Live data from Hacker News

Feynman’s Razor

defenderofthebasic.substack.com

21–30 of 138 posts

Re: Feynman’s Razor

#21
>what the hell does this mean? The message doesn’t exist, but I can copy its contents? If I can copy its contents…why can’t I save it?? If it doesn’t exist why do I have to discard it??

Maybe it should be even less descriptive.

"This message will soon no longer be available. Make sure you copy the contents of the message before you discard if you want to use them later."

Talking about the cache doesn't help the user. Really the solution is to add a button at the end of the message that says "save message contents to device." Then the message is clear and easily actionable.

Re: Feynman’s Razor

#22
post #3

Feynman confused pedagogical skill with expertise in a given field. He insisted that experts could explain things. No, that's what a teacher does. Feynman was good at both and apparently had no one to challenge him on his claim that they were the same. It's possible to be a great teacher without being an expert on given subject matter. And it's possible to have the most expertise but be inscrutable. In the case of th…

Maybe. I think Feynman had a point. From my experience “experts” who are unable to explain well typically have an incomplete understanding. Language and knowledge are linked to a degree. Personally I have had subject I thought I was an expert an and when I went to explain them I realized the shortcomings of my understanding. Later when I was truly an expert my ability to explain them improved.

> From my experience “experts” who are unable to explain well typically have an incomplete understanding.

You also have to give yourself permission to step several tiers back and think about how to distill "next pieces" into what they know.

I also find myself handwaving away a whole lot of edge cases or rigor away in order to have a bite-sized step that will help the student make progress.

> Personally I have had subject I thought I was an expert an and when I went to explain them I realized the shortcomings of my understanding. Later when I was truly an expert my ability to explain them improved.

Conversely, I find every time I've done this exercise of stepping back and breaking it down for someone else, my knowledge has deepened.

Re: Feynman’s Razor

#23
post #6

I agree this is true if your goal is to inform. If, however, your goal is to increase clicks, decrease support tickets, and get engagement, I'd be surprised if being technically descriptive and accurate is better than dumbing it down to the point of inaccuracy. None of that is to say that I agree with the goal of engagement over conveying information.

It's important to begin violently opposing, not just disagreeing with, the theory of engagement and revenue creation. It must become dangerous indeed for those who decide to pursue those goals.

[deleted]

Re: Feynman’s Razor

#24
post #17

Sometimes it feels like the trend online right now is to design everything to make you stupider, on the theory that if it asks less of you will go along with it more easily. For instance, Google results seem more "least common denominator" every month. No longer can I search for something subtle and get subtle results; their algorithm pushes me towards and unhelpful answers. Maybe it's because lots of people do respo…

If you design a system for idiots, only idiots will use it.

Re: Feynman’s Razor

#25
post #17

Sometimes it feels like the trend online right now is to design everything to make you stupider, on the theory that if it asks less of you will go along with it more easily. For instance, Google results seem more "least common denominator" every month. No longer can I search for something subtle and get subtle results; their algorithm pushes me towards and unhelpful answers. Maybe it's because lots of people do respo…

Maybe at some point Google will release a Classic version of the algo like Coca-Cola did.

Re: Feynman’s Razor

#26
I don't quite think the message-doesn't-exist example is caused by "dumbing down" too much. To me, the message "it no longer exists" is not the work of someone who, in trying to make layman understand, overdid it.

Instead, it's the typical kind of mistake made by writers who forget about context.

From the programmer's perspective, I speculate, the error _is_ indeed a case of something being non-existent. The code is written to fetch something from the server, the server says it's not there, and well, the application should tell the user about it.

Within the very narrow context of fetching it from the server, "doesn't exist" is correct. However, in the context of the user who's sitting there looking at the message, "doesn't exist" is simply false.

The message needs to be re-contextualized, such that it makes sense. "The message doesn't exist on the server, it exists on your computer at the moment, but just for a short while, so you better copy it".

It doesn't matter whether the user understand what a "server" is. Simply knowing that the message doesn't exist [at some place], is enough to make the whole sentence sensible.

Like if I go to a car mechanic, who just points to the whole car and say "it's gonna be replaced", it would be confusing. But if he says that "xxx is gonna be replaced", that's perfectly comprehensible, even if I don't know what xxx is.

Re: Feynman’s Razor

#27
post #17

Sometimes it feels like the trend online right now is to design everything to make you stupider, on the theory that if it asks less of you will go along with it more easily. For instance, Google results seem more "least common denominator" every month. No longer can I search for something subtle and get subtle results; their algorithm pushes me towards and unhelpful answers. Maybe it's because lots of people do respo…

Many of you will be familiar with this story: military pilot gear was once designed for the average person, but then they realized that actually, most people deviate significantly from the average in at least one way. So they made the gear adjustable, and that greatly improved performance and reduced mistakes.

Why is it that in tech we are often told a seemingly contrary narrative -- that everything is better, or at least more profitable, when targeted to some hypothetical average person, and who cares about the diversity of individuals?

Re: Feynman’s Razor

#28
post #16
post #8

Funny thing is I think this about Feynman’s own writing for “the layperson”. I think things like Feynman’s “little arrows” descriptions in QED only muddied and added to the mystique and mysticism of the physics he loved. Which is interesting because his written lectures[1], though, in their breadth and complexity require effort, seem as if they are intended for experts while being approachable to ”the layperson“. My…

What do you not like about Feynman's "little arrows" / rotating clock hands in the QED book? I can't think of a more simple metaphor for the exponential of a complex phase, exp(i omega t). I suppose you could try and do it with more commonplace trigonometric functions, but then you lose the simple vector interpretation of adding the contributions. Or are you arguing that you should always try and teach complex number…

> What do you not like about Feynman's "little arrows" / rotating clock hands in the QED book?

It’s difficult to articulate, but two aspects are:

The amount of times I have only confused people more by trying to explain even modular arithmetic by calling on the clock analogy.

And the fact that the little “clock hands” are a complete abstraction from both the physics being described and the mathematical models that describe that physics. ~“Quantum physics is just about adding clocks?”

> I can't think of a more simple metaphor for the exponential of a complex phase, exp(i omega t).

As I noted in the gp I think code implementations or numerical methods should be the goal.

The solution to the confusion about referencing clocks when talking about modular arithmetic was just to write down a complete numerical example, ie all natural numbers mod 6 up to 10, and use that as the abstraction for further discussion: negatives, reals, periodicity, infinities, applications, et al.

Re: Feynman’s Razor

#29
post #6

I agree this is true if your goal is to inform. If, however, your goal is to increase clicks, decrease support tickets, and get engagement, I'd be surprised if being technically descriptive and accurate is better than dumbing it down to the point of inaccuracy. None of that is to say that I agree with the goal of engagement over conveying information.

It's important to begin violently opposing, not just disagreeing with, the theory of engagement and revenue creation. It must become dangerous indeed for those who decide to pursue those goals.

If they pay your bills, it is very dangerous to say anything in fact.

Re: Feynman’s Razor

#30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Feynman was not a great teacher. Lots of people love his lectures now. But they're not getting graded on it. Actual students were considerably more mixed. Obviously individuals vary so if I post how most of his students were totally lost in class, they'll post how one student went on to win a Nobel prize and say gotcha.

There are two types of teaching. One is teaching things to a complete beginner. The other is teaching things to someone who has already mastered the mechanics of a subject. Feynman was a world class second type teacher. If you already know how to work with physics equations and solve problems, then Feynman's lectures will improve your understanding considerably. The simplification process he does, gives you a grand u…

This reminds me of University Physics by Young and Freedman. The things I already understood were really dumbed down, and the things I didn't understand were inscrutable. I ended up using it as a door stop for the rest of the year until it fell apart and I had to throw it away. It was one of the first ones where the book came with a code that you had to use online to do the homework, so the book was also useless as second hand, after being useless when bought new.
Post reply on HN