[HN Gopher] Reality has a surprising amount of detail (2017)
___________________________________________________________________
Reality has a surprising amount of detail (2017)
Author : tosh
Score : 66 points
Date : 2023-11-24 20:25 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (johnsalvatier.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (johnsalvatier.org)
| k__ wrote:
| Let's build an API.
|
| I need a CI/CD pipeline to deploy it.
|
| I should use a static code analysis tool.
|
| I need an observability tool!
|
| Let's to security code reviews.
|
| Do I have a SBOM?
|
| Which MFA should I use?
|
| Should I put it inside a container or go serverless?
|
| Better generate a OpenAPI spec!
|
| Do I have enough tests?
|
| Oh, I need blue/green deployments!
|
| Should I deploy to the edge?
| pschuegr wrote:
| I'm personally convinced that a lot of arguments in modern life
| boil down to not going to a sufficient level of detail. Mostly I
| find that both parties in an disagreement have valid points and
| simply haven't defined their terms precisely enough or been clear
| that they are talking about a p95 vs a p5 situation.
| emmelaich wrote:
| I agree, most of the time you need to refine and quantify the
| question.
|
| People are resistant to that though. If I'm being generous I
| think they think it's just saving time, because they 'know' the
| right answer. But the melancholy cynic in me wonders if it is
| just ego.
| bwestergard wrote:
| This basic idea was the foundation of the logical atomist
| philosophy of Bertrand Russell and the early Wittgenstein.
| Slow_Hand wrote:
| Agreed. A lot of the past conflict in my life boils down to
| this as well.
|
| Conversely, I'm now in the habit of asking big "obvious" or
| "dumb" questions; questions that will highlight assumptions
| being made by each party. I'll often go slow at first to
| establish that these large unspoken thoughts are aligned and
| then work my way down to lower levels of detail until we hit an
| actual disagreement, rather than a mere misunderstanding.
|
| It drives me crazy to spend 30 minutes arguing with someone
| only to find that "Wait, you're talking about THAT? I thought
| we were talking about THIS."
|
| It's too common for people to find themselves arguing in the
| direction of the same general concept, but differences in their
| understanding/interpretation will diverge more and more the
| farther you get into the discussion. It's so helpful to lay out
| terms at the start when possible.
| scubbo wrote:
| Agreed - and this is why I find it _so_ frustrating when I try
| to take a step back (or down, or whichever direction seems most
| intuitive to you) and actually define terms, only to get met
| with a "you're just nitpicking about terminology, I'm trying to
| communicate ideas!"
|
| If we aren't using the same terminology, we can't possibly
| communicate ideas.
| tuatoru wrote:
| Absolutely. I summarise it as "abstraction is the curse of the
| age".
|
| My wife works in governance, and when a proposed new policy is
| being discussed, she is always the one to say "so, how would
| the policy work in this situation, with these people involved?
| [Outlines a situation.] Tell me the steps."
|
| And, of course, the elegant, abstract policy is shown to be
| unworkable or lead to manifestly unfair or absurd outcomes.
|
| I admire my wife's patience greatly.
| kristianp wrote:
| Previous threads with 100+ comments:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29429385
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22020495
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16184255
| kristianp wrote:
| This was a beautiful read until I got to the part about
| disagreements. I think it may distract from the main message
| about the complexity of tasks and the value of experience.
| huijzer wrote:
| Also related to the ending, I've come to realise more and more
| that most people reason out of belief first and arguments second
| on a lot of things (maybe most things?) Climate change deniers
| are an obvious example. But also more nuanced views such as "the
| software I make makes the world a better place" (I belief this
| myself), "me being a healthcare worker is a great thing for
| humanity", or "I need to game at least once a week to relax." And
| it makes sense. Many things are extremely complex and so picking
| one side and going for that will make sense in many cases. It's
| often necessary to be able to make decisions. However, the risk
| is getting too stuck in certain ideas. It's easier to accept a
| long held belief and reject opposing information than to re-
| evaluate.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| Professional deniers are propagandists, not good-faith
| debaters. Lack of nuance is one problem, but there's a far
| bigger problem with groups of people knowingly trying to poison
| and undermine anything that resembles reality-based consensus.
| switchbak wrote:
| Absolutely - PR firms, lobbyists, astroturfers, troll farms -
| I'm in full agreement, and there's a lot of them around.
|
| Also a problem are those who label the undecided or free
| thinking among us as not being good faith actors. And
| unfortunately it's a tough position to be in, as you get
| attacked from all sides for not choosing a side.
| Pearse wrote:
| For some reason this really speaks to me.
|
| I think it's because we create a story about every part of us
| and our life. Every thing we do (sometimes we even do it after
| the fact).
|
| I feel like those beliefs are what's keeping us grounded in the
| sense of understanding the world, of being in control. so it
| makes sense that we would start with them even if we are not
| aware of it.
|
| And it makes sense that it's hard to let them go because
| without them you get a sense that you are just floating away
| and don't have any to "hang" your assumptions on.
|
| You can reason a lot but there comes a point when things get
| bigger than you and you have to trust some other authority or
| just trust your gut.
|
| There's not many people that could comfortably reason from
| first principles and be satisfied with where they end up. (I
| don't think I could do that)
| zubairq wrote:
| I agree that looking at the details really helps when reasoning
| about things. But that is hard as it is always easier to look at
| things from 10,000 feet
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-11-24 23:00 UTC)