other profiles
Contributor to