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

Feynman’s Razor

defenderofthebasic.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 138 posts

Re: Feynman’s Razor

#121

Post by evilduck »

blargey wrote: post #34
civilized wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Might be that military pilots are much more engaged with the product than the average google-user with search. Or how these digital tools pervade spaces where everyone has to be able to use them, even if they're the type that refuses to engage with the text displayed in message boxes or technical jargon like "files" and "tabs", because they have the expertise that is more valuable to the business than the peripheral…

There’s a military, and by proxy a government and a country’s populace behind a pilot who are all invested in a pilot’s success. In battle or on missions they don’t get many do-overs and pilots and planes are expensive to mobilize and to lose. Millions of dollars are on the line each time they take off, better to get it right the first time.

For ad driven search engine products the more you as a user flail the more ads you can be served on subsequent searches, so long as they ride the line of not driving you away entirely. A string of ten searches that fail you is bad because their product looks ineffective but two or three searches to get what you want is better for their bottom line than nailing it on your first attempt.

Re: Feynman’s Razor

#122

Post by marcosdumay »

smitty1e wrote: post #91
LoganDark wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"This message cannot be downloaded because it no longer exists on the server. You can copy the message or delete it."

A better phrasing might be "keep your local copy because your server-side copy is gone". Communication is hard. Welcome to people.

That's not a better phrasing. That doesn't explain what happened at all.

If you think that's a sensible recommendation, it's nice to add it after the error message. But it's not an error message.

Re: Feynman’s Razor

#123

Post by marcosdumay »

zarzavat wrote: post #73
klabb3 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As I noted in the gp I think code implementations or numerical methods should be the goal. I’m 100% with Feynman on this one. I loved the book because of the intuition it gave me about quantum physics. He even has this amazing analogy for how to teach arithmetic without numbers. Now, you could absolutely claim that he fails in his analogies (I’m not among the .1% of people if not less who can debate that), but I ca…

In mathematics, geometric and algebraic explanations are complementary. If you plot a function, you can observe many properties easily, for instance where does it cross the axes? Is it symmetrical? How quickly does it grow? However there are also many properties that are easier to observe algebraically. For example if you plot x^n you can see if n is odd or even, but you can’t see what value n has because x^10 looks…

> people are capable of understanding the algebra but haven’t learned it yet

Those people are perfectly capable of taking any other textbook. What value is there in another book that explains the subject in the same exact way?

Besides, almost all of those people will have a much easier time picking the other textbook if they read the intuitive explanation first.

Re: Feynman’s Razor

#124

Post by gwd »

toss1 wrote: post #41
amelius wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Sadly there's also the old saying that "no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the average customer" (P.T. Barnum ?).

I mean, yeah, there are certainly plenty of business models that rely on people not understanding what it is that they're buying. If you want to make your living that way, I can believe it's not that hard. But that doesn't mean that money can't be made by selling to intelligent people and attempting to educate the less informed. I know how I prefer to spend my short time here on Earth.

Re: Feynman’s Razor

#126

Post by Archelaos »

The case of the original error message does not really match what Feynman was concerned about. The original error message was not too simple, but its first part was some hocus-pocus that made (almost) no sense -- the less, the more the reader is a layperson. Only an expert had a chance of guessing the explanation. In the quoted passage, Feynman instead was concerned about popular accounts of science that are not useful for the reader -- not because they are unintelligible or wrong, but because they are too simplistic and provide too less information.

Re: Feynman’s Razor

#127

Post by mbivert »

jonathankoren wrote: post #46
mbivert wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The military in general seem to be more rationally grounded than civilians, as far as work is concerned. Promiscuity with death must encourage a different "work culture".

I get the feeling that there’s an inverse correlation between the number of people that think the military is a competent meritocracy and the number of people that actually served in the military. It’s a giant government bureaucracy, with plenty of stupid internal politics, and gross incompetency. No better or worse than any other large organization.

Yeah it's probable that I'm idealizing.

My direct experience is very limited, but I've heard a few decent things from people better involved than I am. I suppose "the military" is a wide thing, there must be consequential differences between, say, American bureaucrats and French field soldiers in Africa for example. The former shouldn't be as close to death, or to soldiers who are, on a daily basis.

Re: Feynman’s Razor

#128

Post by corinn3 »

Yeah computing day to day sure is mired in euphemisms for math.

Cache is a variable. Server is a function. Anyone who graduated high school should know that much.

Hopefully we’ll start to move away from 1900s ignorant business machines euphemisms for applied physics

Re: Feynman’s Razor

#129

Post by smitty1e »

marcosdumay wrote: post #122
smitty1e wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A better phrasing might be "keep your local copy because your server-side copy is gone". Communication is hard. Welcome to people.

That's not a better phrasing. That doesn't explain what happened at all. If you think that's a sensible recommendation, it's nice to add it after the error message. But it's not an error message.

That is a fair cop.

Re: Feynman’s Razor

#130

Post by bruce343434 »

exe34 wrote: post #78
bruce343434 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what you think; I think plenty of people have shown that they wake up and prioritise themselves and only themselves. They don't think in terms of good or evil. They think "will this benefit me? Will this make me more money? Give me more status? More power?"

have they told you this, or are you saying you are able to hear their private thoughts?

My mistake for engaging with you; you have checkmated me. You are asking me for my sources now, whereas I should have asked you first what your source was for your claim about "nobody choosing to do evil". Alas, that now looks weak and desperate.
Post reply on HN