5 ms·
> Being an expert cloud architect, a relatively new field, would take less time. This is non-obvious. It seems at least as likely to me that there are no exper
by stephencanon 8y ago
> Being an expert cloud architect, a relatively new field, would take less time.
This is non-obvious. It seems at least as likely to me that there are no expert cloud architects yet.
- gamegoblin 8y agoDepends on how you would define expert. If you define it relative to one's peers (e.g. top 0.1% of practitioners), it makes sense.
- taneq 8y agoYou're both right. Being an expert (relative to other living humans) is easier, because the bar is lower. In 500 years I bet it'll take 15+ years of daily deliberate practice to be a world-class cloud architect too. Of course, the bar will probably remain lower because there are far more jobs for cloud architects than there are for high-end professional concert violinists.
- luckydata 8y agoYour average violinist now is much more proficient than 100 years ago. The phenomenon is particularly evident in electric guitar where the average player now would have been considered a GOD in the 70s. The bar keeps getting higher, but our ability to teach is also getting better, especially thanks to youtube.
- joejerryronnie 8y agoI don’t know, name me an average guitar player today who is better than Jimmy Page?
- luckydata 8y agoJimmy was an innovator but also an extremely sloppy player. I can play his parts note for note better than he ever could. That's true for a LOT of people playing the guitar for fun at this point in time. Take a look at this to get an idea of what's "technically proficient" nowadays: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oj0CjV1QxtQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oj0CjV1QxtQ these are almost all folks making youtube videos, not exactly rockstars (with a couple exceptions).
- chosenbreed37 8y ago> Jimmy was an innovator but also an extremely sloppy player. I can play his parts note for note better than he ever could. Hard to argue with that. Except to say that ultimately it's not always the virtuosity that captures people's affections. Some have postulated that soon we'll have music made by machines. Perfect pitch and tempo. But it would appear that the irregularities in human performances actually produce the music we all enjoy listening to.
- luckydata 8y agoAgreed, but here we're talking about how difficult it is to become "technically proficient" and my answer to that is "not very with current tools and education methods". The biggest obstacle for most people is drive and interest. If you spend the time, you will get good at playing.
- joejerryronnie 8y agoGood point, if you're talking technical proficiency rather than pure artistry you may be right.
- User23 8y agoThere are random dudes on youtube who are virtuoso guitar players. So many in fact that they will never get signed because it's not a differentiating or marketable factor.
- justtopost 8y agoI have noticed the 'Virtuoso Performers' are seldom creative to the extent their less talented brethren are. Many of my friends, who can play by ear or sight read, have never composed a single tune. As with any live art, the beauty is not in the perfection of rendering as much as the style of execution. Many can imitate, few can generate.
- luckydata 8y agoBut we're talking about execution skills because that's the metric for a violinist, not composition. Hence the comparison.
- code_duck 8y ago‘Better’ is an extremely imprecise comparison here. Music is not objective, for one. If it were touch typing, we could measure wpm and accuracy. This is not the case with evaluating how ‘good’ guitar playing is.
- hinkley 8y agoNot average, but Davy Knowles cut his teeth doing Hendrix and Clapton covers in his garage. Now if only someone could convince him that guitar solos don’t have to be that long, he’d be a god.