Close
Field Notes

Here’s why you should learn to code on a potato [Rant]

April 25, 2023

Okay, okay, let me be clear: I’m not talking about the delicious, versatile, edible, literal potato. I’m talking about the metaphorical potato – which is a term sometimes used to describe low-end computer hardware.

Now why, you may ask, should you learn computer science on dingy, old, slow, and underpowered hardware? Shouldn’t you strive for the most powerful piece of silicon you can get your grubby little fingers on? See, I beg to differ – I personally think that being limited by your hardware can make you a better programmer.

So what’s led me to this observation? The answer is CS 2261 at Georgia Tech. CS 2261, officially titled “Media Device Architecture”, is a course essentially dedicated to learning about the intricacies and programming games for the Game Boy Advance (GBA). The GBA is, affectionately speaking, a potato. It wasn’t particularly powerful when it released in 2001, and over two decades of technological advancements since then have not done it any favors. That’s not to say the GBA is bad hardware by any means – it was remarkable when it was released, balancing good performancem, low cost, and excellent battery life. However, the single-core ARM7TDMI clocked at 16.78 MHz is ancient by today’s standards.

Programming games for the GBA, however, has made me an immensely better programmer. Working around the limitations of the old clunky machine (via an emulator) has taught me a lot about making code more optimized and efficient. When you’re working with hardware that stutters and chugs when you draw one extra rectangle, you really start to pay attention to just how inefficient code can be.

I feel that as hardware gets faster and faster, software developers tend to care less and less about making code refined. Especially in the age of iterative development and Agile, it seems that more and more emphasis is being placed on just getting working code out into production and implementing as many features as a team can cobble together. It’s not such a big deal, as the hardware is powerful enough to make inefficiencies unnoticeable.

I think this way of thinking is born from an unfortunate combination of human laziness (I certainly am) and industry expectations. The innate human desire to seek out the shortest path to completion and the industry’s insatiable thirst for more and more features combines and compounds to create absolute monstrosities. However, I fear that this way of doing things is unsustainable.

At the end of the day, computers are magical little boxes that uses electricity to turn inputs into outputs. However, we live in an age where humanity heavily relies on computation, and in an age where energy usage is becoming an increasing concern. One line of poorly optimized code might be insignificant, but an overall bloated software base probably contributes to a whole lot of energy waste.

Not to mention, making games for an iconic console is pretty cool too.

0Likes
About Author

Steven is a pretty cool and awesome person who occasionally writes about himself in the third person.

You May Also Like

Field Notes, today i learned (til), vintage science
The Ballad of Gringo Perdido
Field Notes, Story Time, today i learned (til)
Collaboration is Key!
Articles, Field Notes, today i learned (til)
Three Dog Star Night (Part 1)
tide gauge kim cobb
Field Notes, today i learned (til)
Gauging the Tides of Climate Change

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.