News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Study suggests that the “brain training” industry may be ... by sklogic on Monday June 20, 2016 @05:33PM (#11941756)
And this is exactly why "smart" people are counterproductive. Their "smart" solutions are not reproducible.
Re:Study suggests that the “brain training” industry may be ... by bbcbasic on Monday June 20, 2016 @06:49PM (#11942218)
A smart person who is also pragmatic and takes the team into account though is superproductive. Their solutions may take a bit of learning but it pays off.
Re:Study suggests that the “brain training” industry may be ... by sklogic on Tuesday June 21, 2016 @08:43AM (#11945210)
> Their solutions may take a bit of learning but it pays off.

Solution that takes a bit of learning is always worse than a solution that does not need any learning and is obvious to anyone, even to someone in my IQ range.

Re:Study suggests that the “brain training” industry may be ... by bbcbasic on Tuesday June 21, 2016 @06:32PM (#11949982)
Not always. Otherwise we'd all be using punchcards and valves still.
Re:Study suggests that the “brain training” industry may be ... by sklogic on Tuesday June 21, 2016 @07:54PM (#11950463)
I used punchcards. It definitely required more learning than a video terminal.
Re:Study suggests that the “brain training” industry may be ... by Retra on Monday June 20, 2016 @11:02PM (#11943195)
That's in running for the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Re:Study suggests that the “brain training” industry may be ... by sklogic on Tuesday June 21, 2016 @08:42AM (#11945206)
Try to look at a smart-ass solution and compare it to a good, solid, dumb solution. The former is A->"some-obscure-magic"->D, while the latter would be like "A->B->C->D" with each step explained in an ELI5 style. No matter what, I'd always prefer the second option.
Re:Study suggests that the “brain training” industry may be ... by Retra on Tuesday June 21, 2016 @06:51PM (#11950102)
You're not talking about smart people, you're talking about "smart" people, who are clearly not that smart if they're doing such obviously stupid things.
Re:Study suggests that the “brain training” industry may be ... by sklogic on Tuesday June 21, 2016 @07:54PM (#11950455)
I'm talking about the people with high IQ. Most of them are guilty of the same "from A straight to Z" mistake, unfortunately.
Re:Study suggests that the “brain training” industry may be ... by girvo on Tuesday June 21, 2016 @09:57AM (#11945603)
Are you a python programmer? :)

My coworker is, and he bangs the same drum. I agree with him on it, mostly!

Re:Study suggests that the “brain training” industry may be ... by sklogic on Tuesday June 21, 2016 @01:54PM (#11947808)
Actually, no. I believe Python is exactly the opposite thing, despite preaching some of the right ideas. Python is too low level, and therefore it invites obscure solutions that hides the real meaning behind layers upon layers of low level, irrelevant details. Exactly a tool for the "smart" people, pretty much useless for a reproducible and maintainable development.
Re:Study suggests that the “brain training” industry may be ... by girvo on Tuesday June 21, 2016 @11:09PM (#11951309)
> therefore it invites obscure solutions that hides the real meaning behind layers upon layers of low level, irrelevant details

And thats exactly why I said "mostly agree" with my coworker! This is my exact gripe. Basically its the same idea, taken to an extreme to the point where it no longer matches the original reason.

Re:Study suggests that the “brain training” industry may be ... by sklogic on Wednesday June 22, 2016 @03:51AM (#11952181)
There is nothing wrong with the idea per se. It's just implemented badly in Python. Instead of allowing unlimited abstraction, which is the only way to unlock this desired simplicity on all possible levels, they're limiting the abstraction and therefore increasing the complexity needlessly.