7 ms·
Exactly. Imagine being a student given a tome of knowledge called something like, 'Principia Mathematica'. Upon receipt of the book you say, "I will soon be a
by toufka 10y ago
Exactly. Imagine being a student given a tome of knowledge called something like, 'Principia Mathematica'. Upon receipt of the book you say, "I will soon be able to make engines efficient, structures solid, understand the planet's rotation, and make mathematical models precise." Then two days later someone asks how to draw up plans for a rocket ship to the moon. You'll get there, but you have to read the text first, then you have to understand it, then you have to experiment with it, and then you will (go to the moon). Nothing in your prediction was unrealistic, but it takes time to learn.
A few decades ago ago we read our first line of source code from a computer from the year 2,000,000,000 - some pretty advanced technology that was just handed to us. Two decades ago we did our very first read-through of an entire human. The reading itself was not particularly productive. We already knew some of the most important lines of code, from the decades before, and we annotated a lot more sections that are critical for basic function. We've even traced a few bugs back to the source code - especially those bugs where 1) the source was unusually easy to read [1], or 2) the bug was really bad [2]. As of this year we've developed compilers to enable us to write and run small, multi-line programs of our own composition [3]. We're doing really well in trying to read, comprehend, manipulate, and act on some of the most sophisticated technology ever presented to us. More sophisticated by orders of magnitude than the silicon in Nvidia's new graphics card (16nm 2d dry feature size [4], vs 0.1nm, 3D wet feature size [5]) . Reverse engineering it takes a bit of time, and yet we've already put that knowledge to significant use.
Further, once we do get our working knowledge up and running there will be a significant outpouring of function from having reverse-engineered such technology. But of course there is a lag time in the millions of lab-hours being poured into understanding that technology before we can actually use it. Not dissimilar to the rapid advances in science-fiction when a race reverse-engineers an advanced alien technology. How long did it take us to build The Machine in Sagan's 'Contact'? We will not just cure cancer, but we will be capable of all sorts of new feats. Purchasing the textbook doesn't make one a master - it's the study, the hard work, and the practice.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_papillomavirus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_papillomavirus
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRCA_mutation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRCA_mutation
[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11417689 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11417689
[4] http://wccftech.com/rumor-nvidia-pascal-gtx-1080-gddr5x-gtx-1070-f-gddr5/ http://wccftech.com/rumor-nvidia-pascal-gtx-1080-gddr5x-gtx-...
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_%28electron_density%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_%28electron_density...
- fluxquanta 10y agoThe idea of lone geniuses single-handedly bringing upon revolutions in science and tech doesn't help, and it's perpetuated by our culture. Nobody thinks of the leagues of engineers or doctoral students or fellow "no-name" professionals who also do a lot of the work. It's really sort of fascinating how we idolatrize singular people who themselves will admit they were standing on the shoulders of giants.
- johndoez 10y agoI agree but only to a limited extent. There is such a thing as genius, it is very rare, and it is talent x infinity, which means no matter how many brilliant people you have in a room, they cannot match the insights and actions of a genius. If the following had never lived, human history would not have progressed as it has: Galileo, Newton, Darwin (and Alfred Russell Wallace, I hasten to add), Einstein, Michael Polayni.
- cderwin 10y agoFor anyone curious the idea that we make slow, discrete progress and that the idea that a few brilliant souls are responsible for most of the advances in human hostory is a bunch of hogwash, Matt Ridley has written an excellent book on the subject, The Evolution Of Everything (amazon.com/Evolution-Everything-How-Ideas-Emerge/dp/0062296000). Coincidentally he's also written a fabulous book on the human genome, either way it's great stuff and absolutely critical to understanding how to we can (as a species) progress most effectively.
- knodi123 10y ago> a tomb of knowledge called something like, 'Principia Mathematica freudian slip? ;-)
- toufka 10y agoyes, actually :)
- lfowles 10y ago> How long did it take us to build The Machine in Asimov's 'Contact'? Do I need to dig out this story or do you mean Carl Sagan's 'Contact'?