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

95%-ile isn't that good (2020)

danluu.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 191 posts

Re: 95%-ile isn't that good (2020)

#161

Post by GuB-42 »

It is all about the reference point. The article uses Overwatch as an example.

- If you take the world population, 95%-ile means being able to use a keyboard and mouse and maybe have a vague idea of what a FPS is.

- From the previous population, having played the game or one of a similar genre even once puts you in the 95%-ile

- From the previous population, actually owning the game puts you in the 95%-ile

- From the previous population, playing enough to have a meaningful ranking puts you in the 95%-ile

- From the previous population, being good enough to compete in an established team puts you in the 95%-ile

- From the previous population, being good enough to earn some money puts you in the 95%-ile

- From the previous population, being good enough to make a living puts you in the 95%-ile

- From the previous population, being good enough to be famous puts you in the 95%-ile

- From the previous population, being in the 95%-ile means you are the world champion

So which reference point are you using when you are saying you are 95%-ile?

Re: 95%-ile isn't that good (2020)

#162

Post by ch4s3 »

aiisjustanif wrote: post #140
ch4s3 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Otherwise these numbers only take a bit of dedicated work to achieve I think you may be underselling that a bit. I got to something like 370-80lb DL while weighing 185 some years ago, and it took nearly 3 years of dedicated work, eating tons of boring chicken, and a lot of lifestyle changes. It was pretty hard work and a of hours in total. I still lift weights, but don't have the focus and dedication to maintain th…

That’s wild to me, many high schools across the country have people that can do 370lb DL at 185lb. I can understand the struggle at an older age, but age matters a lot here.

I mean sure, but they're pretty much in the top 5 ish percentage points of lifters.

Re: 95%-ile isn't that good (2020)

#163

Post by ch4s3 »

NineStarPoint wrote: post #128
ch4s3 wrote: post #66

I don't think I agree with this at all. I can see how you would have this impression with something like a video game or I guess public speaking where maybe a lot of people do it un-seriously and you can be better than most with some intentional effort. It's weird to choose a super mass market game like Overwatch to make that point though, if you were in the 95th percentile of Starcraft players, that would truly be s…

It doesn’t matter how high the skill ceiling is, just how much effort the average player puts into the game. In Starcraft 2 to be top 4% player essentially means to be the worst player in masters league. But the gap in skill between a bad masters player and a grandmaster player (or even larger, a pro player) is enormous. I know that when I played I was able to climb to near the top of diamond without even using map h…

That doesn't mean it isn't very difficult or in some ways impressive, just that to get into the top few percentage points is even more impressive. It's not like you're going to watch a few hours of game play and suddenly be able to jump to that level.

Re: 95%-ile isn't that good (2020)

#164

Post by [deleted] »

JohnFen wrote: post #151
brigadier132 wrote: post #72

I think the way this is phrased is weird. It should probably be rephrased as "becoming 95% percentile at a thing is not that hard". Which I might agree with. Becoming good at a lot of tasks and skills really just comes down to finding the right approach to training and then doing that training. The last 5% is much harder because that's generally filled with truly talented people that also know how to train and are di…

I think it was Adam Savage who put it this way (talking about the importance of talent): Getting 90% of the way to mastery of a thing is just a matter of practice. Talent is what gets you that last 10%.

[deleted]

Re: 95%-ile isn't that good (2020)

#165

Post by threatofrain »

vanattab wrote: post #139
threatofrain wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The world of video games can't be compared with anything else — except sports — in terms of competitiveness. If you're in the top 32 you're in the A-list of celebrities in that niche, and if you're top 64 you're a second-tier celebrity. Anything after that and it's hard to get paid. Imagine a country where only the top 64 surgeons get paid.

No one is talking about getting paid only becoming skilled in some domian.

Yes, and becoming a professional in a domain is a heuristic for tiering skill. The reason why OP is so dismissive to the top 1% is because they're not good to break into the industry.

Re: 95%-ile isn't that good (2020)

#166

Post by lamontcg »

> This is a pretty fundamental disagreement that I have with a lot of people. Just for example, I recently got into a discussion with an authority who insisted that it wasn't possible for me to reasonably disagree with them (I suggested we agree to disagree) because they're an authority on the topic and I'm not. It happens that I worked on the formal verification of a system very similar to the system we were discussing, but I didn't mention that because I don't believe that my status as an authority on the topic matters. If someone has such a weak argument that they have to fall back on an infallible authority, that's usually a sign that they don't have a well-reasoned defense of their position. This goes double when they point to themselves as the infallible authority.

That can just be a sign of someone who is tired of arguing with you and they're ending the argument. You also haven't offered the information that you have any expertise, so they're assuming that you're another not-even-10%-ile person who is probably making a basic mistake. You also still may be making a basic mistake even though you're a 95%-ile person on this subject -- for the exact reasons put out in this article.

They're being a bit of a dick, but their time is finite and you probably annoyed them.

Re: 95%-ile isn't that good (2020)

#167

Post by 303uru »

loeg wrote: post #62
303uru wrote: post #27

I'm a pretty consistent top 10 amateur cyclist in Colorado. Some really get wrapped up in it and let it get to their head. The reality though is most people don't ride or race, of those who even race many are there just to participate, now of those who are there to race my percentile has dropped. On the flip side, the truly great riders are overseas and even of them there are just a handful of riders anyone will ever…

Top 10, or top 10%?

Top 10.

Re: 95%-ile isn't that good (2020)

#168

Post by hirvi74 »

wing-_-nuts wrote: post #103
tester756 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

last 5%? I've been top 1% and slightly below 1% at peak in video games that have milions of gamers and I wouldnt say that top 5% is filled with "truly talented people" Top 5% is just decent people, but they are very, very, very far from top 0.1, 0.5%, etc. At 1% I've been faaaaar from 0.5%, 0.1% people.

I'm in the top 15 bf4 tankers in the US. I run a very unique loadout that's very specific to my PTFO playstyle and the most common threats I deal with. It has glaring weaknesses that few ever exploit, but if you knew the game and actually tried to counter me, you absolutely could. Sometimes, the .001% have simply found their particular niche in the ecosystem

I miss that game so much.

What's the server population like these days?

What is your load out? I was a Jet main.

Re: 95%-ile isn't that good (2020)

#169

Post by haizhung »

theoldlove wrote: post #158
TehShrike wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I aim to be a 95th percentile parent. It's not as hard as you'd think

How can you tell? Parenting isn’t exactly quantifiable.

Yeah but there are some nearly objective truths that should easily bring you to the 95%ile.

Like, spend conscious time with your kid (play with them, read to them, etc) over letting them watch YouTube or TV.

Or, don’t invalidate their emotions when they share them.

Re: 95%-ile isn't that good (2020)

#170

Post by bitexploder »

nmfisher wrote: post #156
ch4s3 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Otherwise these numbers only take a bit of dedicated work to achieve I think you may be underselling that a bit. I got to something like 370-80lb DL while weighing 185 some years ago, and it took nearly 3 years of dedicated work, eating tons of boring chicken, and a lot of lifestyle changes. It was pretty hard work and a of hours in total. I still lift weights, but don't have the focus and dedication to maintain th…

My numbers were similar to yours, but I agree with OP that it wasn’t really “difficult”. Sure, you have to turn up to the gym regularly and put in the hours, but there’s no real skill or practice involved. It’s not like tennis/judo/your_sport where you actually have to focus to get good .

I guess saying a “bit” is dismissive. I had periods of regular training. Periods of no lifting. Running was a big part of my life. I have never been a very dedicated lifter. Did some 12 week cycles here and there. Probably took me a decade to hit those numbers. Someone with more focus could get there quickly. It was hard work here and there but nothing anyone would look at and say wow, I can’t do that. My T is a avg too, I have had it tested many times. Just solidly middle of the pack.
Post reply on HN