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

Be prolific

chrismytton.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 134 posts

Re: Be prolific

#71

Post by christophilus »

_Microft wrote: post #4

I'm reasonably sure that it was a pottery class (or study) in which students/study participants were asked to produce either the best piece they could think of or as many as possible. I think it was actually a study that I read about. It might need some internet sleuthing to find it. I'll try later. I do not think that it is surprising that practice improves skills though (well, except for people with an exceptionall…

Adam Smith observed something similar. In his case it was about nail manufacturing or something, but he noted that the boys who made a thousand nails per day were not only more efficient than an unrelated craftsman who might try it, but also their quality was likely higher.

Re: Be prolific

#72

Post by ck425 »

throw149102 wrote: post #34

I realize this is a silly criticism, but it's strange that the author would write about how it's valuable to make a lot of stuff but then to only write 11 sentences about the topic. It seems like it would be much better way to demonstrate the point if the author wrote 100 pages about producing more work/art/code, without any rhyme or reason or editing. After all, the thesis is "Quantity leads to quality", why not jus…

There's a big difference between quantity in each completed piece of work and quantity of pieces of completed work. I think his theory favours the latter by far. Instead of increase quantity by writing bigger articles, write lots of articles.

I do agree with your latter points about bad practise. I think this works best for forms of output where bad work has relatively little downside for the individual. It's harder to get bad habits that dampen your growth in things like writing, art etc and so this system works great for those types of activity. Maybe a good way to think about it is that you need a base level of skill to then improve. In writing most folk will have the base skills from school (spelling, grammar etc), whereas in software you first need to learn the basics (syntax, high level incepts like classes and functions, debugging etc) and then this theory will work for you.

Re: Be prolific

#73

Post by jlokier »

billfruit wrote: post #45
saberdancer wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an anecdote which could be completely fabricated, I'd expect it is since the source seems to be a book where it is mentioned as story with no names. If anyone has some kind of study or more concrete example, I'd love to hear about it.

Why is a study or a concrete example necessary, if I might ask. It works perfectly fine as a thought experiment.

Some thought experiments tell you a useful answer.

But this thought experiment doesn't tell you what works, as either outcome is quite compelling and plausible. So it's not much use as a thought experiment, other than to show that it might be interesting to study it in the real world.

I.e. it might be "obvious" to you that focus on quantity over quality leads to better quality as assessed by another in the thought experiment. But it might be equally "obvious" to someone else the other way.

A real study would be interesting, because there might be a real world consistent pattern. It might actually be useful to know which one works best for real.

Re: Be prolific

#74

Post by adambyrtek »

ajuc wrote: post #17
saberdancer wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an anecdote which could be completely fabricated, I'd expect it is since the source seems to be a book where it is mentioned as story with no names. If anyone has some kind of study or more concrete example, I'd love to hear about it.

Unix vs Multix. Plan 9 and GNU Herd vs Linux. Spring vs EJB. Rest vs Soap vs CORBA. C vs Algol. It's easier to do something simple and iterate on it than to do something perfect from the start.

I get your point, but wasn't Linux the simple solution that got improved over time vs GNU Hurd which tried to implement the perfect micro-kernel architecture?

Re: Be prolific

#75

Post by MaxBarraclough »

tucuman87 wrote: post #13

Meanwhile in academy everyone is complaining on the pressure to publish fast on expense of quality.... Maybe this judging on quantity isn't totally bad?

I don't see that it really applies in this way. No-one is suggesting that scientists change the amount of time and effort they spend immersed in their research.

If the system of incentives is preventing researchers from promising-but-still-risky lines of research, that's still a problem.

If it's steering researchers away from meaningful research that won't produce anything publishable for a while, in favour of uninteresting variations on a common theme that reliably result in publications, that's still a problem too.

It also incentivises salami slicing, [0] which may result in scientific busywork.

(Disclaimer: I'm not an academic.)

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Least_publishable_unit

Re: Be prolific

#76

Post by alltakendamned »

anonytrary wrote: post #39
alltakendamned wrote: post #3

While "practice makes perfect" is not a very new idea, it is still nice to be reminded about it from time to time.

There are a lot of ways to put it, like "no success without failures". He's making the additional point that it's hard to know if you have failed unless you shared your work. I needed to hear it again also.

Indeed. I came across the use of learning in public just recently. It has something.

Re: Be prolific

#77

Post by preommr »

As opposed to what?

Nobody has ever just suddenly become good at something with 0 practice. Usually, there's a strong correlation between time spent on something and expertise.

If the discussion is about quality vs. quantity, then this is a strawman. You can make a 100 shallow todo list apps, and they'll all be worse than one you focus on and polish over time. That story about the art class is most likely not true and most likely not applicable to other examples. But maybe part of that polish is experimenting with smaller prototypes.

The point is to always use advice like this as a principle and not a singular source of truth.

Re: Be prolific

#78

Post by jedimastert »

It's funny this should some up, as I'm about 3/4ths through Inktober. The idea is that you make an art piece (traditionally an ink illustration but I've been using water color and the community is surprisingly not super gate-keeping about it) everyday and share it on social media. There's a prompt list the guy who made the idea popular puts out each year that's optional.

I've painted more this month than I have the rest of my life combined and I've learned so much.

Also self-promotion say what? instagram.com/amtunlimited

Re: Be prolific

#79

Post by cafard »

meheleventyone wrote: post #56
saberdancer wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm mostly interested in the source of the story, it sounds completely fabricated and if it is true, it should be very easy to replicate. But let's take the idea to the extreme, imagine we are building an system, one team starts building and improving on the design for 6 months. Other team builds and starts anew every 2 weeks. Who would have a better system at the end of 6 months? Tough to tell, the iterative one wil…

I don't think it's important for the message if the story is true or made up. It's overthinking things to an extreme. I also think it's being misapplied when put into a completely different context. Teamwork, not students learning, project that is harder to start again and slower to iterate that way etc. I'm not sure we should consider every piece of advice as being some how completely universal. We could also overth…

I think it does matter whether true or made up. Otherwise, why not present it as a thought experiment?

Re: Be prolific

#80

Post by xenocratus »

billfruit wrote: post #45
saberdancer wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an anecdote which could be completely fabricated, I'd expect it is since the source seems to be a book where it is mentioned as story with no names. If anyone has some kind of study or more concrete example, I'd love to hear about it.

Why is a study or a concrete example necessary, if I might ask. It works perfectly fine as a thought experiment.

Because if your conclusion relies on the actual result of the experiment then having it as a thought experiment only leaves you open to biases.
Post reply on HN