Live data from Hacker News

Some advice from Jeff Bezos

37signals.com

101–110 of 140 posts

Re: Some advice from Jeff Bezos

#101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I only took high school physics and a Google search isn't returning anything. Could you tell me why a spinning ball weighs more than a stationary ball? Another comment seems to claim that since E=mc2, rotational energy can be converted to to mass and viola, the earth is heavier because it has more energy! But that doesn't make sense to me. Maybe frame dragging has something to do with it? Your pulling of space-time t…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalence

It looks like the other commenter was completely right. Thanks.

Re: Some advice from Jeff Bezos

#102
post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not going to defend the byline (because it's cheap and inappropriate for the context) but there is a distinction between racial humor and racist humor. Not everything that addresses the concept of race is automatically racist, especially when it's not mean-spirited or demeaning. It's a line that I'm not clever enough to tread, but other people seem to pull it off. Look at Robert Downey Jr. in Tropic Thunder. Very…

> especially when it's not mean-spirited or demeaning. This is a common misunderstanding about the nature of racism. Read about Asian Americans and the model minority.

I don't see how you get from "model minority" to "absolutely any discussion related to race is racist".

Sure, some things that aren't mean-spirited or demeaning are also racist, but that doesn't mean that everything is. Am I missing something? Serious question.

Re: Some advice from Jeff Bezos

#103

Keeping an open mind is a great philosophy, so long as your mind doesn't change so quickly that no one can coordinate actions with you. But I'm having a difficult time inferring the significance of this post. On the one hand, if I'm constantly changing my mind, and my mind tends to change toward a stable, slow-changing correct solution, by definition, I'll be "right a lot", so long as I've had sufficient time to conv…

Significance of the post - This is a list of common characteristics that Jeff has seen in people he considers to be geniuses. Maybe it is possible that if us normal people adopt these characteristics into our own identity, we might be able to achieve genius status as well.

As far as the details you get into about the constantly changing mind, the solution changing rapidly, and focus on self supporting details, I think you have made a mis-step with the idea of a rapidly changing solution.

If there is a correct solution to a problem, it will never change. Our understanding of the solution can change, the problem could change which would require a new solution. But the correct solution (again assuming one exists) to a set problem can not change.

When he is talking of this changing mind, he is referring to a human's natural process to build it's understanding of our environment, or some problem space, on previous data and conclusions. The problem that most people have is they accept their many previous conclusions as fact, so they are unable to see problem from the correct perspective, because that perspective would require some previous belief to be wrong, thus they never consider that correct perspective. A good example here would be a creationists inability to come to correct scientific conclusions because they believe the world is only a few thousand years old. Bill Nye!

But the worst kind of person to be if you desire to reach genius status is one that searches for validation of their beliefs over truth. Most of us have this in us, I know I do even though I think of myself as open minded. The best example for this would be for you to go out and debate a friend with opposing political views. At some point you will find yourself defending something that you don't fully understand, your friend will make a valid point, and this little asshole inside you will tell you to defy his point at all costs. But you won't, because you started this conversation searching for truth over validation, and then you will consciously understand the desire to search for validation.

Re: Some advice from Jeff Bezos

#104
post #86

Keeping an open mind is a great philosophy, so long as your mind doesn't change so quickly that no one can coordinate actions with you. But I'm having a difficult time inferring the significance of this post. On the one hand, if I'm constantly changing my mind, and my mind tends to change toward a stable, slow-changing correct solution, by definition, I'll be "right a lot", so long as I've had sufficient time to conv…

As Keynes said, "When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?" When I was younger, I didn't know what confirmation bias was. I had to be introduced to the concept. After being introduced, I was able to make better decisions. Although it may seem trivially true to you (now?), it's not to everyone. You may be reading more into "change their minds a lot" than is intended. A lot in this conte…

>When I was younger, I didn't know what confirmation bias was. I had to be introduced to the concept. After being introduced, I was able to make better decisions.

Hah! You only think that because you're not counting the bad decisions.

>Decision making biases of various sorts are my chief pet peeve in modern life. It's almost impossible to discuss public policy with people, even in the smartest online forums I know. I think it's banned at Less Wrong. When I listen to the media, I spend most of my time ticking of the biases I hear.

But biases are like stereotypes in that they're shortcuts your mind has developed based on past experience. That's what people used to call "wisdom".

Re: Some advice from Jeff Bezos

#105

Keeping an open mind is a great philosophy, so long as your mind doesn't change so quickly that no one can coordinate actions with you. But I'm having a difficult time inferring the significance of this post. On the one hand, if I'm constantly changing my mind, and my mind tends to change toward a stable, slow-changing correct solution, by definition, I'll be "right a lot", so long as I've had sufficient time to conv…

He's not talking about changing your mind out of changing your mind's sake. But only consider that you might be wrong and be just open to change your mind, if that proves to be the right thing. This might sound obvious, but the point he's making is that most people don't do this. And it's one of the most remarkable characteristics of smart people, it's that they do change their mind when needed.

Average people think the the genius are genius because they're right all the time. But that's not the case. We're all human and we're all wrong a lot. The most remarkable characteristic of geniuses is that they realize they're wrong a lot, while others live under the illusion they're right a lot. Both the average and the genius are wrong often. What sets both apart is the genius notices it, changes his course and -- at the end of the day -- makes a better decision.

The significant bit to take from here is, don't try to be right at your first impression. You're not dumb for getting it wrong the first time. It's ok, just be a skeptic, think about it and don't be afraid to change if you later find that you were wrong.

Re: Some advice from Jeff Bezos

#106

I would argue that this is the defining factor in what makes someone intelligent or not. If you're always revising your ways of thinking about a problem, your probability of converging on a solution is vastly greater than someone with a narrow, one-track focus. In fact, another article on the HN homepage ( http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/streams-of-consciousness... ) elaborates on this point of trying multiple "s…

I only took high school physics and a Google search isn't returning anything. Could you tell me why a spinning ball weighs more than a stationary ball? Another comment seems to claim that since E=mc2, rotational energy can be converted to to mass and viola, the earth is heavier because it has more energy! But that doesn't make sense to me. Maybe frame dragging has something to do with it? Your pulling of space-time t…

"Mass" is an overloaded word. Nowadays, when physicists refer to a particle's mass, they are referring to what may more specifically be called its "rest-mass" or "invariant-mass". This is a property fundamental to the particle, much as how charge or spin is. This value never changes, and it is associated with a certain amount of energy (E=mc^2).

"Relativistic-mass" is the other use of "mass", although I prefer to just use the word "energy". As a particle's velocity increases, its relativistic-mass / energy increases as well, but its rest-mass does NOT. So you take mc^2 + the kinetic energy of the particle, and that gives you the total energy of the particle.

The gravitational force is a function of total energy [1]. This is why gravity bends the trajectories of photons (and other bosons) even though these particles have no rest-mass. The gravitational force between two systems is a function of the total energy of each system regardless of whatever kind of stuff makes up the system.

For an example, consider the earth + moon system. If you were to "weigh" this system, and then weigh the earth and moon separately, you would find that the sum of the individual weights is more than the sum of the two body system. This is because of the binding energy between the earth and the moon (which is negative). It is interesting to note that this potential energy is roughly equivalent to the mass of everyone on earth.

[1] Gravity is really unique in this regard. No other force is like it.

Re: Some advice from Jeff Bezos

#107
post #32
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect the racist tag was applied because stereotypically white men are slower runners than black men. But as far as racism goes that's... not to mention that it's a white guy talking about himself.

While I'm generally happy with the position that white guys can take it, I think it's still racist to imply white men are slow, whether one is a white guy or not.

No, it isn't. It is not at all racist to acknowledge the physiological differences between different ethnic groups. It is well established that a higher leg-to-torso length ratio correlates with faster sprint times. Conversely, a lower leg-to-torso ratio correlates with faster swimming.

Racism has nothing to do with facts. It is all about promoting hatred based on superficial differences.

Re: Some advice from Jeff Bezos

#108
post #7

If someone can’t climb out of the details, and see the bigger picture from multiple angles, they’re often wrong most of the time. This works both ways. If someone can't get more than one level below the surface and understand the details that form the whole, they’re also often wrong much of the time. Just ask any boss I've ever had.

Couldn’t agree more. This is one of those reasons why I desist have lawyers, media gurus, MBA (just business) as bosses of “Tech” companies.

They just don’t have it in them to jump in and out of situations to think through the most trivial of problems from multiple angles. They don’t know in “5 seconds” if something can be done or if it’s complicated. It’s often a rush to tackle competition or cutting out the oxygen and “do whatever it takes”. Ordering subordinates to “deliver” in 3 weeks.

This is precisely the reason why I love someone like Larry Page or Sergey running Google. They just knew that recruiting Urs Holzle to build world class infrastructure early on was worth it.

A lifetime of learning to take noise in & conclude on the one signal that’s worth it.

Re: Some advice from Jeff Bezos

#109
post #7

If someone can’t climb out of the details, and see the bigger picture from multiple angles, they’re often wrong most of the time. This works both ways. If someone can't get more than one level below the surface and understand the details that form the whole, they’re also often wrong much of the time. Just ask any boss I've ever had.

Couldn’t agree more. This is one of those reasons why I desist have lawyers, media gurus, MBA (just business) as bosses of “Tech” companies. They just don’t have it in them to jump in and out of situations to think through the most trivial of problems from multiple angles. They don’t know in “5 seconds” if something can be done or if it’s complicated. It’s often a rush to tackle competition or cutting out the oxygen…

I started as a programmer and got an MBA from an ok school (top 20). The combination is very valuable (at least to me) for exactly the reason you cite: the best decisions require wading around in the mucky details.

The MBA gives you a few tools that are helpful, but mainly it's a way to brand yourself and have people give you the benefit of the doubt that you can do things other than strictly build stuff.

I personally think the anti-patterns you describe-- the "do whatever it takes" without having the first idea what that is-- are intellectually dishonest and a sort of management-by-roulette. Sometimes you get lucky and it works out, but I don't know how you'd sleep running things that way.

Re: Some advice from Jeff Bezos

#110

I would argue that this is the defining factor in what makes someone intelligent or not. If you're always revising your ways of thinking about a problem, your probability of converging on a solution is vastly greater than someone with a narrow, one-track focus. In fact, another article on the HN homepage ( http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/streams-of-consciousness... ) elaborates on this point of trying multiple "s…

> did you know that a spinning ball weighs more than the same ball when it is stationary? Did you know that the Earth's rotation itself adds about 2.38 billion metric tons to its mass, and we have the Soviet Union to thank for figuring that out? http://infranetlab.org/blog/2008/12/harnessing-the-energy-fr...

The linked article has a problem with angular momentum conservation.

"Give me a lever long enough, and a place to stand, and I'll move the world" - Archimedes

The proposed plan lacks a place to stand. Unless angular momentum is given to an extra-terrestrial object, the angular momentum of the Earth+apparatus system cannot change. While Earth's rotation rate could be slowed by turning on such a gyroscope, if you ever brought the gyroscope back to rest, Earth would be right back where it started. As Earth's moment of inertia and angular velocity would be the same as when you began, so would Earth's kinetic energy. The most energy you can get back from the gyroscope is the energy you put in to spin it up.

It is the same as the sadness that is http://xkcd.com/162/ Only the first turn's angular acceleration makes a difference in Earth's angular velocity/momentum. After that, it's just maintenance (which, in the case of the comic, still buys you time).

It is not dissimilar from trying to permanently stop a train from inside a boxcar. You can't; not without external help.

The tides slow Earth's rotation and generate heat, but the angular momentum exchange alters the lunar and solar orbits; the Sun and Moon are places to stand. Gravity is the lever.

If I'm in error, please let me know. I'd love to correct my understanding.

Post reply on HN