171–177 of 177 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I were to guess, I would say an average 4th grader knows the difference between nano, milli or micro seconds. Understanding the magnitude might not be the problem for the CTO. But why should the CTO care? How does it translate to his business requirements? That's your job to explain, no?
If I were to guess, your child is attending Palo Alto High School when the next school year begins.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As far as the economist. I suspect he understands that they're theories, thus, to some extent guesses. Some data might support it, but does it hold true in every case? Probably not. Does it hold true in most cases? Maybe not. Would he bet money, effectively what a hedge fund does in my very limited experience here? Sounds like no. This to me sounds like a simple example of he understands the limitations of his work!…
Yup, your explanation resonates with what I think are the superficial reasons society is accepting of both of these cases. You have to think a little bit deeper to feel why this might be problematic. If the economist weighs the risk to not put too much stock in these theories (no pun intended actually), why does he not likewise hesitate to teach these theories to his students? Like "I don't believe 100% that this is…
So farm animals understand biology better than the biologist does?
I was struck by the anecdote that Herbie Hancock tells in the linked video though. He misheard some advice from someone he respected, took it to heart and it changed the way he played.
I notice that this seems to work in opposition to the idea of a vocab point where high level practitioners are talking about real concrete experiences they are having that the lay man can't understand until they level up.
The way I think it worked in this case, is that as you go up the ladder of skill, you start seeing and thinking in more abstract, metaphorical terms. For a beginning student, you're focused on the mechanics, for the master, you're focused on what it means and how it relates to the human experience. This means that a master can apply an a metaphor that the beginner can't even understand. Indeed, Herbie Hancock can apply a metaphor that nobody else could even imagine had any relevance at all.
Perhaps rather than 'vocab point' we should talk about 'metaphor point'.
Not directly related to the article but I had two amusing encounters with expertise recently. I sat next to an Econ professor (at an Ivy) on a flight. I told him I had worked at a hedge fund, and he was like "wow, I could never put myself in a situation where my living depended on my economic theories being right." A good friend of mine is a kinda-famous evolutionary biologist. He's in his mid-40s now, unmarried and…
the difference is that academic research is several degrees of abstraction removed from real world applications. the economist might not specialize in theories about why, when, or how much specific assets go up or down. even if he did, he might not have the skills to make actionable predictions from messy input data. doesn't mean his theories are wrong, just that someone else needs to bridge the gap between theory an…
On top of that, it's not uncommon that experts understand the risks, unknowns and potential other choices better than early level practictioners.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Is that not a "model" because it is not necessarily graphical? For some people model==graphical, usually mechanical/electrical engineers, not software-engineers. Engineers maintain the holy "model", and the translation to lowly code is a job for the lowest-bidding software person. Maybe it wasn't clear, but I do not agree with that point of view, and tried to explain how I think people may have found their belief.…
I'm curious on this. Do you have links that go over this? I've not seen a hard distinction that models are graphical, pretty much ever. The very idea of "machine learning models" flies in the face of that, as I've rarely seen machine learning models presented in a graphical way. Best I can think in this direction, is UML? But that is an odd one, because it isn't that "models" are graphical, but those are specifically…
A case of cargo-cult. Attempt to apply the practice but badly (use the tool, but not the way its use is advertized), and use the terms for use of the tool instead of the practice, reserving it for that to promote their beloved tool over alternative approaches.
Moreover I see it as a huge problem in our current environment of easy access to Youtube explainers of everything. In my areas of expertise I come across many more people that 'talk the talk' than can actually 'walk the walk'.
A chef must be judged on dishes they produce, a dancer on their performances, and a software developer on working code.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But is this really the point of the article? The article argues that it is difficult to identify expertise. However, the situation you describe is one where (if I read you correctly) not your expertise was questioned but your recommendation. If there wasn’t any tangible difference between the CTO’s and your suggested course of action on a metric that he as a customer cared about, then maybe his proposal was indeed th…
I'm finding this entire line of discussion incredibly curious because not only does it confirm my original argument and the that of the article, but it hammers the point home. Everything you've just said is gibberish to a master. It's like making a straight-faced argument that setting the speed limit to 1 mph on a motorway might make perfect sense, and the traffic engineer is actually at fault for not making it clear…
That is rather a condescending take: calling yourself a master and calling their words gibberish is hardly thoughtful dialogue. Other parts of your comment are equally bad “ untethered from reality” should not be written. Someone is trying to engage with you and you are dismissing them by using very charged words. Even worse you are demonstrating poor communications skills - that point being questioned elsewhere in the thread. I hope you can learn to listen to others politely even when you disagree, and please try to follow https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html :
Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer.