4 ms·

> The food was fine, but... I didn't get it! I think there is a culinary language that I understand as little as a typical Michelin-starred chef would be able t

> The food was fine, but... I didn't get it! I think there is a culinary language that I understand as little as a typical Michelin-starred chef would be able to evaluate a tightly-written C program. Correct. I don't know why this is a revelation that seems especially hard for HN audiences to grasp, or why it's a revelation at all. Every single domain has its own expertise. It is absurdly arrogant and deeply condescending to think that only computer science or engineering or related fields have specialty expertise.

tomcam 5y ago
That’s right of course. But what bothers me is it I greatly enjoy eating out, I’ve done it a whole lot, and I’m still surprisingly bad at it.
- Ansil849 5y ago
  That's a bit like saying that most people have used pretty horribly-designed apps, but they did what they needed to do, so the user couldn't tell that they were horrible. For example, most people could not care less that their password manager recently switched to Electron. They don't even notice the alleged resource lag that their coder friends keep banging on about. They simply neither notice nor care. Fine craftsmanship is oftentimes not appreciated or noticed by those not versed in the underlying technicalities by nonpractitioners--oftentimes by design. This is true with coding, cooking, and whatever other domain. And conversely, poor craftsmanship is often not noticed either, if it's not something that someone is trained to spot. An example of this would be when buying a house, you hire a house inspector because you don't have the requisite training to spot all the potential faults.
  - SilasX 5y ago
    So the Michelin Inspectors are discovering measureable, objectively bad things about the food/restaurant, just as you would be able to identify objectively bad things about the good-enough app? What are those things and what is the objective measurement?
    - Ansil849 5y ago
      Curiously, what is your opinion of UX/UI researchers? Or of design in general? Is the pretense of 'objectivity' something which denotes more value to you, generally?
      - SilasX 5y ago
        You're the one that compared Michelin food inspectors to developers finding demonstrable deficiencies in a good-enough app; I'm asking if you can actually back that up or it was just a bad analogy. If you don't actually think a food inspector can find objective flaws in good-tasting food, you probably shouldn't have made the analogy, nor depended on objective, not-obvious-to-users flaws as part of your argument. In any case, don't criticize me for agreeing with your premise!
    - moehm 5y ago
      Liking the food != the food is good. Good taste is not so subjective as you think it is. Your personal preferences, yeah, I don't care about them. But every professional taster keep their personal preferences out of the game and look for more objective criterias, like complexity, balance, off-flavors, aftertaste, typicity, presentation etc. For example if I order chicken and it does not taste like chicken, it's flawed, regardless if I like it or not. It's the same with wine and whisky. It's not about your or their individual taste, it's about quality. It's okay that you like very sour, oxidized red wine. It's just not good wine.
      - SilasX 5y ago
        Thanks, I appreciate the clarification, that was a better follow-up than the OP could give.
      - phonypc 5y ago
        >objective criterias, like complexity, balance, off-flavors, aftertaste, presentation Those... simply aren't objective criteria. One persons off-flavor is another persons desired flavor (cilantro/coriander for an obvious example). What is the quantitative measure of "complexity" or "balance" in a dish?
- grecy 5y ago
  Over the years I've learned simply doing something is not a great way to get good at it, and neither is taking lessons from someone else that is good at it. Now I'm a snowboard instructor I can teach someone in a week what took me months and months to learn on my own, and I can teach them the right way from the beginning. Same story for mountain biking, lifting at the gym and even writing books. Of course the story is the same for programming, technical writing and everything else. If you want to get good at something, take courses from a professional instructor of that thing (NOT just someone who is good at it!)
  - tayo42 5y ago
    It's not that clear how your using lessons and courses differently here?
    - grecy 5y ago
      Sorry, I interchange the two words. What I mean is if you want to get better (and actually professionally good at something) you need to get training (lessons, classes, courses, whatever you want to call it) from a professional teacher in that field - you won't get to pro level of good simply by doing, and you won't get to pro level taking lessons from someone else who is just good at it. They need to be a professional teacher in that field.
  - esyir 5y ago
    I think there's at least two levels here. To go from nothing to something, a specialized instructor is the best. To go from something to the top tier, only then does following the best / doing something surpass that.
zelphirkalt 5y ago
I think with this one it is, because everyone has tasted before, but comparatively few have coded before. So everyone can say something about their subjective taste experiences, but not so many can about some code. The actual difference might be subjective or one of practiced ability to distinguish in detail. There is also the aspect of science and engineering leading to objective an hopefully reproducible results. There is less subjective matter to it and there are objective criteria to measure quality. It is possible to leave personal taste out of the equation. Imagine a michelin star tester eating and having to throw up, because of taste, even though the kitchen is clean and all ingredients were of superb quality and the cook is really good. Would they still approve objectively?
- Ansil849 5y ago
  > I think with this one it is, because everyone has tasted before, but comparatively few have coded before. I don't think this is an apt comparison. Tasting is consuming something, coding is creating something. An apt comparison would be tasting to using apps, or coding to cooking. And now sure, you could say that most people have cooked before, much like most people have performed rudimentary medical procedures before; but most people have not performed complex medical procedures, or successfully made complex Michelin-starred dishes, or coded high-quality apps.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- bobthepanda 5y ago
  > So everyone can say something about their subjective taste experiences, but not so many can about some code. This is not too true for frontend. Everyone and their mother has an opinion on what needs to be pixel pushed, or something that "should be easy."
1123581321 5y ago
No one thinks that. It's just market confusion regarding what type of critic is Michelin. There are good critics that don't rate restaurants by their appeal to food nerds/wonks.

tomcam 5y ago

That’s right of course. But what bothers me is it I greatly enjoy eating out, I’ve done it a whole lot, and I’m still surprisingly bad at it.

Ansil849 5y ago
That's a bit like saying that most people have used pretty horribly-designed apps, but they did what they needed to do, so the user couldn't tell that they were horrible. For example, most people could not care less that their password manager recently switched to Electron. They don't even notice the alleged resource lag that their coder friends keep banging on about. They simply neither notice nor care. Fine craftsmanship is oftentimes not appreciated or noticed by those not versed in the underlying technicalities by nonpractitioners--oftentimes by design. This is true with coding, cooking, and whatever other domain. And conversely, poor craftsmanship is often not noticed either, if it's not something that someone is trained to spot. An example of this would be when buying a house, you hire a house inspector because you don't have the requisite training to spot all the potential faults.
- SilasX 5y ago
  So the Michelin Inspectors are discovering measureable, objectively bad things about the food/restaurant, just as you would be able to identify objectively bad things about the good-enough app? What are those things and what is the objective measurement?
  - Ansil849 5y ago
    Curiously, what is your opinion of UX/UI researchers? Or of design in general? Is the pretense of 'objectivity' something which denotes more value to you, generally?
    - SilasX 5y ago
      You're the one that compared Michelin food inspectors to developers finding demonstrable deficiencies in a good-enough app; I'm asking if you can actually back that up or it was just a bad analogy. If you don't actually think a food inspector can find objective flaws in good-tasting food, you probably shouldn't have made the analogy, nor depended on objective, not-obvious-to-users flaws as part of your argument. In any case, don't criticize me for agreeing with your premise!
  - moehm 5y ago
    Liking the food != the food is good. Good taste is not so subjective as you think it is. Your personal preferences, yeah, I don't care about them. But every professional taster keep their personal preferences out of the game and look for more objective criterias, like complexity, balance, off-flavors, aftertaste, typicity, presentation etc. For example if I order chicken and it does not taste like chicken, it's flawed, regardless if I like it or not. It's the same with wine and whisky. It's not about your or their individual taste, it's about quality. It's okay that you like very sour, oxidized red wine. It's just not good wine.
    - SilasX 5y ago
      Thanks, I appreciate the clarification, that was a better follow-up than the OP could give.
    - phonypc 5y ago
      >objective criterias, like complexity, balance, off-flavors, aftertaste, presentation Those... simply aren't objective criteria. One persons off-flavor is another persons desired flavor (cilantro/coriander for an obvious example). What is the quantitative measure of "complexity" or "balance" in a dish?
grecy 5y ago
Over the years I've learned simply doing something is not a great way to get good at it, and neither is taking lessons from someone else that is good at it. Now I'm a snowboard instructor I can teach someone in a week what took me months and months to learn on my own, and I can teach them the right way from the beginning. Same story for mountain biking, lifting at the gym and even writing books. Of course the story is the same for programming, technical writing and everything else. If you want to get good at something, take courses from a professional instructor of that thing (NOT just someone who is good at it!)
- tayo42 5y ago
  It's not that clear how your using lessons and courses differently here?
  - grecy 5y ago
    Sorry, I interchange the two words. What I mean is if you want to get better (and actually professionally good at something) you need to get training (lessons, classes, courses, whatever you want to call it) from a professional teacher in that field - you won't get to pro level of good simply by doing, and you won't get to pro level taking lessons from someone else who is just good at it. They need to be a professional teacher in that field.
- esyir 5y ago
  I think there's at least two levels here. To go from nothing to something, a specialized instructor is the best. To go from something to the top tier, only then does following the best / doing something surpass that.

zelphirkalt 5y ago

I think with this one it is, because everyone has tasted before, but comparatively few have coded before. So everyone can say something about their subjective taste experiences, but not so many can about some code. The actual difference might be subjective or one of practiced ability to distinguish in detail. There is also the aspect of science and engineering leading to objective an hopefully reproducible results. There is less subjective matter to it and there are objective criteria to measure quality. It is possible to leave personal taste out of the equation. Imagine a michelin star tester eating and having to throw up, because of taste, even though the kitchen is clean and all ingredients were of superb quality and the cook is really good. Would they still approve objectively?

Ansil849 5y ago
> I think with this one it is, because everyone has tasted before, but comparatively few have coded before. I don't think this is an apt comparison. Tasting is consuming something, coding is creating something. An apt comparison would be tasting to using apps, or coding to cooking. And now sure, you could say that most people have cooked before, much like most people have performed rudimentary medical procedures before; but most people have not performed complex medical procedures, or successfully made complex Michelin-starred dishes, or coded high-quality apps.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
bobthepanda 5y ago
> So everyone can say something about their subjective taste experiences, but not so many can about some code. This is not too true for frontend. Everyone and their mother has an opinion on what needs to be pixel pushed, or something that "should be easy."

1123581321 5y ago

No one thinks that. It's just market confusion regarding what type of critic is Michelin. There are good critics that don't rate restaurants by their appeal to food nerds/wonks.