4 ms·
This seems like pretty hand-wavy thinking. Decision making can be thought of as a directed graph, where you have various situations as nodes and actions as edge
by willheis 5y ago
This seems like pretty hand-wavy thinking. Decision making can be thought of as a directed graph, where you have various situations as nodes and actions as edges.
That does indeed mirror how games work, however for all of our systems we do not perfectly know the actual "true" state of the graph. Even the oldest, simplest, most well understood systems are not understood perfectly. The fog of war is ever present.
To present systems management without the "intricacies of computers" you either have to not care where the actions lead you, or have a system that is perfectly understood. And if the latter is the case, then there is literally 0 value in a human pressing the buttons.
- westoncb 5y ago> To present systems management without the "intricacies of computers" you either have to not care where the actions lead you, or have a system that is perfectly understood. This is a false dichotomy—why would there be no middle ground? It's in that middle ground that all useful abstractions reside, and many of them are effectively lossless compressions of some "computational intricacies," which makes it possible to non-misleadingly interact through some simplified interface. This isn't to say that forming such a simplified interface is impossible to get wrong, but to say the results will necessarily be poor is overly dismissive.