Regarding the quote about the British East India Company, it's worth noting that employees of the company had notoriously poor pay and were half-expected to set up their own personal ventures while in India to support themselves. The company was also poorly administered, and there was almost certainly a great deal of embezzlement going on (in response to the poor pay). So while the expected mathematics was probably comparatively simple, the numbers probably didn't add up (which is the kind of thing we'd expect a Commons committee to inquire into).
It was naked looting. Not just in India by individuals working for the company, but as official acts of the East India Company itself back home in England. A quote:
"In 1767 the company bought off parliamentary opposition by donating £400,000 to the Crown in return for its continued right to govern Bengal. But the anger against it finally reached ignition point on 13 February 1788, at the impeachment, for looting and corruption, of Clive’s successor as governor of Bengal, Warren Hastings. It was the nearest the British ever got to putting the EIC on trial, and they did so with one of their greatest orators at the helm – Edmund Burke.
"Burke, leading the prosecution, railed against the way the returned company “nabobs” (or “nobs”, both corruptions of the Urdu word “Nawab”) were buying parliamentary influence, not just by bribing MPs to vote for their interests, but by corruptly using their Indian plunder to bribe their way into parliamentary office: “To-day the Commons of Great Britain prosecutes the delinquents of India,” thundered Burke, referring to the returned nabobs. “Tomorrow these delinquents of India may be the Commons of Great Britain.”
The revolving door between government and the corporations it was supposed to regulate, was also spinning:
"Lord Cornwallis, the man who oversaw the loss of the American colonies to Washington, was recruited by the EIC to oversee its Indian territories."
The above quotes are from "The Anarchy" by William Dalrymple.
I'm sometimes still curious if EIC ever had a chance to take over UK. It's because I've heard someone claiming that they never had that chance. And this is used as a basis for an argument that corporations can never win against nation-state and that cyberpunk will never happen irl (at least the ultracorps part).
Ah such a shame to miss out mentioning the not so well known Radhanath Sikdar the first person, employed as a computer, to accurately calculate the height of Mount Everest
Sometime when you're in a used bookstore, thrift store or yard sale, keep an eye out for very old dictionaries, and if found, look up the word "conputer". You will find the proof of the human occupant of this definition surprisingly recently (as in 1930s)
This is why so many early computing machines' names ended in "AC" for Automatic Calculaor or Automatic Computer. EDVAC, EDSAC, UNIVAC, though not ENIAC.
I wonder what we’ve lost, with the loss of human computers. It seems like it would be a nice job that rewards diligence and intelligence. Nowadays pretty much all intellectual work rewards creativity, almost exclusively… the machines are infinitely diligent, so it doesn’t provide much value add when the human is too.
I dunno. It just seems kind of sad, in a way, like we’ve dropped a whole entire way of being seen as intelligent.
A large part of accounting is intellectual work that rewards diligence and intelligence, but not creativity so much. A lot of QA/certification jobs are like this too. It's important stuff that involves a lot of "checking".
Thanks for pointing out this section, but "race baiting garbage" is a strong term, no?
There were historical inaccuracies, some of which I expected like timeline issues and things like that, as well some things which were actually true that I did not expect (John Glenn asking for the calculations personally). In the end it is a movie meant to spark interest in NASA / science and tell a compelling story about people who helped us during a time before the Civil Rights Act. To call it "race baiting garbage" is overly dismissive and I think exposes an alarming personal bias.
Thank you for pointing out that section. I wasn't aware of those storytelling compromises specifically, and some of them are annoying.
I said "drama" rather than "documentary" because I was sure there were storytelling compromises, but I agree with you that I think some of the compromises this section describes are not OK, when we're talking about real events and real people.
Knowing that the filmmakers made some choices that I think cross the line, I don't know whether I'd enjoy re-watching it, or just find the mistakes irritating to the point that I couldn't enjoy the rest of the film.
As the section goes on, it discusses some of the challenges (e.g., the need for composite characters), and some of the criticisms and dialogue around the filmmakers' choices.
Finding out "computer" was a job title because precise calculation was so hard to find makes me feel less bad about needing a calculator for basic arithmetic.
Regarding the quote about the British East India Company, it's worth noting that employees of the company had notoriously poor pay and were half-expected to set up their own personal ventures while in India to support themselves. The company was also poorly administered, and there was almost certainly a great deal of embezzlement going on (in response to the poor pay). So while the expected mathematics was probably comparatively simple, the numbers probably didn't add up (which is the kind of thing we'd expect a Commons committee to inquire into).
> half-expected to set up their own personal ventures while in India to support themselves
"ventures" like a small business or is that a euphemism for taking bribes or said embezzlement?
It was naked looting. Not just in India by individuals working for the company, but as official acts of the East India Company itself back home in England. A quote:
"In 1767 the company bought off parliamentary opposition by donating £400,000 to the Crown in return for its continued right to govern Bengal. But the anger against it finally reached ignition point on 13 February 1788, at the impeachment, for looting and corruption, of Clive’s successor as governor of Bengal, Warren Hastings. It was the nearest the British ever got to putting the EIC on trial, and they did so with one of their greatest orators at the helm – Edmund Burke.
"Burke, leading the prosecution, railed against the way the returned company “nabobs” (or “nobs”, both corruptions of the Urdu word “Nawab”) were buying parliamentary influence, not just by bribing MPs to vote for their interests, but by corruptly using their Indian plunder to bribe their way into parliamentary office: “To-day the Commons of Great Britain prosecutes the delinquents of India,” thundered Burke, referring to the returned nabobs. “Tomorrow these delinquents of India may be the Commons of Great Britain.”
The revolving door between government and the corporations it was supposed to regulate, was also spinning:
"Lord Cornwallis, the man who oversaw the loss of the American colonies to Washington, was recruited by the EIC to oversee its Indian territories."
The above quotes are from "The Anarchy" by William Dalrymple.
I'm sometimes still curious if EIC ever had a chance to take over UK. It's because I've heard someone claiming that they never had that chance. And this is used as a basis for an argument that corporations can never win against nation-state and that cyberpunk will never happen irl (at least the ultracorps part).
Ah such a shame to miss out mentioning the not so well known Radhanath Sikdar the first person, employed as a computer, to accurately calculate the height of Mount Everest
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radhanath_Sikdar
Sometime when you're in a used bookstore, thrift store or yard sale, keep an eye out for very old dictionaries, and if found, look up the word "conputer". You will find the proof of the human occupant of this definition surprisingly recently (as in 1930s)
https://www.etymonline.com/word/computer is also relevant here.
This is why so many early computing machines' names ended in "AC" for Automatic Calculaor or Automatic Computer. EDVAC, EDSAC, UNIVAC, though not ENIAC.
I wonder what we’ve lost, with the loss of human computers. It seems like it would be a nice job that rewards diligence and intelligence. Nowadays pretty much all intellectual work rewards creativity, almost exclusively… the machines are infinitely diligent, so it doesn’t provide much value add when the human is too.
I dunno. It just seems kind of sad, in a way, like we’ve dropped a whole entire way of being seen as intelligent.
A large part of accounting is intellectual work that rewards diligence and intelligence, but not creativity so much. A lot of QA/certification jobs are like this too. It's important stuff that involves a lot of "checking".
I expect it would have been a very dull job.
A good movie drama about some of the human computers for NASA, and some of the prejudices that these particular ones faced:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_Figures
That movie is race baiting garbage.
Skip to the Historical Accuracy section of that page.
Thanks for pointing out this section, but "race baiting garbage" is a strong term, no?
There were historical inaccuracies, some of which I expected like timeline issues and things like that, as well some things which were actually true that I did not expect (John Glenn asking for the calculations personally). In the end it is a movie meant to spark interest in NASA / science and tell a compelling story about people who helped us during a time before the Civil Rights Act. To call it "race baiting garbage" is overly dismissive and I think exposes an alarming personal bias.
> but "race baiting garbage" is a strong term, no?
No. Read the Historical Accuracy section. The movie made up a bunch of pointless racial conflict that literally didn't happen.
> In the end it is a movie meant to spark interest in NASA / scienc
No it's not, the movie is virtually entirely about race relations at NASA and lying about what really happened there.
It's not merely the timeline but the substance, try reading it again. Nobody was every actually banned from bathrooms.
Thank you for pointing out that section. I wasn't aware of those storytelling compromises specifically, and some of them are annoying.
I said "drama" rather than "documentary" because I was sure there were storytelling compromises, but I agree with you that I think some of the compromises this section describes are not OK, when we're talking about real events and real people.
Knowing that the filmmakers made some choices that I think cross the line, I don't know whether I'd enjoy re-watching it, or just find the mistakes irritating to the point that I couldn't enjoy the rest of the film.
As the section goes on, it discusses some of the challenges (e.g., the need for composite characters), and some of the criticisms and dialogue around the filmmakers' choices.
Finding out "computer" was a job title because precise calculation was so hard to find makes me feel less bad about needing a calculator for basic arithmetic.
We have a word for that: Lawyers!
the other blog posts are pretty interesting too