I think the essay was more about double checking the assumptions and particular world views we bring with us when we write code. Even the most mundane software can distinctly embody specific views that some might take for granted, not acknowledging that others have genuine reasons for viewing that specific dynamic differently.
We need to be willing to explore the assumptions, known or unknown, that we carry with us when we create software.
Software doesn't exist in a vacuum. It is part of a rich, ever changing context of culture, social systems, and all the messiness of being human.
Each human action is the expression of a complex set of viewpoints, and technology is not perfectly neutral. I think, occasionally, some (not all) hackerish types are less interested in exploring this side of things and think they can avoid it by sticking with software. The essay was trying to remind people that you can't truly avoid expressing viewpoints with your actions, even in software.
> We need to be willing to explore the assumptions, known or unknown, that we carry with us when we create software.
Hear, hear.
I have two other longstanding favorite examinations-of-assumptions pieces: "Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Names"[0], and "Five Geek Social Fallacies"[1]
We need to be willing to explore the assumptions, known or unknown, that we carry with us when we create software.
Software doesn't exist in a vacuum. It is part of a rich, ever changing context of culture, social systems, and all the messiness of being human.
Each human action is the expression of a complex set of viewpoints, and technology is not perfectly neutral. I think, occasionally, some (not all) hackerish types are less interested in exploring this side of things and think they can avoid it by sticking with software. The essay was trying to remind people that you can't truly avoid expressing viewpoints with your actions, even in software.