21–30 of 226 posts
I have trouble explaining to my parents how my job is a real thing. I can only imagine trying to explain ‘I study shapes, but only ones that don’t jut inwards’.
Neat. I spent a month trying to use sphere packing approaches for a better compression algorithm (I had a large amount of vectors, they were grouped through clustering). Turned out that theoretical approaches only really work for uniform data and not any sort of real-world data. EDIT: groped -> grouped
Neat. I spent a month trying to use sphere packing approaches for a better compression algorithm (I had a large amount of vectors, they were grouped through clustering). Turned out that theoretical approaches only really work for uniform data and not any sort of real-world data. EDIT: groped -> grouped
Earlier today there was an article about neanderthal's rendering fat. The comments pointed out that anthropologist did not know that boiling was possible before the invention of pottery. Another comment pointed out that science teachers knew that it was possible because that was something they would do in class. Final comment was about how people ReDiscover things in different fields - - like the trapezoidal rule for…
Neat. I spent a month trying to use sphere packing approaches for a better compression algorithm (I had a large amount of vectors, they were grouped through clustering). Turned out that theoretical approaches only really work for uniform data and not any sort of real-world data. EDIT: groped -> grouped
You really shouldn't grope your vectors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've found it's best to explain my job using unintelligible jargon. There are three choices, really: You can give a quick explanation in terms they understand, which makes your job sound easy and makes them wonder how anybody gets paid to do it. You can explain what you do and why it's important in terms they understand, but it'll take so long they'll get bored and wish they hadn't asked. Or you can give a quick expl…
If you can't explain something in simple terms, you don't understand it well enough
You can give someone a simple explanation of quantum chromodynamics and have them walk away feeling like they learned something, but only by glossing over or misrepresenting critical details. You’d basically just be lying to them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've found it's best to explain my job using unintelligible jargon. There are three choices, really: You can give a quick explanation in terms they understand, which makes your job sound easy and makes them wonder how anybody gets paid to do it. You can explain what you do and why it's important in terms they understand, but it'll take so long they'll get bored and wish they hadn't asked. Or you can give a quick expl…
If you can't explain something in simple terms, you don't understand it well enough
I have trouble explaining to my parents how my job is a real thing. I can only imagine trying to explain ‘I study shapes, but only ones that don’t jut inwards’.
You ask me what it is I do. Well, actually, you know,
I'm partly a liaison man, and partly P.R.O.
Essentially, I integrate the current export drive.
And basically I'm viable from ten o'clock till five.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've found it's best to explain my job using unintelligible jargon. There are three choices, really: You can give a quick explanation in terms they understand, which makes your job sound easy and makes them wonder how anybody gets paid to do it. You can explain what you do and why it's important in terms they understand, but it'll take so long they'll get bored and wish they hadn't asked. Or you can give a quick expl…
If you can't explain something in simple terms, you don't understand it well enough
The quip you're referring to was meant to be inspirational. It doesn't pass even the slightest logical scrutiny when taken at its literal meaning. Please. (Apologies if this was just a reference without any further rhetorical intent though.)
It's like claiming that hashes are unique fingerprints. No, they aren't, they mathematically cannot be. Or like claiming how movie or video game trailers should be "perfectly representative" - once again, by definition, they cannot be. It's trivial to see this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I choose the worst of all options and go into excruciating detail.
Thereby minimizing how often anyone asks you - which makes that the best long-term option?
I always opt for excruciating detail because it's what I enjoy the most.