Learning animals

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: Learning animals

Postby Mr Reasonable » Mon Nov 16, 2020 4:23 am

if u become "powerful" as a result of everyone else getting weaker then youre still the same schmuck that you were before just living in a shittier world.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 26757
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Learning animals

Postby Magnus Anderson » Mon Nov 16, 2020 4:39 am

Doesn't that apply to one percent Joe?
"Let's keep the debate about poor people in the US specifically. It's the land of opportunity. So everyone has an opportunity. That means everyone can get money. So some people who don't have it just aren't using thier opportunities, and then out of those who are using them, then most squander what they gain through poor choices, which keeps them poor. It's no one else's fault. The end."

Mr. Reasonable
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4721
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Learning animals

Postby obsrvr524 » Mon Nov 16, 2020 4:51 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:Doesn't that apply to one percent Joe?

:lol:
              You have been observed.
obsrvr524
Thinker
 
Posts: 996
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Learning animals

Postby Mr Reasonable » Wed Nov 18, 2020 4:51 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:Doesn't that apply to one percent Joe?


i dont know who that even is
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 26757
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Learning animals

Postby Magnus Anderson » Wed Nov 18, 2020 5:19 am

He doesn't know who he is either.
"Let's keep the debate about poor people in the US specifically. It's the land of opportunity. So everyone has an opportunity. That means everyone can get money. So some people who don't have it just aren't using thier opportunities, and then out of those who are using them, then most squander what they gain through poor choices, which keeps them poor. It's no one else's fault. The end."

Mr. Reasonable
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4721
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Learning animals

Postby Mr Reasonable » Wed Nov 18, 2020 5:27 am

you mean the president? he has less money than kabbillionare trump right?
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 26757
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Learning animals

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Nov 18, 2020 1:20 pm

Mr Reasonable wrote:you mean the president? he has less money than kabbillionare trump right?
So, it's a difference of degree. Biden also making money in real estate and investments.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3403
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Learning animals

Postby fuse » Thu Nov 19, 2020 3:04 am

In the context of software engineering, which is probably the relevant context, industry relies on people who are able to quickly learn and adapt to new technologies, tools, and methods. Google isn't saying that everyone in every industry should be a generalist and not a specialist. They are saying that for their industry, it's what really works. What you have to understand is that there is so much arbitrary convention, scaffolding, and tooling in software that it's more important that you have general logical, analytical, communication, and work ethic abilities than that you are a C++ expert with 15 years of experience, with 10 certifications from 5 years ago. This is why software engineering interviews are typically ~5 hour exams where the point is for the interviewer to observe how you problem solve, analyze, and explain complex concepts in real time.
User avatar
fuse
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4588
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:13 pm

Re: Learning animals

Postby Magnus Anderson » Thu Nov 19, 2020 11:47 am

fuse wrote:What you have to understand is that there is so much arbitrary convention, scaffolding, and tooling in software that it's more important that you have general logical, analytical, communication, and work ethic abilities than that you are a C++ expert with 15 years of experience, with 10 certifications from 5 years ago.


I don't have the impression that modern day programmers use "logical, analytical [..] abilities".

One tool is replaced by another in an effort to automate certain manually performed tasks. When someone comes along and tells you that you should stop using whatever tools you've been using in the past and start using new ones, they are in effect stealing your job from you. Perhaps not your entire job but most definitely parts of it. The result is that you have fewer responsibilities requiring little to no thought. Everything is taken care of for you, you just have to sit back and relax.

I am not one of those guys who think they have to do everything on their own. I will happily use other people's tools and help when I see it fitting. But if you're going to force me to use other people's tools for something I can do on my own, then we have a problem.

The worst part is that the advanced tools that you're told you should use don't do the job as well as you yourself (or your own tools) can.

The excuse is that "You are freed from manual labor in order to dedicate yourself to higher tasks." But you didn't ask for it, didn't you? It's not a choice you freely made but something you were forced to because a job has been stolen from you. And it is not a choice because you are not ready for it. You know nothing about, have no experience with, the higher task you are supposed to dedicate yourself to. Your expertise has been, in fact, reduced to zero. There's no longer anything to distinguish you from someone fresh out of school.

And if the average lifespan of a technology is between 3 and 10 years, then no true expertise can ever be attained let alone maintained.
"Let's keep the debate about poor people in the US specifically. It's the land of opportunity. So everyone has an opportunity. That means everyone can get money. So some people who don't have it just aren't using thier opportunities, and then out of those who are using them, then most squander what they gain through poor choices, which keeps them poor. It's no one else's fault. The end."

Mr. Reasonable
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4721
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Learning animals

Postby fuse » Thu Nov 19, 2020 11:57 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:
fuse wrote:What you have to understand is that there is so much arbitrary convention, scaffolding, and tooling in software that it's more important that you have general logical, analytical, communication, and work ethic abilities than that you are a C++ expert with 15 years of experience, with 10 certifications from 5 years ago.


I don't have the impression that modern day programmers use "logical, analytical [..] abilities".

Maybe let's start with what you think the engineers at Google do?
User avatar
fuse
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4588
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:13 pm

Re: Learning animals

Postby phoneutria » Thu Nov 19, 2020 12:13 pm

oh oh i know that one
they browse stack overflow
did i get it right?


(this is just a joke)
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 3686
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: Learning animals

Postby Magnus Anderson » Thu Nov 19, 2020 12:23 pm

That's difficult to tell. But I think they all rely heavily on Google search.
"Let's keep the debate about poor people in the US specifically. It's the land of opportunity. So everyone has an opportunity. That means everyone can get money. So some people who don't have it just aren't using thier opportunities, and then out of those who are using them, then most squander what they gain through poor choices, which keeps them poor. It's no one else's fault. The end."

Mr. Reasonable
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4721
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Learning animals

Postby fuse » Sat Nov 21, 2020 7:39 am

Algorithms, complexity analysis, data structures, design patterns, interoperability, and security - these core competencies are much more essential to the job than any particular set of tools or programming languages. The latter can be picked up on the fly, with a firm grasp of the former. In a sense, those core competencies together are the specialty. But each of those topics is also a path of specialization. So do you go all the way in one dimension? There is an argument for that and some level of need for it. Or do you go for multi-dimensional competency, plus the possibility of future specialization, and get the knock-on effect of being able to engineer generally sophisticated systems and applications? This is where being a generalist comes into play.

Magnus Anderson wrote:The thing is, I find it necessary to relate new information to existing information, and if I can't do that, I can't proceed.

We're all doing that, inescapably. Iterating on our baseline model, some more efficiently than others. Googlers aren't amnesiacs. But many were selected because of their general ability to learn and communicate complex ideas (where talking through CS theory and toy programming problems are often thought to be good proxies for this ability). That doesn't mean they don't have core skills and competencies, they do.
User avatar
fuse
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4588
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:13 pm

Re: Learning animals

Postby fuse » Sat Nov 21, 2020 8:01 am

I mean, you're free to dissect them for horrific "modernity," if that's what this is about. I'm sure they have that, too. I'm sure you'll find it. Have at it.
User avatar
fuse
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4588
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:13 pm

Re: Learning animals

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sat Nov 21, 2020 9:12 am

This thread isn't so much about Google (and IT industry as a whole) as it is about rapid technological development and its consequences.

The basic premise is that the faster the environment we live in changes the less time we have to think -- the less useful intelligence becomes. Rapidly changing environments do not favor intelligence.

I would expect Google to be one of the few companies with a good number of employees who not only have a lot of responsibilities but too many of them. (On the other hand, I believe that Google employees aren't "born equal", so it might be useful to look at how responsibilities are distributed among their employees.)
"Let's keep the debate about poor people in the US specifically. It's the land of opportunity. So everyone has an opportunity. That means everyone can get money. So some people who don't have it just aren't using thier opportunities, and then out of those who are using them, then most squander what they gain through poor choices, which keeps them poor. It's no one else's fault. The end."

Mr. Reasonable
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4721
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Learning animals

Postby obsrvr524 » Tue Nov 24, 2020 4:22 am

James S Saint » Thu Mar 19, 2015 1:48 pm wrote:There is absolutely nothing that a human can do that a machine cannot be designed to do better - much, much better. But it has to be sold to the public. So like all social movements, the ones being promoted have to be seen as the poor, helpless, abused underdog until there is no escape.

Your faith in human, conscious superiority is pure superstition and wishful thinking.
              You have been observed.
obsrvr524
Thinker
 
Posts: 996
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Learning animals

Postby Mr Reasonable » Tue Nov 24, 2020 4:37 am

.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 26757
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Previous

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: zinnat