Does this analogy about computers work?

Discussion in 'Science Fiction' started by NomDeGuerre, Oct 10, 2016.

  1. NomDeGuerre
    Offline

    NomDeGuerre Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2015
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    2
    Okay, I'm just gonna open it up. How can I use the words, "silicon chip" or "hardware" or "etched circuits" or any other computer-ese and still make sense??? "Programmed to lose" is about as non-computer and generic as they come.
     
  2. Cave Troll
    Offline

    Cave Troll Damn! Lost another one. :P Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2015
    Messages:
    4,212
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Location:
    Where cushions are comfy, and straps hold firm.
    Defective. :p
     
  3. ChickenFreak
    Offline

    ChickenFreak Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    9,218
    Likes Received:
    5,736
    "Programmed"? Programming? How is that non-computer? What I do on my computer, at work, is usually programming.

    Edited to add:

    pro·gram·ming
    ˈprōˌɡramiNG/
    noun
    noun: programming
    1 1.
    the action or process of writing computer programs.

    Edited again, because my brain can't get over its confusion. You want a line of code, but programming--which is the act of writing lines of code--is non-computer? Arrrr?

    Edited one last time: Buh?
     
  4. christinacantwrite
    Offline

    christinacantwrite Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2016
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    39
    Saying someone is 'programmed' to do something is a figure of speech which is used colloquially so it might not conjure up the same image as silicon chips and the like (which are only mentioned in computer-related conversations). To a non-programmer reader it might not come across as a specifically computer-related analogy.

    Honestly, the original analogy read okay to me. I'm not a programmer so I wasn't sure if it technically worked but I understood the meaning.

    But how about: "he was programmed to lose like a calculator was programmed to divide and multiply numbers". Or something more accurate but along those lines.
     
  5. Lew
    Offline

    Lew Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2015
    Messages:
    630
    Likes Received:
    427
    Relax, am I the only one that found this a good metaphor?

    FUNCTION REAL ADD (REAL A, B)
    BEGIN
    ADD=A+B
    RETURN ADD
    END

    OK, so this is more pseudo code than C or PASCAL but I am a bit rusty. But it is pretty irrefutable... all it does is return the sum of the two arguments A and B.

    I like the metaphor, and @NomDeGuerre, write for yourself, not for us.
     
  6. NomDeGuerre
    Offline

    NomDeGuerre Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2015
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    2
    Okay, last try -- what about THIS? :brb:
    It was a substrate reality, deeper than appearance, as a silicon chip is to a computer.
     
  7. ChickenFreak
    Offline

    ChickenFreak Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    9,218
    Likes Received:
    5,736
    I fear that I'm not following it.
     
    LinnyV likes this.
  8. big soft moose
    Offline

    big soft moose Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2016
    Messages:
    2,039
    Likes Received:
    1,467
    Location:
    Driving a tractuur in ciduur countree
    I think your bigger problem here is the show don't tell thing - don't tell us thast hes one of MITs brightest students , show us him being intelligent , don't tell us that he's a loser , show us him being a loser

    if you really want to keep the telling you don't need the metaphor. "I might be one of MIT's brightest students, but i'm still a loser" doesnt need a metaphor to explain it , we all know what a loser is , so adding some computer stuff doesnt actually add anything to our understanding of the character.

    That aside you're also over thinking the issue, adding something like ' he felt that being a loser was part of his operating system, that there was nothing he could do to change it' would serve your purpose (of course a user can change the operating system but the computer itself on which it isntalled cannot) , but i'd really advise not bothering
     
    ChickenFreak and Shadowfax like this.
  9. EnginEsq
    Offline

    EnginEsq Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2016
    Messages:
    176
    Likes Received:
    114
    Being a loser seems to be something your MC considers hard-coded into his firmware, as immutable as Godwin's Law, and as inevitable as a page fault.

    "Godwin's Law" is an Internet law. If you want to use a good CS/CSEE law instead, Amdahl's Law is a good alternative of something considered immutable.

    Page faults are inevitable in any modern OS, and appropriately enough, they aren't usually a fault at all, just an efficient method of signaling to the processor that a virtual memory operation is needed. Sometimes a page fault might actually be indicating a fault, but usually a page fault is considered a feature, and that might be how the character feels about being a loser.

    "Irrefutable" means "you can't prove it isn't true," which didn't seem to be what you were looking for.

    Note that I'm an old computer geek, 3 decades in CS R&D, so I might not be up on what the "1337 haxors" think is cool stuff.
     
  10. Neural
    Offline

    Neural Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2016
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    18
    Gotta disagree there. It's amazing what a single line of code can do when you do something like...forget to put it in (that would be me and do_while loops that need to increment x at the end of the set of statements in the loop).

    The closest thing to something being "irrefutable" in programming would be constants. For instance, the constant PI. Pi is simply part of the core of the programming language, and is equal to
    3.141592653589793238462643383 (32bit). It simply IS. It cannot be changed, it can only be referenced, but as mentioned above, that falls more into the "immutable" category.

    So you could say: "loser" in his mind, was no more subjective than any given constant such as PI or SQRT2.

    Again, regarding the term "immutable". Irrefutable is not going to work. Something that is irrefutable is a fact that has no evidence against it (i.e. gravity will make you fall if you jump off a roof (please do not try this at home, or anywhere else)). Programming doesn't quite work that way. At least not in a short and sweet method that could be inserted into a single sentence without requiring an entire page or so to explain to the readers (whom you've lost at this point) how the code works.

    I would suggest going with something like:
    He was one of MIT's brightest students. And also a complete loser. "Loser" was not, in his mind, a subjective term. It was no different than a constant such as Pi, as it was simply immutable.

    Definitely leave functions out of it. You're going to lose a number of your readers there. Only a small number are going to know what a funciton is. A larger number of them *might* know what a variable is, but using "constant" is a more general term that works outside of programming, but also within it. Thus it should be received by a wider audience.

    *edit*: for the other programmers that might read this, my constants, if odd, are pulled from the Linden Scripting Language, which is specific to the virtual world Second Life.
     
    Simpson17866 likes this.
  11. tonguetied
    Offline

    tonguetied Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    May 23, 2014
    Messages:
    568
    Likes Received:
    229
    Location:
    Central Florida: land of fire and sand
    "He was one of MIT's brightest students. And also a complete loser like a program that always resulted with division by zero. He was an irrefutable zero."
     
  12. Rosacrvx
    Offline

    Rosacrvx Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2016
    Messages:
    138
    Likes Received:
    58
    Location:
    Lisbon, Portugal
    This conversation has become too nerd-y for me, (no offense), so I'll go back to the first sentence:

    He was one of MIT’s brightest students. And also a complete loser. “Loser” was not, in his mind, a subjective term. It was as irrefutable as a line of code that corresponded to a very specific function.

    I think that the word you want here is "executed".

    as a line of code that executed a very specific function.

    (Isn't that what a line of code does, execute something? If it's not, my apologies, and please correct me.)
    I think I get @NomDeGuerre 's idea. Being a loser was irrefutable as a line of code that executed a specific function in his life, which was to be a loser no matter what he did, a never ending cycle of being a loser. He didn't even try to fight it anymore, he was utterly used/resigned to the self-notion that he was a loser. At least that's what I got from the sentence. (Hoping that the character will think differently of himself later, perhaps.)

    But @NomDeGuerre , @izzybot 's right:

    Right on. You'll have this problem each time you want to make a computer metaphor. Maybe you can keep it to just this one analogy. Bearing in mind that most people don't understand geek language either, maybe it's for the best. I started reading this thread and gave up around the second page when people started writing code. :D
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2016
  13. amerrigan
    Offline

    amerrigan Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2016
    Messages:
    66
    Likes Received:
    31
    Well, considering that the original sentence is about 'either you are a loser or you are not a loser'... I thought the obvious computer reference would be 'binary'

    Whether or not he was a loser wasn't subjective, it was binary. 1 = loser. 0 = not a loser. He was 1.
     

Share This Page