3 ms·

Would you prefer CS algorithms in papers to be written in English prose rather than pseudo code? Would you notice if your neural network diagram has its arrows

Would you prefer CS algorithms in papers to be written in English prose rather than pseudo code? Would you notice if your neural network diagram has its arrows reversed? I do not understand HN's superiority complex when it comes to notation. Every thread on music in this forum devolves to complaints about music notation rather than the essence of the art itself. It is disappointing.

superposeur 5y ago
To be clear, despite the slightly snarky tone, I don’t mean to condescend to chemists! Quite the opposite, this is borne out of disappointment when I listen to a whole chem presentation and fail to grasp even one simple idea. I’m a physicist, btw, and could easily fill a presentation with inscrutable equations but what would be the point of that? Instead I make sure that everyone (even a scientifically literate layperson) can stay on board at least the first third of the presentation.
- ff10 5y ago
  I guess it's alway a question of what audience you speak to. OPs explanation could probably be summarized in 2 sentences when aimed at chemists.
- siver_john 5y ago
  As someone who sits on the bounds of a lot of fields, I have to say it is surprising what many scientists think are "common knowledge." So having never seen your presentation I would question whether it is even a scientific literate layperson would actually be able to follow. I distinctly remember being in a room of biologists and having to explain that, your general STEM audience does not automatically know what a protein is. They were incredulous, but I pointed out that I had to just explain that to a computer scientist like a week prior. For example to you as a physicist I'm sure I could casually drop the word "force field" and you would know exactly what I'm discussing but a biologist or even chemist wouldn't. But it's such a casually thrown around word in my specialty we will just use it without thinking. Similarly Newtonian physics/classical physics/etc.
  - sanxiyn 5y ago
    https://xkcd.com/2501/ https://xkcd.com/2501/ (Average Familiarity) is very funny, in part because it is 100% real.

superposeur 5y ago

To be clear, despite the slightly snarky tone, I don’t mean to condescend to chemists! Quite the opposite, this is borne out of disappointment when I listen to a whole chem presentation and fail to grasp even one simple idea. I’m a physicist, btw, and could easily fill a presentation with inscrutable equations but what would be the point of that? Instead I make sure that everyone (even a scientifically literate layperson) can stay on board at least the first third of the presentation.

ff10 5y ago
I guess it's alway a question of what audience you speak to. OPs explanation could probably be summarized in 2 sentences when aimed at chemists.
siver_john 5y ago
As someone who sits on the bounds of a lot of fields, I have to say it is surprising what many scientists think are "common knowledge." So having never seen your presentation I would question whether it is even a scientific literate layperson would actually be able to follow. I distinctly remember being in a room of biologists and having to explain that, your general STEM audience does not automatically know what a protein is. They were incredulous, but I pointed out that I had to just explain that to a computer scientist like a week prior. For example to you as a physicist I'm sure I could casually drop the word "force field" and you would know exactly what I'm discussing but a biologist or even chemist wouldn't. But it's such a casually thrown around word in my specialty we will just use it without thinking. Similarly Newtonian physics/classical physics/etc.
- sanxiyn 5y ago
  https://xkcd.com/2501/ https://xkcd.com/2501/ (Average Familiarity) is very funny, in part because it is 100% real.