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

51–60 of 138 posts

Re: Feynman’s Razor

#51

Post by mock-possum »

photochemsyn wrote: post #48

Funny, I always thought Feynman's Razor was along these lines (from 1979 QED lectures in New Zealand, response to audience question): > Q: "Do you like the idea that our picture of the world has to be based on a calculation which involves probability?" > A: "...if I get right down to it, I don't say I like it and I don't say I don't like it. I got very highly trained over the years to be a scientist and there's a cer…

That’s such a typical Feynman answer too. charitably he’s doing it because he doesn’t want to misspeak or suggest something untrue from his position of expertise - but it does also come off as being dodgy about answering people’s questions. He does the exact same thing in that video clip where an interviewers asks him how magnets work .

Re: Feynman’s Razor

#52

Post by xmprt »

GuB-42 wrote: post #40
pier25 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe at some point Google will release a Classic version of the algo like Coca-Cola did.

It would be interesting to see, but my guess is that it would be exploited to death very quickly. There is a constant cat and mouse game between search engine and those who want to "optimize" their results. Going back and staying there would be like having the mouse stand still, not good. It would have to be a different product, developed in parallel, rather than a snapshot of the past.

I don't think it's that simple. It's a cat and mouse game but the cat can't catch two different mice. If the classic Google algorithm is significantly different from the new one, SEO that's targeting the new algorithm wouldn't be as successful with the old one which is also barely used (so no one would bother optimizing for the old algorithm).

Then make it so the new algorithm penalizes people abusing the old/simple algorithm (and since the old algorithm is simple, it should be simpler to catch people abusing it too).

Re: Feynman’s Razor

#53

Post by neontomo »

lisper wrote: post #50

> My favorite comment was from lisper... Cool! Someone noticed me! :-) (I find this noteworthy because I've been putting all this effort into writing a series of blog posts about the scientific method and I've gotten very little feedback on that. But this little throwaway comment, that gets attention! Life is funny sometimes.)

Your profile link is broken, where can I find out more? If you were advertising yourself what would you ask me to read? (giving you a wildcard here)

Re: Feynman’s Razor

#54

Post by immibis »

barfbagginus wrote: post #43
exe34 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they pay your bills, it is very dangerous to say anything in fact.

Collaborators always have their excuses, and yet freedom fighters always seem to ignore those very excuses. What makes the difference in outlook?

The latter doesn't value human life, even their own.

Re: Feynman’s Razor

#55

Post by photochemsyn »

mock-possum wrote: post #51
photochemsyn wrote: post #48

Funny, I always thought Feynman's Razor was along these lines (from 1979 QED lectures in New Zealand, response to audience question): > Q: "Do you like the idea that our picture of the world has to be based on a calculation which involves probability?" > A: "...if I get right down to it, I don't say I like it and I don't say I don't like it. I got very highly trained over the years to be a scientist and there's a cer…

That’s such a typical Feynman answer too. charitably he’s doing it because he doesn’t want to misspeak or suggest something untrue from his position of expertise - but it does also come off as being dodgy about answering people’s questions. He does the exact same thing in that video clip where an interviewers asks him how magnets work .

That's just part of the answer, he goes on to say that if you ask questions of nature and don't like the answers then that's just too bad, you don't get to dictate to nature how to behave. Scientists who don't like particular results because they don't match their philosophy of how things should be (most famously Einstein and QM) tend to end up tilting at windmills and not making any more progress.

However, humans can't help having likes and dislikes but I think the trick is to save that for other areas of interest - e.g., art or music or people or activities that you like for entirely subjective reasons.

Re: Feynman’s Razor

#56

Post by scrubs »

barfbagginus wrote: post #13
scarmig wrote: post #6

I agree this is true if your goal is to inform. If, however, your goal is to increase clicks, decrease support tickets, and get engagement, I'd be surprised if being technically descriptive and accurate is better than dumbing it down to the point of inaccuracy. None of that is to say that I agree with the goal of engagement over conveying information.

It's important to begin violently opposing, not just disagreeing with, the theory of engagement and revenue creation. It must become dangerous indeed for those who decide to pursue those goals.

Why bring that up? We all know it's BS, and the people who do it are expletive deleted morons. We're interested in what the smart people do .. and even better smart with a touch of class.

The older I get the less and less patience I have with people pushing the "it's all politics", "everybody lies and manages up/down and if you don't you're a fool", or it's all about image.

While there's smallish elements of truth to each in individual cases, this just cannot be the knee jerk reaction.

Know BS when you see it then say it. It's not tough.

Re: Feynman’s Razor

#57

Post by LoganDark »

powersnail wrote: post #26

I don't quite think the message-doesn't-exist example is caused by "dumbing down" too much. To me, the message "it no longer exists" is not the work of someone who, in trying to make layman understand, overdid it. Instead, it's the typical kind of mistake made by writers who forget about context. From the programmer's perspective, I speculate, the error _is_ indeed a case of something being non-existent. The code is…

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

Re: Feynman’s Razor

#58

Post by programjames »

hifrote wrote: post #8

Funny thing is I think this about Feynman’s own writing for “the layperson”. I think things like Feynman’s “little arrows” descriptions in QED only muddied and added to the mystique and mysticism of the physics he loved. Which is interesting because his written lectures[1], though, in their breadth and complexity require effort, seem as if they are intended for experts while being approachable to ”the layperson“. My…

I recommend Sussman's SICP for physics in code:

https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262028967/

Re: Feynman’s Razor

#59

Post by programjames »

admax88qqq wrote: post #7
drewcoo wrote: post #3

Feynman confused pedagogical skill with expertise in a given field. He insisted that experts could explain things. No, that's what a teacher does. Feynman was good at both and apparently had no one to challenge him on his claim that they were the same. It's possible to be a great teacher without being an expert on given subject matter. And it's possible to have the most expertise but be inscrutable. In the case of th…

Maybe. I think Feynman had a point. From my experience “experts” who are unable to explain well typically have an incomplete understanding. Language and knowledge are linked to a degree. Personally I have had subject I thought I was an expert an and when I went to explain them I realized the shortcomings of my understanding. Later when I was truly an expert my ability to explain them improved.

I think the ability to explain well requires you to be an expert, but also be able to quickly trace back all the definitions to what your student already knows.

Re: Feynman’s Razor

#60

Post by sneak »

neontomo wrote: post #53
lisper wrote: post #50

> My favorite comment was from lisper... Cool! Someone noticed me! :-) (I find this noteworthy because I've been putting all this effort into writing a series of blog posts about the scientific method and I've gotten very little feedback on that. But this little throwaway comment, that gets attention! Life is funny sometimes.)

Your profile link is broken, where can I find out more? If you were advertising yourself what would you ask me to read? (giving you a wildcard here)

This seems like a good point to beat my drum: put your email address in your HN profile, people! A website link also wouldn’t hurt.

Otherwise if someone wants to follow up with you about a comment, there is no way to do so without spamming a public comment reply.

Contact info!

Post reply on HN