3 ms·
There's nothing wrong with the math. I never said there was. In fact, I praised it as an elegant solution. It just requires better educators to explain it, wi
by edw519 15y ago
There's nothing wrong with the math.
I never said there was. In fact, I praised it as an elegant solution.
It just requires better educators to explain it, with analogies and metaphor.
You're right. In theory. In practice, no one does this, mainly because they can't afford it. You're implementing technology that costs $200,000 to save $100,000.
Why would you compromise the data/outcome in a hope to simplify the problem?
Actually, simplying the problem actually reduces the compromise when humans are involved. So, no.
...wouldn't you look to hire (and train) the best people who understand the domain they are in, thereby being able to judge whether the outcome of an equation is valid or not?
Only if it made economic sense to do so. I am not going to replace 800 workers earning $12/hour with "the best people who understand the domain" because the computer suddenly has formulas that people don't understand. Experience has shown repeatedly that workers, at any level, simply stop caring when they feel powerless by "solutions" like OP's Wilson formula. That abducation of responsibility almost always far outweighs any incremental benefit that a more sophisticated but incomprehensible formula introduces.
Good points, nice discussion, but please, for the sake of this community, don't reply with words like "what?", "Further:", or "Hint:". You made your point without the snarkiness.
- adamio 15y agoWorkers who feel powerless by sophisticated solutions need to learn the solutions, and not be intimidated by them. Yes, assembly line workers need simple steps to do a job. But that of course isn't who this is referring to. In your example managing inventory isn't an assembly line, checklist job. You're not replacing 800 workers with the best. In your example, you wouldn't have 800 people managing inventory. You replace your inventory manager with someone who understands the math (if you want to manage your inventory that way)
- brazzy 15y agoSufficiently advanced sophistication is indistinguishable from obfuscation. And obfuscation is a problem that's not ideally solved by hiring smarter people. I think that's the point edw519 was trying to make.
- imajes 15y agore the what/further/hint: good point - pre-coffee grumpiness. :) sorry.
- dpritchett 15y agoI'd imagine the right way to handle this would be Reddit style: Implement the naive solutions (i.e. sorted by average score) alongside the top-performing solutions. Add in a UX that makes it obvious that there's a choice to be made and allows the user to easily evaluate the results of the naive solution alongside the optimized solution, and end users who are themselves evaluated on overall performance metrics will tend to choose the more effective solution whether they understand it or not. The addition of metrics to allow for side by side evaluation of the simple strategy versus the optimized strategy is key - someone choosing the unintuitive yet superior strategy will likely have to explain themselves to management at one time or another. Aan interesting parallel is NFL onfield playcalling decisions. There are plenty of instances where coaches make choices that are statistically unsound but they reinforce the image of a tough, responsible coach. Conversely there are coaches who play by the odds and get lambasted when their decision doesn't pan out.