Meh. I was planning on re-reading it too, because I have close to zero recollection of anything but the barest outline. Pretty sure the last time I read it was 25+ years ago.
Thought this was a good listen on techbros, their love of sci-fi, and their basic inability to actually read sci-fi.
in other news:
https://twitter.com/lukeisamazing/status/1456779410191880201?s=20
It was striking how little curiosity anyone in this segment seemed to have about the influence of sci-fi on notable tech bros. It’s notionally the subject of the piece, but the only actual fact cited is that “Metaverse” is the name of the virtual world in Snow Crash.
EDIT: Here’s more from Jill Lepore, a purported historian, arguing that Musk is deeply influenced by an obscure political movement that his grandfather (who died when Musk was 3) was active in in the 1930s:
Foundation could be so good. The Terminus storyline is beyond boring and the Gaal stuff is also pretty bad. Can we just make a spin-off on the Cleons and the robot overlord/underlord secretly running the entire galaxy?
They also mention that Elon is purportedly a Hitchiker’s Guide fan and Bezos cites ST:TNG.
But, the lack of any meaningful influence of sci-fi on techbros was kind of the point? These guys all cite the surface-level trappings of pop sci-fi without seeming to have actually read or understood the books they namecheck. In the case of Meta, it’s especially hilarious that Facebook has lifted the buzzword without the slightest bit of self-awareness.
I watched In the Shadow of the Moon last night - it was really good. Plot line ripped from today’s headlines!
I also watched Level 16, which wasn’t bad either, especially if you replace the girls with lab chimps in your mind.
2 Likes
If the thesis is that various tech bros took the wrong lessons from various works, is it not significant what lessons they took from them? I mean, I’ll buy that Zuck is a complete poser and just lifted the name Metaverse, but how does Musk understand Hitchhikers Guide and what’s mistaken or deficient about his interpretation? He’s been interviewed about it:
So then I read ‘Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy,’ which is quite positive, I think, and it highlighted an important point, which is that a lot of times the question is harder than the answer. And if you can properly phrase the question, then the answer is the easy part,” Musk said.
“So, to the degree that we can better understand the universe, then we can better know what questions to ask, then whatever the question is that most approximates: What’s the meaning of life? That’s the question we can ultimately get closer to understanding. And so I thought to the degree that we can expand the scope and scale of consciousness and knowledge, then that would be a good thing.”
Is this how the books should be interpreted? Is the interpretation missing something? It would be very interesting to hear some people discuss that on a podcast! What did Bezos glean from Star Trek, other than that it might be possible to use some of its catchphrases for branding purposes? More great podcast material!
EDIT: It turns out that the podcast was a respin of an essay that Lepore wrote, which does have a tiny bit of its notional subject matter, although it’s buried under even more free-associating: