Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

You can't tell people anything (2004)

habitatchronicles.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 201 posts

Re: You can't tell people anything (2004)

#191

Post by analog31 »

cmonnow wrote: post #152
analog31 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>> I hated higher level mathematics specifically because I couldn't see any use for it. That's why I loved it. But I think this is a dilemma of teaching any number of subjects: How to convey both the useful aspect and the intrinsically interesting aspect, for lack of a better term.

You loved something because you didn't see any use for it ?

My relationship with math had two sides. In college, I majored in math and physics, plus I was also learning electronics and programming on my own. So I was immersed in the uses of math.

But you kind of get to a point after a couple years or so where you've learned enough math to handle the physics coursework -- including being able to pick up new math topics quickly as needed. And that's also the point, like 3rd year, where math really begins to come alive as an end unto itself. I loved the abstract stuff and the beauty of proofs, and it was as much of an escape from reality as a way to engage with it.

Re: You can't tell people anything (2004)

#192

Post by gfody »

MaxBarraclough wrote: post #187
gfody wrote: post #80

relevant Ted talk, "don't tell people what you're doing tell them why you're doing it" - https://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_insp...

I don't like to be dismissive, but that video is pure fluff. > whether it's Apple or Martin Luther King or the Wright Brothers, they all think, act, and communicate, in the exact same way. And it's the complete opposite to everyone else. All I did was codify it. I very nearly stopped watching right there. Does this kind of nonsense really appeal to anyone? It strikes me as bordering on insulting. Wikipedia describes…

well it appealed to me or I wouldn't've shared it, and I think his advice is eminently useful to anyone frustrated that you can't tell people anything - ie: rather than specific details you think might interest them, try sharing your motivations, beliefs, vision and once they get that (and if they're still interested) let them ask for specific details. iow: you can't guess the details that will interest them, and if they're not interested then they're not listening to whatever details you're sharing, so get them interested first (by explaining why they should be interested, or why you're interested, your motivations, etc.)

Re: You can't tell people anything (2004)

#193

Post by jodrellblank »

bsenftner wrote: post #35

Anything truly new is met with everything but understanding. Back in 2006 I had the seeds of an idea that you probably know today as a "deep fake", but I was calling it "personalized media". By 2008 I had a fully operating feature film quality automated actor replacement pipeline (my background is visual effects.) However, even with a working system nobody could understand the ramifications this could have on educati…

You can watch porn with anyone you like edited into it.

You can watch a ShamWow infomercial with yourself in it.

You bet your life savings that the second would be more popular with the general public? You're right, I don't understand.

Even trying to steelman your position I don't want any of those things; a video of me in a Tesla? Why? A video of oneself meeting Elvis? I guess someone would want the novelty of that maybe once? Virtual "Meet Trump/Obama/Sanders/Warren?" nope.

Films and TV shows regularly have an actor leave/die and replace them with a different one playing the same character, and we're all fine with it. I'd much rather watch a good presenter touring Pompeii than watch fake-myself touring Pompeii.

I can much more imagine the response to "Hey! It's YOU driving a new Mercedes in that advert!" would be "Do I really look that pale?" or "Stop putting me in every damn advert you creeps!".

Re: You can't tell people anything (2004)

#194

Post by necovek »

analog31 wrote: post #123
ChuckMcM wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is very insightful. I hated higher level mathematics specifically because I couldn't see any use for it. Due to a variety of circumstances I ended up taking my math classes out of sequence with the physics and EE classes in my EE degree and as a result I'd get a concept introduced in math that had no apparent use, only to find out the next semester or year what you would use it for. Very frustrating at t…

>>> I hated higher level mathematics specifically because I couldn't see any use for it. That's why I loved it. But I think this is a dilemma of teaching any number of subjects: How to convey both the useful aspect and the intrinsically interesting aspect, for lack of a better term.

Yeah, me too! It also opens up the question about how we adapt the curriculum to every individual student? Or at least select for more likeness in interests so the lectures would be more suited (though of course, majority of uni professors would feel it's either "my way or the highway").

The part I hated about maths was all the memorization required ;)

Re: You can't tell people anything (2004)

#195

Post by necovek »

cmonnow wrote: post #152
analog31 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>> I hated higher level mathematics specifically because I couldn't see any use for it. That's why I loved it. But I think this is a dilemma of teaching any number of subjects: How to convey both the useful aspect and the intrinsically interesting aspect, for lack of a better term.

You loved something because you didn't see any use for it ?

Abstract math is a good proxy for how human mind works and deduces and reasons about complex topics. I can understand if you do not see beauty in that, but stretching that to "you liked it because it had no use" is inappropriate.

Edit: I imagine you were just tongue in cheek, though.

While you could construe the negation to be what you propose, it's not uncommon to read it as "not having to have a use in mind".

Re: You can't tell people anything (2004)

#196

Post by bsenftner »

jodrellblank wrote: post #193
bsenftner wrote: post #35

Anything truly new is met with everything but understanding. Back in 2006 I had the seeds of an idea that you probably know today as a "deep fake", but I was calling it "personalized media". By 2008 I had a fully operating feature film quality automated actor replacement pipeline (my background is visual effects.) However, even with a working system nobody could understand the ramifications this could have on educati…

You can watch porn with anyone you like edited into it. You can watch a ShamWow infomercial with yourself in it. You bet your life savings that the second would be more popular with the general public? You're right, I don't understand. Even trying to steelman your position I don't want any of those things; a video of me in a Tesla? Why? A video of oneself meeting Elvis? I guess someone would want the novelty of that…

For specific demographics, media with you and your associates in it will appear like highly seductive magic, and it can engender brand loyalty in a manner only seen in Trump supporters.

Re: You can't tell people anything (2004)

#197

Post by wrnr »

bsenftner wrote: post #177
wrnr wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its a shame of your bankrupcy, but I do wonder what all the other ideas really are, Tupac on Coachella, Carrie Fisher in star wars, Trump's face on a baby, and maybe like in the old movie Simone true virtual stars (sim one, get it), what the real ramifications are. Maybe I don't get it but it is not anything different than those Elvis lookalikes on Times Square.

It is actually significantly different. Imagine being a typically American White Christian and seeing a compelling narrative where you are borne Black, you see yourself as a Black version of yourself in the media mirrors, and you experience a powerful story about the harshness of life as a Black American child. That is significantly more powerful than a Times Square Elvis.

That's called blackface and is sort of what Elvis did.

Re: You can't tell people anything (2004)

#198

Post by deanCommie »

larsnystrom wrote: post #188
deanCommie wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm really struggling to empathize with your point here. I SUSPECT you are expecting that the questionner is going to hold you to an incredibly high and rigorous bar and in fact I don't think that's true. If you say "It will improve our user's perceived client latency" i expect that is sufficient - IF TRUE. And this is the key. In software everything is a tradeoff. I don't know what the tradeoffs with using React are…

I think I did a poor job of explaining the situation I was referring to. My point was I could’ve made a better job explaining a concept, but I just wasn’t prepared for or had the capacity to do so at the spot. Explaining complex things in an ad-hoc fashion with no preparation is hard, is what I’m saying. Locality is about having the code for one feature in one spot. If you can remove a feature by deleting one piece o…

The context here might be that we are in a design review - you are presenting a design. Maybe it's verbally, but maybe it's a document.

Ideally it's a document, so you can describe it by writing it down.

But if someone asks a hard question that you didn't prepare for, well you still have to make a best effort to answer it verbally.

You can use "I'll write down my thoughts and get back to you" to SOME things, but not every time.

Re: You can't tell people anything (2004)

#199

Post by acqq »

gregsadetsky wrote: post #102
acqq wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good story. Reminds me of a great story by Neil Stephenson about his experience of learning by doing the experiments: https://youtu.be/_J4QPz52Sfo&t=4511

That hyperlink did not work for me -- I think that you wanted to post https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J4QPz52Sfo&t=4511 ? (just listened -- great story) :-)

Yes, that's correct, thanks for finding it fast! I have obviously constucted the youtu.be link incorrectly: there should have been "?" instead of "&" in the link. The correct short form should be

https://youtu.be/_J4QPz52Sfo?t=4511

Re: You can't tell people anything (2004)

#200

Post by larsnystrom »

deanCommie wrote: post #198
larsnystrom wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I did a poor job of explaining the situation I was referring to. My point was I could’ve made a better job explaining a concept, but I just wasn’t prepared for or had the capacity to do so at the spot. Explaining complex things in an ad-hoc fashion with no preparation is hard, is what I’m saying. Locality is about having the code for one feature in one spot. If you can remove a feature by deleting one piece o…

The context here might be that we are in a design review - you are presenting a design. Maybe it's verbally, but maybe it's a document. Ideally it's a document, so you can describe it by writing it down. But if someone asks a hard question that you didn't prepare for, well you still have to make a best effort to answer it verbally. You can use "I'll write down my thoughts and get back to you" to SOME things, but not…

My original context was rather that of a junior developer asking a more experienced developer what choices to make, and then questioning them. Which is good, but sometimes the knowledge gap is just too wide to deal with then and there.
Post reply on HN