I hope to make interview episodes a regular thing. I did not feel as nervous as I usually do with interviews, but I found out I was unprepared. Jeff didn't seem to be bothered by that, thank goodness. Barring a few sound issues, I think it came out okay, and I hope you enjoy it.
Great job, Ferg! I like that you're vocally responsive when the interview subject says something interesting, rather than silent and accidentally rude like some interviewers I could name.
I'm glad you brought up the accidents that a couple of robotic cars have caused. I hope those things go the way of the eight-track tape. We're giving technology too much control (and too many human jobs), which isn't to mention that anything computerized can be hacked. The implications are scary.
Jeff didn't seem to remember much about writing the Deadly Discs program, but he had plenty to talk about anyway, and you asked great questions. And of course a guy who never made it past the novice level of game programming is going to retain the impression that the Intellivision is "better" than the 2600 -- the BIOS that he mentioned, named the Exec, makes things easier on the coder by taking quite a bit of control away from him. Certain mechanics to which the Exec is beholden lead to less flexibility, which is one reason why the character movement in Intellivision games tends to be choppy, whereas most 2600 games exhibit very smooth action. Comparing both versions of Deadly Discs provides a great example. The character movement in the Intellivision game is inferior.
The fact that the writer of a 2600 program has to set everything up himself, including the very display routine, makes the console incredibly flexible (hence going from Star Ship to the likes of H.E.R.O.).
There are plenty of Intellivision games I like a lot, in case I'm coming off critical -- I'm no brand loyalist -- but they tend to be later games. Activision, in particular, got the system to perform very smoothly by going around the Exec that Jeff and other inexperienced programmers liked so much because of how much it did automatically. (Third-party companies couldn't even have used the Exec if they wanted to, as it wasn't their property.)
Anyway, thanks again for conducting and uploading the cool interview!
Last Edit: Jan 25, 2019 17:47:20 GMT -5 by Chris++
Post by fergojisan on Jan 26, 2019 21:50:38 GMT -5
Thanks guys. I'm on your side Chris, self driving cars scare me. Trains are on rails but they still have drivers as far as I know.
As far as the Intellivision Exec, you are absolutely right. I wish I had thought of that when I was speaking with him. I actually edited out a lot of the responses I made, they seemed unnecessary and intrusive at times. But I would rather it be a conversation than me having questions written down and asking them in a row. I would rather build upon what my subject is saying, it can lead into some fun areas. I just need to practice more.
If it wasn't for disappointment, I wouldn't have any appointments.
I am more scared of the idiotic and distracted drivers than of self-driving cars. I avoid accidents almost daily because of the idiots on the road. A self-driving car is doing only one thing: driving. By the way, from what I've read, almost every time a self-driving car has been involved in an accident, it has been due to human error. Either the other driver or the person in the self-driving car does something. Seldom has it been a problem with the technology.
And that's how they're going to gradually replace human jobs with robots, with almost no protesting: claiming convenience and / or safety. It's the same way they're replacing grocery-store workers with those infernal self-checkout machines, and how the intrusion of electronics into flesh was normalized with pet microchips (and cell phones, if you really think about it). I was afraid that some people would then be dumb enough to let themselves be frightened into chipping their kids, and my friends thought I was nuts. Now people are doing it. I wish that just once, I could be wrong, and my predictions wouldn't come true!
That stuff might not seem related to robotic cars, but it's about giving up human control to technology, which places a lot of power in the hands of very few people, i.e. those in control of that technology. Robotic cars are hackable like any computerized device, so I can just imagine some near-future conversations:
"Did you hear about Joey? He said something that someone in charge didn't like, so his car went into a tree! I guess they don't need to give anyone the Texas convertible ride anymore."
"Yeah, they turned my sister's chip off. Now she can't use her wrist to scan anything, so she can't get into her bank account, unlock her front door, buy anything......I'm staying away from her and shutting up if my opinions don't go along with the status quo, 'cause I don't want my chip turned off, too!"
This might sound weird, but I'll take the accident risks on the road, versus giving up any more human control. It's not worth it, just to save a few thousand lives a year. The greater good demands that we keep human jobs human, and resist allowing more technology into our lives. We should have stopped with the CD burner. There's such a thing as "progressing" too much.
Y'know, I never used to talk like this. Overnight, I became a pseudo-Luddite or something. Those two-way speakers that the evil Googles (or is it the Amazons?) are managing to sell to people blow my mind. People are wire-tapping their own homes! Didn't anyone read 1984?
It's called progress. You can't stop it. We don't do things like we did in the 19th century. Do we? Of course not. I'm sure many were angry about progress back then as well. It didn't stop change from coming. Also, technology is neither good nor bad. How we choose to use it is what matters.
Fair enough, and I wish I could apply my usual optimism (believe it or not) and just think, "Well, yes -- that's progress." But is it? Or is it just the opposite, at least in the way -- as you've indicated -- it's being used?