it’s not so much new technologies we learn, but new paradigms
the bedrock of learning is the capacity for “engineering”, in it’s true sense
which is to build things and take them apart
learning from the process
and realize how complicated new things are only progressions of previous developments
in the perpetual history of human development
it’s only when a revolutionary break comes through, what I mean by a new paradigm
that you need to really get the candles out
things like the combustion engine
or like the concept of talking to a machine in its language
or realizing that there is no actual frame to any given object
though it is true that what passes for engineering nowadays
is not so much becoming an Engineer
as it is becoming a good index of engineering
meaning it is not so much what you know
but how quickly you can search and find where that knowledge is stored
sometimes i get the feeling that all of the programming that is done today
can be accredited to stack overflow
kids these days
tsk tsk
I wasn’t a particularly good student back in school. Many things I was supposed to learn during that time I learned much later. It mostly has to do with a lack of interest. Back in school I saw no reason to learn most of what I was told I should learn, so I didn’t bother. But later on, when I realized how these things can be of use to me, I had no trouble learning them.
I don’t think it’s learning that bothers me. I think it’s the fact that I have to dispense with everything I already know that bothers me.
In many ways, I fit the concept of “learning animal” because I have an intrinsic motivation to learn new things but there are also ways in which I don’t because if I have to learn whatever I am told to learn then I don’t perform well.
I admit I am not really good at using Google (and other means) to find solutions to problems. I have the old-fashioned tendency (a pretty strong one) to use my own brain to solve problems (I was taught that way 15 years ago by teachers who were old-fashioned even for their own time.)
On the other hand, I have no trouble using ready-made solutions, but if that’s pretty much the only thing I have to do then I really am not the person to hire.
groupthink is for idiots like those weird kids who end up in gangs lol at the end of the day man if youre sitting around thinking about power all day you probably dont have any i mean i guess you could form a mob so i mean hey you do you lol
I think what’s he’s saying is that those who want a lot of power for themselves can only attain it and keep it by making everyone else weak. Thus, the responsibility of the few becomes extremely high (the regime becomes totalitarian) while the responsibility of the many becomes extremely low (doing nothing but following simple orders.) “Socialism” is a term commonly used to describe such an order.
I like the term “leaning animals” because I think the word “animal” is fitting. Animals don’t think and learning animals don’t either. They just do whatever they are told. “Learning” merely indicates that they are willing to switch from one task to another or from one recipe to another.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
