Don’t You Know Who I Am?

3809 readers

2 users here now

Posts of people not realising the person they’re talking to, is the person they’re talking about.

Acceptable examples include:

someone not realising who they’re talking to
someone acting more important than they are
someone not noticing a relevant username
someone not realising the status/credentials of the person they’re talking to

Discussions on any topic are encouraged but arguements are not welcome in this community. Participate in good faith - don’t be aggressive and don’t argue for arguments sake.

The posts here are not original content, the poster is not OP and doesn’t necessarily agree with or condone the views in the post. The poster is not looking to argue with you about the content in the post.

Rules:

This community follows the rules of the lemmy.world instance and the lemmy.org code of conduct. I’ve summarised them here:

Be civil, remember the human.
No insulting or harassing other members. That includes name calling.
Censor any identifying info of private individuals in the posts. This includes surnames and social media handles.
Respect differences of opinion. Civil discussion/debate is fine, arguing is not. Criticise ideas, not people.
Keep unrequested/unstructured critique to a minimum. If you wish to discuss how this community is run please comment on the stickied post so all meta conversations are in one place.
Remember we have all chosen to be here voluntarily. Respect the spent time and effort people have spent creating posts in order to share something they find amusing with you.
Swearing in general is fine, swearing to insult another commenter isn’t.
No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia or any other type of bigotry.
No incitement of violence or promotion of violent ideologies.

Please report comments that break site or community rules to the mods. If you break the rules you’ll receive one warning before being banned from this community.

PLEASE READ LEMMY.ORG’S CITIZEN CODE OF CONDUCT: https://join-lemmy.org/docs/code_of_conduct.html

PLEASE READ LEMMY.WORLD’S CODE OF CONDUCT: https://lemmy.world/legal

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

2701

Go figure. (feddit.uk)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

429 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

People with these type of salaries are usually managers and don't really code that much anymore. I don't really get your point there. Also could you explain what an expert for you really is?

[+] TheQuantumPhysicist -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You are just moving the goalpost... Before you said "So yeah, "hello world" and loops it's." Claiming she was basically a beginner or hobbyist. Now you are arguing she isn't an "expert" and define expert at the absolute far right side of the bell curve. Why does it matter to you so much that she not get recognition for her work?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I also know devs who make that kind of money, but they are the exception not the norm.

I have already watched that video and 10k hours is not that much. That's just 5h a day for 5.5 years. I also can immediately recognize undefined behavior in C++, and I have at most 2 years of experience. Let me tell you for someone who has been programming for more than a decade, all the languages are the same. It's not hard to become an expert in a different langauge once you have the basics down.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The 10k hours claim (popularized by Gladwell) is also an absurd overreach on what the research actually was or claimed to be. Read Peak by K Anders Ericsson instead of Gladwell's outliers and you get a very different presentation of what the research says from one of the researchers.

They were studying a very specific type of rote learning with a specific type of training (because being classically trained in violin is that standardized). The number of hours trained to reach expert status was not identical between practitioners. He made absolutely zero claims about the amount of time needed to learn different skills that fit the same pattern, and more importantly, really didn't make such claims about entirely different and unrelated types of learning like code that aren't formalized.

Gladwell's book was straight anecdote with no rigor.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thanks for pointing this out. I didn't question the 10k hours at all.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Malcolm Gladwell does this thing where he starts with a kernel of truth and gets way too excited about it and goes way beyond what's actually there. I don't think it's malicious, and I don't hate him as a writer, but he's much better at making things engaging than making them correct. If you read him like those business books where leaders break down their core philosophies and you see what ideas you can take for yourself, they're not bad. He finds some interesting ideas to bring to light. But if you take them as an academic source, you're going to get in trouble.

The core concept that learning takes a substantial amount of work is solid. The premise that you can just do something for X hours (ignoring the number he chose because it's flashy) and be an expert isn't. The methodology used for violin training involves a very structured, mindful approach to practice where you're constantly making corrections and constantly working right past the limit of your ability in order to continually develop.

I absolutely do recommend Peak, and also Range by David Epstein, for contrasting views on different ways we learn and solve problems. They're not the simplistic pop-sci Gladwell does, but they're still pretty accessible and don't assume a lot of prior knowledge, and they both take more care to be based in evidence (though the nature of range means there's still anecdotes).