Hackers in the Bazaar - Clayton Carroll

 I think that Paul Graham's pitch about startups is a fair assessment of the impact that tech-based startups in particular have had over the job landscape in the past 20-30 years. A lot of the most successful tech companies were born out of startups. However, I believe that the average startup is far less profitable than Paul Graham would like to believe. I think that the vast, vast majority of startups fail within the initial designing and testing phase, and don't make it to full production. These are usually unseen and fairly unheard of, as most of the strife that the startup accumulates is all internal and within the first weeks or months of the idea spawning. Most of these failed startups are heavily unprofitable, and depending on the amount bought in to the startup, tend to accumulate a lot of debt. I think that applying and joining an already mildly successful startup, as Graham says, is a much better and more reliable way to get rich, as a lot of the financial burden and

 "Programming languages are not just technology, but what programmers think in" is a very interesting statement, that I agree with and also do not agree with. I agree that when I personally am coding in a language, it does feel like I am thinking in that language, as in the verbiage my internal dialogue thinks in is definitely tied directly to the keywords that programming language uses. However, I do not think really that all programmers think in their own specific language, as interspersed with those keywords are chunks of thought that are larger than the unique language. This includes simple thoughts such as "I need the array to be larger" or "I can't believe this is not working correctly". As pedantic as it is, I do think that that fundamental difference disqualifies me, at least, for 'thinking in a programming language'.  On another note, I do believe that there are 'stronger' programming languages than others. However, I think tha

 I think that Paul Graham is an interesting figure after reading these essays, and to be honest, I agree and disagree with him wildly on many different subjects. One particularly major thing that I disagree with is The Conformist Test. I fall under the category of someone that would not be reluctant to share my views around my peers - and I think that is not because of conformity, but because of my relationship with my own beliefs. It has taken me a very long time to understand what I truly believe, and those beliefs come from many different areas and experiences of life that are important to me. I would love to talk to my peers about any of these beliefs, why I hold them, and what impact they could have on society. Some topics may be hard to express due to the nature of the problem (IE politics), but that doesn't mean that I should be reluctant to share those views in front of people. I think that I think this way because I grew up a marginalized nerd, partially due to sexual orie

 My first initial point that I thought was interesting was the phrase used right at the start "We'll figure two months... Programmers always lie"(page 230). I didn't know that this was a stereotype that ever was present surrounding programmers. I think the addition of this was good however, because it set the tone for how people like Ken started to view programmers and gave an interesting insight into how different Game Hackers were being treated as opposed to the other hackers that we have discussed before. The marketability of programming changing so drastically in just the space of a couple of years feels eerily similar to how the marketplace for programmers changed after generative AI started to influence corporations, but in a lot more different and indirect way, over a lot shorter time span. Another interesting thing that I noticed as well was the integration of fantasy and nerd culture intertwined with computer nerd culture with the game 'Adventure'. Ga

 From the get go and forwards into this section of the book, I started to realize I truly did not like this part as much as the last one. Which is weird, because I agree a lot with the sentiments and statements regarding using computers as political tools, and regarding the use of computers for the every-person, and not just the 'elite' or 'extreme hobbyists'. I think a lot of the reason I did not like this section was due to the shift in writing style. Every paragraph is littered with new public figures, most of which do not have second mentions, and multiple name-drops of either important people or important computers like its a Marvel movie. The Steve Wozniak name drop at the end of the paragraph on page 159 is a good example of this. Do I think that this changes the overall intention and meaning of the section? No, but I think it gets in the way a little. I think the overall intention of this chapter is to display the major differences in the way people started to i

 I used to believe that a "true hacker" was someone who would go out of the bounds of the law in order to provide a tool or service that was being limited. My main knowledge of this came from stories and documentaries about DRM bypass hackers for pirated video games or other things. The images in my head would surround the classic movie-style hackers with dingy basements, hoodies, and Dorito dust fingers. The first section of the book really did help me lean away from this concept. Hackers are nerds who are passionate about computing, technology, and the like. Samson and the other members of the TMRC fell in love with these large computers, and had a passion for being some of the first non-professional programmers. I would like to be like these hackers, with an unquenchable thirst for computing knowledge. In a way, I kind of already am. I do love computers, I love what they can do and what they offer from business, technology, and gaming perspectives. Do I think I would have