4 ms·
Progress in a purely capitalistic sense, maybe—but in terms of human knowledge and innovation in technology, absolutely not. Besides, in the same way that bein
by rTX5CMRXIfFG 3y ago
Progress in a purely capitalistic sense, maybe—but in terms of human knowledge and innovation in technology, absolutely not.
Besides, in the same way that being an engineer with no people skills isn’t a desirable thing, there are plenty of problems with knowing one’s business domain only at the surface-level:
1. It’s always these types of people who end up pushing for unrealistic, and many times, senseless engineering goals from management positions so that they waste a lot of the company’s time and money just by existing in it.
2. It’s these types of people who prioritize profits at all costs, even if it could endanger a customer’s life or data security.
3. These types of people are very easily replaceable, because people are by default not inclined to learn about the world around them, and hence they’re dime a dozen.
- laratied 3y agoI thought everyone understood Progress® as a marketing term and a type of theater with the only real progress being the net worth of the actors. I didn't think people actually confused the theatrical performance with the progress of Boltzmann or Newton. Come on!
- Hermitian909 3y ago> Progress in a purely capitalistic sense, maybe—but in terms of human knowledge and innovation in technology, absolutely not. No this is still the case, because even folks who understand deeply can only understand a few things deeply. I recently spent several years working in battery tech. The field could be years ahead of where it is now if so many of the field's most pressing problems didn't require researchers to deeply understand programming as well as their field.