4 ms·
Sturgeon's law (90% of everything is crap)
- hardware2win 3y agoOnly 90%? Take for example elo ranking in video games Top10% or top5% may sound good But the gap between top10% and top1% (let alone top 0.1%) is so huge that you could say that those ppl barely understand this game Same when top 1% is matched against 0.1%
- chongli 3y agoYeah this is the real advantage of AI. Optimize that 90% -> 99.9999%!
- episteme 3y agoThis is brought up every time percentiles are brought up on Hacker News. Based on this logic, do you think the law should be that 99.9% of everything is crap?
- notatoad 3y agoYou're using too broad a definition of "crap". The top ten percent is not actual feces. It's just varying degrees of mediocre.
- bryanlarsen 3y ago90% are crap. 9% are so-so. 0.9% are ok. 0.09% are good, 0.009% are very good, ...
- MichaelZuo 3y ago0.0009% are actual super-geniuses.
- joenot443 3y agoIs this really the case? A top 1% ranked Dota player is about Divine 5, the only higher bracket being Immortal and its associated ranking individual. I think you're really stretching the idiom if you're implying Divine 5 players (most of whom have 3000+ hours) "barely understand this game." Obviously a team of immortals shouldn't ever lose to a team of divines, but I don't think it would have the appearance of a competition of total newbies vs seasoned pros.
- LudwigNagasena 3y agoThere is actually a different rule at play: People ranked below you barely understand the game; people ranked above you are nerds and no-lifers.
- hnfong 3y agoIt's just the good ol' power law at play.
- motohagiography 3y agoA modern incarnation of that is to say the quality of something has "a long-tailed distribution." Calling things Pareto distributed is similar, along with the more flippant, "pa-ree-to, pa-reh-to" where instead of being thought terminating clichés they're more like depersonalizing clichés.
- karaterobot 3y agoI think most of these eponymous laws sound good, but don't pan out in the real world. In my experience, only about one in 10 seems to hold true.
- mo_42 3y agoAs stated by the law. 90% of everything, including such laws, is crap.
- happytiger 3y agoCan’t tell if driest sense of humor ever or worlds most literal person.
- foolswisdom 3y agoLooks like humor to me.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- VoodooJuJu 3y agohttps://old.reddit.com/r/thatsthejoke/ https://old.reddit.com/r/thatsthejoke/
- satvikpendem 3y agoThat's the joke. You just restated the joke.
- 6510 3y agoI'm posting a comment here so that the odds for better comments elsewhere may improve. I'm the creator of the 1000 skeptics theorem: You take infinite skeptics, give them all typewriters, poof! All the great works debunked.
- tomjakubowski 3y ago
- m3kw9 3y ago99.9 if you include everything that most of us don’t see but is available somewhere
- ksec 3y agoFor the lack of better term. ( If anyone could introduce me to one, surely there is a term for it ) If we use the Normal distribution or empirical rule, we would get a top end number of ~83.9%, 97.5%, 99.6% of things are crap depending on your definition of crap. And if your taste just sit between the 83.9 and 97.5 number. It turns out to be just about 90%.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- CrzyLngPwd 3y agoNowadays, with AI producing so much (crap) he'd say it was more like five nines of crap (99.999% is crap).
- borbtactics 3y agoSo by increasing the amount of crap by ten times, we get ten times more noncrap as well. What a deal
- sorokod 3y agoAlso, 50% of everything is below average.
- IWeldMelons 3y agoPareto law. Not new.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- mihaic 3y agoI actually have a different version to this: 9X% of everything is crap, where X ranges from 0 to 9.999. That variation though is what differentiates a category and a time, since either 1 in 10, in 100 or 1 in 1000 can be a great find. This is the reason why movies or music seemed better in other times, because X was close to 0 then and now it's 9.
- maximus-decimus 3y agoI tried different note taking apps for years and you really have to try them to realize most of them are crap. I don't understand how people use flat notes like Obsidian, so I now rule those out. I want a hierarchical system. The last one I tried seemed very promising, it was actively worked on, looked nice, featureful, supported markdown. But after trying it for a weekend, I realized it was losing my notes! Not deleting my notes behind my back is kinda the most important feature for me in a note taking app. Anyway, I'm back to using Zim Wiki event though it doesn't support markdown because, at least for my brain and usecase (which is being able to find business logic and workarounds to problems when I need it), it seems to be the only one that's not complete crap.
- AlexAndScripts 3y agoObsidian has nested folders. Using tags to organise flatly is a choice. I organise with a hierarchy just fine - what are you looking for
- TomDavey 3y agoEmacs includes a built-in mode named Org. Org-mode offers both hierarchy and tags. Org does many things, but it's especially accomplished at notetaking. Elisp authors have written package extensions (aka "plug-ins") for Org-mode that provide even more powerful and specialized note-taking. Among the most popular today are org-roam (built on the zettlekasten method) and denote.el.
- maximus-decimus 3y agoI used org-mode for a while, but I just don't like emacs to be honest. Especially on Windows (which I'm forced to use at work)... my experience it the plugins are just not written with Windows in mind, doing stuff like hard-coding link logic with unix syntax. Also, at least for my use case which is to find random notes I took about stuff 2 years before and that's hidden God knows wheres, I find the way Zim does it to be superior because it allows fuzzy searching on a note basis. For example: you can't remember how to kill and recreate a new default-vm to fix docker-machine, you search "default vm", and it will find all the files that have both "default" and "vm" in them, even if they're not on the same line.