Live data from Hacker News

Reality has a surprising amount of detail (2017)

johnsalvatier.org

11–20 of 120 posts

Re: Reality has a surprising amount of detail (2017)

#11

This is why I think people should still learn their job through hands-on apprenticeship, as opposed to a lot of book-learning in the classroom. In fact I think people do still learn their jobs that way. It's just delayed by several years of book-learning that has little return on investment. When you finally land your job, your first few months are when you really start learning enough to become useful. Disclaimer: I…

I see this wrt. Software Development all the time. There are Tons of Online Curses, Books and other self learning material but:

1. Completely self learned people are more often prone to develop some bad habits or worse have some subtil but fundamental misunderstandings which are hard to get out of them. (in my experience)

2. Often just a view month with proper guidance can have much better effects then a year+ of self study or "isolated" experience. The problem most times not the general ideas but the details, wrt. the situations for which there are no clear rules you can "just" apply. And often making a wrong decisions doesn't matter that much and sometimes fall under "programming style", but there are hundreds of such small decisions and making many somewhat suboptimal decisions can easily pill up and cause serious problems.

Best example is KISS (Keep it Stupid Simple). Seems easy right, but what does simple mean? Is less code more simple. Are less sanity checks or maybe less validation more simple (due to less additional complexity in them)? Is using less abstractions more simple, even if more abstraction allow you to have code which is harder to get wrong when writing/changing it, _assuming_ you got the abstraction right? Is it more simple to sometimes just repeat yourself, or should you keep strictly to DRY? Is it more simple to sometimes explicitly write out type which would be inferred anyway? What about kinda unnecessary temporary variables? What if it's like `var valid = ...; if valid { }`? What about splitting functions, is it more simple to have 2 pseudo independent sub-functions you will not reuse or one slightly to large function where everything is in the same place?

The answer is always: It depends on the exact situation.

There is no clear cut definition of simple. The best would probably be based on code readability.

But then is it more readable to have one large function body or to split it into sub-functions which are well named but to which you have to explicitly navigate to "fully" understand all details of that function?

Sure we do have guidelines and they allow you to generally get it right (well ok, if you use some good guidelines, there are many bad ones, too). But there is a limit on how much you can learn from them and the rest needs practice. But many problems only show if you do large projects by yourself _and care to maintain and reflect on them, and come to the right conclusion unbiased by the programming language induced bubble you are in_ which is super time consuming. (So guidance is important, but hardly done as many companies do not plan in any time for that at all).

Re: Reality has a surprising amount of detail (2017)

#12

I think this is an argument against the "we live in a simulator" idea - the amount of detail is just too much.

I think this is an argument for the "we live in a simulator" idea - details appear just when they are needed and whenever we think we completely discovered something, another layer of details opens beneath us.

Re: Reality has a surprising amount of detail (2017)

#13

I think this is an argument against the "we live in a simulator" idea - the amount of detail is just too much.

FWIW I think that simulation theory is fairly obviously bunk, but that's not really an argument. We have no frame of reference for the nature of the simulator, including its constraints and the level of detail it can manage.

Fair point. But I think that a lot of the support for the "we live in a simulation" idea is because we see ourselves able to produce better and better simulations, and it feels like we might be able to progress to the point where we can do it. Realizing how much detail there is makes it feel much less achievable.

I use the word "feel" for a reason. I think we're dealing with emotional reasonableness, not careful analysis.

Re: Reality has a surprising amount of detail (2017)

#14
post #10

This is why I think people should still learn their job through hands-on apprenticeship, as opposed to a lot of book-learning in the classroom. In fact I think people do still learn their jobs that way. It's just delayed by several years of book-learning that has little return on investment. When you finally land your job, your first few months are when you really start learning enough to become useful. Disclaimer: I…

> Nothing I read in a book sticks until I have tried my hand at it for a few weeks. I don't think this is universal, though. Book reading is very natural for me and sticks immediately. In fact, I often find that things I've read today and not understood become magically clear a few days later.

I'm the complete opposite. I'm convinced my brain has some kind of overly aggressive internal garbage collection. Knowledge/tools that I haven't derived utility/benefit from get purged. I will say that something I've book-learned in the past can be re-learned more rapidly if I run into that problem in the future, but it's grossly inefficient and of little benefit.

Re: Reality has a surprising amount of detail (2017)

#16
I was hoping this article was going to pivot into mindfulness/psychology or something more abstract like that.

> Another way to see that noticing the right details is hard, is that different people end up noticing different details. My brother and I once built a set of stairs for the garage with my dad, and we ran into the problem of determining where to cut the long boards so they lie at the correct angle. After struggling with the problem for a while (and I do mean struggling, a 16’ long board is heavy), we got to arguing. I remembered from trig that we could figure out angle so I wanted to go dig up my textbook and think about it. My dad said, ‘no, no, no, let’s just trace it’, insisting that we could figure out how to do it.

"...different people end up noticing different details"

If this can happen with something as relatively simple as building stairs, might it also happen in more complicated scenarios like interpersonal or inter-cultural/national relations, politics, etc?

> I kept arguing because I thought I was right. I felt really annoyed with him and he was annoyed with me. In retrospect, I think I saw the fundamental difficulty in what we were doing and I don’t think he appreciated it (look at the stairs picture and see if you can figure it out), he just heard ‘let’s draw some diagrams and compute the angle’ and didn’t think that was the solution, and if he had appreciated the thing that I saw I think he would have been more open to drawing some diagrams. But at the same time, he also understood that diagrams and math don’t account for the shape of the wood, which I did not appreciate. If we had been able to get these points across, we could have come to consensus. Drawing a diagram was probably a good idea, but computing the angle was probably not. Instead we stayed annoyed at each other for the next 3 hours.

Considering the amount of detail in the world, it shouldn't be too surprising that two people can look at the same thing and see dramatically different things. Often the two parties can realize how the collaboration went off the rails after the fact. But what happens the next time such a scenario arises - can they recognize in realtime that the same thing is happening again, and consciously step in and prevent another derailing of collaboration?

In my experience, not only is the answer usually no, but even if one of the parties does happen to be aware enough at the moment, and points out the "obvious" fact of what is happening again, just like last time, the conflict will still not resolve, almost as if there is something occurring at the neurological level that prevents it.

> Before you’ve noticed important details they are, of course, basically invisible. It’s hard to put your attention on them because you don’t even know what you’re looking for. But after you see them they quickly become so integrated into your intuitive models of the world that they become essentially transparent. Do you remember the insights that were crucial in learning to ride a bike or drive? How about the details and insights you have that led you to be good at the things you’re good at?

While some skills (riding a bike, playing tennis, etc) can easily be integrated such that one can conduct them with extreme skill completely intuitively, others (interpersonal communication) seem highly resistant to the same level of integration.

It seems common for people to say "So what?" when this phenomenon is pointed out, likely because it's so obvious when being discussed in the abstract sense. But the "so what" is that: in practice, in realtime, this prior knowledge seems near impossible to be intuitively accessed. And not only that, it often seems like it is near ~inaccessible to the conscious mind - if it is pointed out, acknowledgement of a current manifestation of the phenomenon will be refused, typically via anger or silence.

Re: Reality has a surprising amount of detail (2017)

#17

This is why I think people should still learn their job through hands-on apprenticeship, as opposed to a lot of book-learning in the classroom. In fact I think people do still learn their jobs that way. It's just delayed by several years of book-learning that has little return on investment. When you finally land your job, your first few months are when you really start learning enough to become useful. Disclaimer: I…

I see this wrt. Software Development all the time. There are Tons of Online Curses, Books and other self learning material but: 1. Completely self learned people are more often prone to develop some bad habits or worse have some subtil but fundamental misunderstandings which are hard to get out of them. (in my experience) 2. Often just a view month with proper guidance can have much better effects then a year+ of sel…

> 1. Completely self learned people are more often prone to develop some bad habits or worse have some subtil but fundamental misunderstandings which are hard to get out of them. (in my experience)

I don't find this is particularly true of self-taught people. People who are raised in bad coding environments like working alone or, project-based consulting shops may have bad habits. Hint: the habits are not taught in school.

Re: Reality has a surprising amount of detail (2017)

#19
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see this wrt. Software Development all the time. There are Tons of Online Curses, Books and other self learning material but: 1. Completely self learned people are more often prone to develop some bad habits or worse have some subtil but fundamental misunderstandings which are hard to get out of them. (in my experience) 2. Often just a view month with proper guidance can have much better effects then a year+ of sel…

> 1. Completely self learned people are more often prone to develop some bad habits or worse have some subtil but fundamental misunderstandings which are hard to get out of them. (in my experience) I don't find this is particularly true of self-taught people. People who are raised in bad coding environments like working alone or, project-based consulting shops may have bad habits. Hint: the habits are not taught in s…

Isn't working alone part of being self-taught?

My school tried to teach good habits. Many of the professors are out of touch with what good habits are though, so they usually teach to books of varying quality or practices specific to how they learned a few decades ago.

Re: Reality has a surprising amount of detail (2017)

#20
post #6

I notice this effect all the time when cooking, and the maddening part is how hard it can be to even figure out the right details. Like, the best sausages I ever cooked were at a barbecue in park, on a random public grill with no particular attention to the heat (I think the sausages caught fire briefly), and yet they were amazing . Juicy and delicious, with just the right amount of char on the outside. Over my home…

I like to think you're on a quest for cooking the perfect sausage
Post reply on HN