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

Proof you can do hard things

blog.nateliason.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 330 posts

Re: Proof you can do hard things

#311

Post by hnfong »

mianos wrote: post #203

It's not the point, but a lot of people are going on and on about the lack of need for calculus as a programmer. If you even touch how any machine learning works it's all basic calculus and intermediate linear algebra under the hood. Sure most people can get a long way without understanding anything under the hood but I think I am better developer knowing assembly and architecture. The same for ML, you can get by mos…

> it's all basic calculus and intermediate linear algebra under the hood

It's all bits and bytes under the hood, which in turn is just electric signals under the hood, and ultimately (hopefully) quantum mechanics under the hood.

Are you an expert in all of these? Why arbitrarily stop at the calculus layer?

Re: Proof you can do hard things

#312

Post by paulcole »

robertlagrant wrote: post #306
arolihas wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can be hard to understand something when someone is more interested in being offended.

Another stereotype. I'm not offended by people substituting lazy stereotypes for thinking. I just think it comes out badly when they try and articulate points.

Did you really not understand my original point?

Re: Proof you can do hard things

#313

Post by mianos »

hnfong wrote: post #311
mianos wrote: post #203

It's not the point, but a lot of people are going on and on about the lack of need for calculus as a programmer. If you even touch how any machine learning works it's all basic calculus and intermediate linear algebra under the hood. Sure most people can get a long way without understanding anything under the hood but I think I am better developer knowing assembly and architecture. The same for ML, you can get by mos…

> it's all basic calculus and intermediate linear algebra under the hood It's all bits and bytes under the hood, which in turn is just electric signals under the hood, and ultimately (hopefully) quantum mechanics under the hood. Are you an expert in all of these? Why arbitrarily stop at the calculus layer?

Yes I am trained in electronics but I don't think understanding that level of detail ever helped me find bugs or improve the performance and reliability as that level is fairly static so you have to play the cards you are dealt.

The same with the underlying physics. I have never had any use for that and I am not sure why they taught it hat first up. Interesting all the same

Re: Proof you can do hard things

#314

Post by ed-209 »

constantcrying wrote: post #179

I really despise all the "why you should care about math" takes. The question is never asked about any other school subject and only mathematics has to justify itself that way. I had to learn about categories of plants and animals, interpret 20th century literature, learn about events from a thousand years ago, I did presentations on the demographics of European countries, how certain chemicals react and much, much m…

The author is trying to motivate kids, not make a case for the existence of math generally.

Re: Proof you can do hard things

#315

Post by arolihas »

robertlagrant wrote: post #306
arolihas wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can be hard to understand something when someone is more interested in being offended.

Another stereotype. I'm not offended by people substituting lazy stereotypes for thinking. I just think it comes out badly when they try and articulate points.

What stereotype do you think I am referencing? Their point was so simple I am honestly baffled at how anyone could possibly be confused or genuinely find it inarticulate.

Re: Proof you can do hard things

#316

Post by abenga »

paddw wrote: post #12

There are infinitely many hard things. It is hard to learn Japanese. We don't require that every high school student attain basic proficiency in it though. The reason we learn calculus in high school is because it is foundational for many advanced STEM fields, and we will yield better results during university for the small percentage of students who go into those fields by forcing everyone to learn it in high school…

How does a kid know that they definitely will/will not be going into a STEM field in the future? Is it better to have your school-going years slightly marred by calculus and not particularly need it after, or want to go into STEM later in life but not have the grounding necessary?

Re: Proof you can do hard things

#317

Post by roflyear »

gmadsen wrote: post #95
thfuran wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're kind of arguing that you can't walk without studying kinematics.

im not though. I don't think you need to know measure theory and understand how to formalize probability in terms of sigma algebras to do professional stats. But I would be very skeptical of a professional data scientist that doesn't understand things like derivative, integral, limit on an intuitive level. I don't know how you would understand distributions without that knowledge

R is not exclusive to professional data scientists.

Re: Proof you can do hard things

#318

Post by robertlagrant »

arolihas wrote: post #315
robertlagrant wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another stereotype. I'm not offended by people substituting lazy stereotypes for thinking. I just think it comes out badly when they try and articulate points.

What stereotype do you think I am referencing? Their point was so simple I am honestly baffled at how anyone could possibly be confused or genuinely find it inarticulate.

The stereotype that if someone disagrees it must be because they're offended.

Re: Proof you can do hard things

#319

Post by robertlagrant »

paulcole wrote: post #312
robertlagrant wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another stereotype. I'm not offended by people substituting lazy stereotypes for thinking. I just think it comes out badly when they try and articulate points.

Did you really not understand my original point?

Not really, no. It just seemed to be a continuation of a made up category, and I don't understand the point of doing that.

Re: Proof you can do hard things

#320

Post by arolihas »

robertlagrant wrote: post #318
arolihas wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What stereotype do you think I am referencing? Their point was so simple I am honestly baffled at how anyone could possibly be confused or genuinely find it inarticulate.

The stereotype that if someone disagrees it must be because they're offended.

That's not what a stereotype is. And I didn't even make the claim that everyone who disagrees with me is offended.

I just said it can be hard to understand something if you are offended by it. In this case it seemed likely, because the obvious point was that different people have different preferences towards subjects and look down on others. For example, some people in tech have a disdain for literature or other "soft" subjects like the humanities.

When you complain about the stereotype and state that it obscures this point suggests that one could be offended by it and it is clouding their judgement. The fact that the OP simplified their point and you still refuse to understand it because it's a "made-up category" supports this notion.

But hey, maybe you aren't offended by the term "techbro". It's perfectly possible that you lack reading comprehension skills. It's also possible that you are being deliberately obtuse and disingenuous

Post reply on HN