8 ms·

"Ask them to explain in detail, a small part of the product. Yes! In detail! ... Everything is explainable in layman’s terms…" - so now you dependent on the tea

by majra 5y ago

"Ask them to explain in detail, a small part of the product. Yes! In detail! ... Everything is explainable in layman’s terms…" - so now you dependent on the teaching/explaining talent rather than code.

anthonygd 5y ago
It's more accurate to say you depend on the teaching/explaining talent in addition to code talent. Why is that a problem? I've never heard anything as helpful for learning as the Feynman technique: https://fs.blog/2021/02/feynman-learning-technique/ https://fs.blog/2021/02/feynman-learning-technique/ The article's mention of "best practices" rings incredible true. If it's a "best practice" you should be able to easily list a half dozen reasons why. Otherwise you don't really understand what you're talking about.
- majra 5y ago
  If you go with physicists, it is said that Landau was kind of bad lecturer. Feynman was good, Landau was bad. But one can't say he did't understand what is going on. "Best practices" should be real and achievable. What you are trying to emphasize sounds like a maximalist bullshit
  - kthejoker2 5y ago
    To the extent physics is objective and observable and computer engineering is subjective and ephemeral, I would argue the relative value of skills as a lecturer/practitioner are almost perfectly inverted in the two disciplines.
- kthejoker2 5y ago
  From the man himself: > Feynman was a truly great teacher. He prided himself on being able to devise ways to explain even the most profound ideas to beginning students. Once, I said to him, “Dick, explain to me, so that I can understand it, why spin one-half particles obey Fermi-Dirac statistics.” Sizing up his audience perfectly, Feynman said, “I’ll prepare a freshman lecture on it.” But he came back a few days later to say, “I couldn’t do it. I couldn’t reduce it to the freshman level. That means we don’t really understand it.” https://kottke.org/17/06/if-you-cant-explain-something-in-simple-terms-you-dont-understand-it https://kottke.org/17/06/if-you-cant-explain-something-in-si...

by majra 5y ago

anthonygd 5y ago

It's more accurate to say you depend on the teaching/explaining talent in addition to code talent. Why is that a problem? I've never heard anything as helpful for learning as the Feynman technique: https://fs.blog/2021/02/feynman-learning-technique/ https://fs.blog/2021/02/feynman-learning-technique/ The article's mention of "best practices" rings incredible true. If it's a "best practice" you should be able to easily list a half dozen reasons why. Otherwise you don't really understand what you're talking about.

majra 5y ago
If you go with physicists, it is said that Landau was kind of bad lecturer. Feynman was good, Landau was bad. But one can't say he did't understand what is going on. "Best practices" should be real and achievable. What you are trying to emphasize sounds like a maximalist bullshit
- kthejoker2 5y ago
  To the extent physics is objective and observable and computer engineering is subjective and ephemeral, I would argue the relative value of skills as a lecturer/practitioner are almost perfectly inverted in the two disciplines.
kthejoker2 5y ago
From the man himself: > Feynman was a truly great teacher. He prided himself on being able to devise ways to explain even the most profound ideas to beginning students. Once, I said to him, “Dick, explain to me, so that I can understand it, why spin one-half particles obey Fermi-Dirac statistics.” Sizing up his audience perfectly, Feynman said, “I’ll prepare a freshman lecture on it.” But he came back a few days later to say, “I couldn’t do it. I couldn’t reduce it to the freshman level. That means we don’t really understand it.” https://kottke.org/17/06/if-you-cant-explain-something-in-simple-terms-you-dont-understand-it https://kottke.org/17/06/if-you-cant-explain-something-in-si...