kirkules
(20 Questions, from the intro) Trying to think of a thing for the game is not a search over a set of known things. Just saying the possibility set has size 2^N doesn't mean that choosing something in the set consists of processing the set. But even if that were the case, and if you do consider each of 2^N options, the consideration process itself is not trivial and probably varies wildly.
(English typing) Touch typists do not (only) simply convert an existing/known string to a sequence of hand actions by mapping character to action. There are whole words and sequences that become units/tokens from the standpoint of muscle memory and processing (this will be relevant to the rubik's cube topic as well). When i type, there's a sort of planning and queueing of actions, but also there's monitoring of actions that allows fast error correction with pressing delete a number of times or holding it and costly determining when the error has been reached, and resuming afterward. Of course the process likely varies from person to person, but there's such a host of other things going on that should count as part of the information processed in this simple behavior that the example and numbers used in the paper for it are utterly useless even as estimates.
(Rubik's cube blind speed solving) Again we see reference to the entire possibility space (from the perspective of possible configurations of the puzzle). But solvers do not identify the configuration they encounter with reference to the space, nor do they search the space for it. They look for patterns and ignore what they cannot use for the strategy they have practiced. The cuber often does not commit to memory the whole configuration, but will often convert it to a custom and bespoke mnemonic. It's just utter nonsense to refer to the number of possible configurations, it has nothing directly to do with what the human is doing.
If I memorize a 30 word passage, i have not "processed the set of possible 30 word passages".
My students would frequently ask how to accomplish something, how syntax or keywords worked on q deeper level, whether there was a stl class for a purpose, or what caused an error, etc, that I didn't know about already. I didn't hide my ignorance even a little bit, but Idid help them find an answer. In lecture settings, if it wasn't too much of a digression, I'd demonstrate finding the answer. In one on one help, or one on group help, I'd lead them through finding the answer themselves. My students had a lot of respect for me as an authority on the language and still listened to my advice and came to me with questions frequently.
This is kinda important across all fields, but especially in programming, you don't need to know the right answer by rote so much as you need to be able to seek and identify the right answer with some independence using existing resources.
I don't see why they should be mutually exclusive
The "inexplicably" being a commentary on the wisdom/sanity/compassion of linking healthcare to employment, rather than a claim that the parent comment had made an inexplicable leap of logic
I bet a lot of the time it might be good enough to just have a "here's the set of options we went with" version of a design proposal/doc as documentation
Also, separately, I'm only assuming but it seems the reason you think these deductions are different from hard wired answers if that their evolutionary lineage can't have had to make similar deductions. If that's your reasoning, it makes me wonder if you're using a systematic description of decisions and of the requisite data and reasoning systems to make those decisions, which would be interesting to me.
Though maybe there's some kind of strong enough diminishing effect on emphasis value such that any number of "terribly"s still has bounded effect XD
And the set of external factors for any card is not fixed; there's no "true ease factor" for a card, because the set of external factors i will probably encounter is not a fixed (determinism aside) property of a card. It depends on me and my changing state.
Or if that's not persuasive, just consider different software versions, different video drivers, etc. running on the same hardware.
Or consider that if you believe a tumor in your visual cortex could meaningfully change color perception in your model, then why wouldn't a difference in cortex structure have some effect too? I'm willing to bet no two humans have ever had or probably will ever have the same arrangement of visual cortex neurons and other relevant brain biology. Do you think you know enough to say any such variation is irrelevant?
What is the point of this kind of "finding the essence" exercise anyway? Definitely seems to be very subjective, to say the least.
The title is an argument from authority against mandated implicit bias trainings, and GP's point attacks that authority.
I can also see the value for a large organization in culturally enforcing interchangeability and replaceability of workers.
I always considered this bit of culture (and felt the message this way from coworkers) to be even more focused on on well-being of the would-be hero. It always comes alongside messages about how to deal with burnout or achieve a work-life balance that works for you. That's always been my preferred perspective on it, anyway.
Still, I'm with you in pushing back against the interpretation you quoted, which is at best a weak (and at worst toxically macho) understanding of real motivation behind this anti-"hero" sentiment. It's mildly absurd to say there's a culture of holding back hard workers in order to lighten the expectations for everyone else. Anyone who works "twice as hard as expected of them", broadly speaking, just gets recognized/rewarded/promoted until expectations and output match.
Edit: reorganized order of thoughts
There's not some objectively true definition or there that you are homing in on with your intuited features.
- everyone is doing it so it's that much easier to buck responsibility for the decision
Pick a small project that you care about.
It has to be something you care about because you will pay attention to whether the results do something meaningful, which is the key to guiding you toward actually learning what you need to learn. For me, this meant making video games. For my friend a physics educator, it might mean generating random quiz questions with meaningful or realistic numbers.
It also has to be simple. For me, I started a long time ago with a text based game where you fight a sequence of monsters by basically rolling dice with tweaks and theme that mattered to me. For my friend, it might be literally randomly generating 3 random numbers and putting them into a pre-written physics problem.
There is always a way to add on to a project you care about, so start super simple and make it work really well (just meaning, to your satisfaction). Then add on another thing and try to integrate it, and so on.
My CS students when I was TAing always learned the most from long term projects that had enough freedom for them to make it fun for themselves. This is in contrast to curated sequences of academic exercises and expository text.