4 ms·

> Are you certain this "young talent" is looked down upon for youth, not in response to their criticism of people who have actually consistently made chips that

> Are you certain this "young talent" is looked down upon for youth, not in response to their criticism of people who have actually consistently made chips that work and work reliably? You could use the same line of reasoning for science in general. Was it stupid to criticize the opinions of scientists from classical mechanics? Also: meltdown.

twtw 9y ago
A couple of things: Science is not the same as engineering. Engineering requires a balance between performance, reliability, cost, etc. I don't think the parallel to paradigm shifts in science is a very good one. There is a lot of wisdom behind listening to people with a proven track record over cocky youth. The people with experience are typically a lot better at striking an effective balance, even if the data suggests that some great new innovation will benefit one characteristic. Of course it was not stupid for scientists to move beyond old theories. But the scientists with new theories almost always learned from and worked with the previous generation and then moved beyond them, rather than criticizing the character and competence of the old guard. My main point was simply that if you adopt the same tone with the people who "look down" on you as you did in your original comment, I am not surprised that you don't get any respect.
- deepnotderp 9y ago
  My original comment was rather ranty, I've calmed down since then :) I think the comparison with science is fair, engineering in this sense is very close to physics. If you don't like that example we could try the shift from vacuum tubes to integrated circuits, or the disrespect thrown at neural nets before they got popular again. All analogies are crude, but they convey some meaning. I mean, I've shown people hard data (not even from simulations,from hardware) and they've still essentially ignored it, so I think it's fair to say there's at least some dysfunctionality in the industry. As epitomized, by the very article I'm responding to here. I'm not usually like this I promise, it's just that this article struck a bit of a chord with me :)

twtw 9y ago

A couple of things: Science is not the same as engineering. Engineering requires a balance between performance, reliability, cost, etc. I don't think the parallel to paradigm shifts in science is a very good one. There is a lot of wisdom behind listening to people with a proven track record over cocky youth. The people with experience are typically a lot better at striking an effective balance, even if the data suggests that some great new innovation will benefit one characteristic. Of course it was not stupid for scientists to move beyond old theories. But the scientists with new theories almost always learned from and worked with the previous generation and then moved beyond them, rather than criticizing the character and competence of the old guard. My main point was simply that if you adopt the same tone with the people who "look down" on you as you did in your original comment, I am not surprised that you don't get any respect.

deepnotderp 9y ago
My original comment was rather ranty, I've calmed down since then :) I think the comparison with science is fair, engineering in this sense is very close to physics. If you don't like that example we could try the shift from vacuum tubes to integrated circuits, or the disrespect thrown at neural nets before they got popular again. All analogies are crude, but they convey some meaning. I mean, I've shown people hard data (not even from simulations,from hardware) and they've still essentially ignored it, so I think it's fair to say there's at least some dysfunctionality in the industry. As epitomized, by the very article I'm responding to here. I'm not usually like this I promise, it's just that this article struck a bit of a chord with me :)