An Unreasonable Amount of Time • Hacker News Board

Re: An Unreasonable Amount of Time

#31

Post by selendym » Wed, Jan 01, 2025, 1:33 PM UTC

zeeed wrote: post #20

andrewstuart wrote: post #18

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4022D0C2D4AB65BC "Derren Brown, a British illusionist and mentalist, showcased a horse racing betting experiment called "The System" in a 2008 Channel 4 special. In this program, he demonstrated a method that appeared to guarantee winning bets on horse races. The process began with Brown anonymously sending a woman named Khadisha a series of correct predictions for five consecu…

it bugs me to an unreasonable extent that he finished one person short of 7777. The system and the fact that he executed it though is genius.

> it bugs me to an unreasonable extent that he finished one person short of 7777

Perhaps (likely?) he himself should be counted too, so 7777 in total.

Re: An Unreasonable Amount of Time

#32

Post by koiueo » Wed, Jan 01, 2025, 1:40 PM UTC

nejsjsjsbsb wrote: post #14

Except for software engineering where doing for 25 years doesn't make me feel like I am doing magic. It feels like the art keeps moving and I need to keep up. Like the card tricks I did back when are now obsolete so I need to learn human cannonball as table stakes.

Another great person said something like: sometimes 5 years of experience is just 1 year repeated five times.

I'd guess, less than 1% of engineers in the industry have an opportunity to learn something drastically new at least once a year. Most are doing the same in terms of engineering and just occasionally learn new (not better) tools (that's the only thing that pops in my mind in response to your observation about art moving forward).

On the other hand, considering your 25 yrs of experience, I'd guess just you understanding networking or compilation/linking process will make you look like a magician to 99% of SW engineers outside of your bubble.

Re: An Unreasonable Amount of Time

#33

Post by rsanek » Wed, Jan 01, 2025, 2:01 PM UTC

zeeed wrote: post #20

andrewstuart wrote: post #18

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4022D0C2D4AB65BC "Derren Brown, a British illusionist and mentalist, showcased a horse racing betting experiment called "The System" in a 2008 Channel 4 special. In this program, he demonstrated a method that appeared to guarantee winning bets on horse races. The process began with Brown anonymously sending a woman named Khadisha a series of correct predictions for five consecu…

it bugs me to an unreasonable extent that he finished one person short of 7777. The system and the fact that he executed it though is genius.

7776 is 6^5, that's the amount he needed to find a single correct 'winner' since each race would only have 1/6 chance.

Re: An Unreasonable Amount of Time

#34

Post by chthonicdaemon » Wed, Jan 01, 2025, 2:05 PM UTC

nejsjsjsbsb wrote: post #14

Except for software engineering where doing for 25 years doesn't make me feel like I am doing magic. It feels like the art keeps moving and I need to keep up. Like the card tricks I did back when are now obsolete so I need to learn human cannonball as table stakes.

I have the opposite experience all the time, perhaps because I've spent a lot of time with early-career programmers. I recognise a problem and say "oh, that's a maximum flow problem", then formulate and solve it in a few lines and they are amazed in similar ways as Penn describes. They're like "how do you know all these things"? And it's just like the buried cards. I've taken all this time to read books on algorithms and solve Advent of code and so on, so my whole mind is filled with these buried cards.

Compare yourself to a person with no experience in software engineering at all and you will quickly understand how many you have, too.

Re: An Unreasonable Amount of Time

#35

Post by velcrovan » Wed, Jan 01, 2025, 2:18 PM UTC

treetalker wrote: post #2

This was a pleasant surprise and a pleasant read. Its message reminds me of the words of Shunryu Suzuki: > As to progress -- we don’t know how much progress we made, actually, but if you practice it you will realize -- some day you will realize that our progress is not -- it is not possible to make rapid, extraordinary progress. Even though you try very hard, you cannot actually make progress. The progress you make i…

My favorite imagery of this idea comes from the last two stanzas of a poem:

    For while the tired waves, vainly breaking
       Seem here no painful inch to gain,
    Far back through creeks and inlets making,
       Comes silent, flooding in, the main.

    And not by eastern windows only,
       When daylight comes, comes in the light,
    In front the sun climbs slow, how slowly,
       But westward, look, the land is bright.

— Arthur Hugh Clough https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43959/say-not-the-str...

Re: An Unreasonable Amount of Time

#36

Post by yakshaving_jgt » Wed, Jan 01, 2025, 2:22 PM UTC

The footnotes request a lead on P&T explaining this trick.

I’m a bit of a P&T fan, and I’m pleased to be able to share a fairly obscure old video where they do indeed explain this trick. I’m glad I remembered it, and managed to find it again.

https://youtu.be/gnEGedfTrzc?si=ci7omkG-4zCUmIPc

Re: An Unreasonable Amount of Time

#37

Post by munch117 » Wed, Jan 01, 2025, 2:23 PM UTC

zeeed wrote: post #20

andrewstuart wrote: post #18

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4022D0C2D4AB65BC "Derren Brown, a British illusionist and mentalist, showcased a horse racing betting experiment called "The System" in a 2008 Channel 4 special. In this program, he demonstrated a method that appeared to guarantee winning bets on horse races. The process began with Brown anonymously sending a woman named Khadisha a series of correct predictions for five consecu…

it bugs me to an unreasonable extent that he finished one person short of 7777. The system and the fact that he executed it though is genius.

7776 is 6^5. The exactly right number for the trick to work.

Re: An Unreasonable Amount of Time

#38

Post by toss1 » Wed, Jan 01, 2025, 2:26 PM UTC

romesmoke wrote: post #28

soulofmischief wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A good and often useful generality, however it's important to recognize how vast the difference can be in the amount of energy needed to achieve inner peace from one person to the next. For example, I had absent drug addict parents, was instead raised by extremely abusive and restrictive guardians. I was homeless since 16 and I spent my 20's undertaking the self-actualization that I should have been doing in my teens…

I see your point. I've had my fair share of trouble as well. Talking about this stuff on HN after the storm has passed, from a financially stable place, is a luxury on its own. Nevertheless, I don't see any value on acknowledging the delta between me and peers that happened to be luckier. It'd be useful were I on the other side: for instance, if I hadn't seen my father sink into dementia, if he was still with me, I'd…

>>...the next tiny act of self-destruction

A world of truth in that phrase

It all really comes down to the tiny acts of building one's self or wasting the time... Yes a (non-wasteful) strategy & goal is key, but it comes down to how we spend our seconds...

Re: An Unreasonable Amount of Time

#39

Post by munch117 » Wed, Jan 01, 2025, 2:28 PM UTC

andrewstuart wrote: post #18

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4022D0C2D4AB65BC "Derren Brown, a British illusionist and mentalist, showcased a horse racing betting experiment called "The System" in a 2008 Channel 4 special. In this program, he demonstrated a method that appeared to guarantee winning bets on horse races. The process began with Brown anonymously sending a woman named Khadisha a series of correct predictions for five consecu…

This is based on an old scam, the core idea isn't Derren Brown's.

But what a nice execution. I really liked how be complimented the core idea with a bit of sleight of hand in the last episode, turning the mark from a victim into a winner.

Re: An Unreasonable Amount of Time

#40

Post by Tor3 » Wed, Jan 01, 2025, 2:48 PM UTC

I admit to not understand how the trick was done when I read the beginning of the article. I of course realized it was a trick, it's just that it didn't occur to me how it was done. Then I continued reading and of course the resolution was obvious, but only after I had read it. Now, of course, I can't unlearn it. And the reason I didn't get it was exactly the point put forward in the article: The title of this thread.