5 ms·
You Can't Get Different Results Doing The Same Thing
- alyx 18y agoI haven't read the article and am commenting on strictly the title but yes, yes you CAN get different results doing the same thing!
- kalid 18y agoAgreed -- sometimes the surrounding environment changes.
- eru 18y agoAnd you may doing something involving randomness or chaos anyway.
- gsmaverick 18y agoWell, maybe you should read the article first instead of making yourself look stupid.
- dmv 18y agoThe obligatory XKCD: http://xkcd.com/242/ http://xkcd.com/242/ Although I am not really comfortable implying that the Bush administration is acting more like scientists...
- dhimes 18y agoAlthough I agree with the point of his post, it seems like he should figure out whether or the bridge loan 21 years ago worked before adopting this mantra. Maybe forcing changes on average is worse? Doubtful, but maybe. Unless you keep track you won't know.
- ruby_roo 18y agoSure I can! >> Kernel.rand => 0.639396625161958 >> Kernel.rand => 0.492774449558796 >> Kernel.rand => 0.510863071464651 Your results may vary.
- Ezra 18y agoThose aren't the same thing. f(a) != f(b) != f(c) is unsurpising. Just because you don't personally, and explicitly define the inputs of the algorithm does not mean that they are none, or that they are static. Of course, this also means that you can never do the "same thing" twice, because space and time are nice like that. I think a more appropriate headline/analogy/Simpsons reference would be, "dig up, stupid". Or perhaps even better, "the business of failure has failed: we need to make it work again!"
- helveticaman 18y agoOr perhaps even better, "the business of failure has failed: we need to make it work again!" Won't comment on the rest, but this is fabulous.
- jfornear 18y agoYou know how we can get different results? By letting these inefficient companies fail. Bankruptcy is the better long-term solution to the problem. These workers won't be unemployed for long. Responsible managers, who have been making the right decisions, should get the opportunity to buy up these assets and restructure a more efficient business. I agree with FW's take, but I don't like government intervention in private enterprise. When the government decides to bail a company out, which they shouldn't do in the first place, they sure as hell shouldn't have any say on how that money is spent.
- dhimes 18y agoI disagree. If we're giving them money, we can put constraints on it. In fact, we have a duty to see if constraints are needed. Giving the company money and not ensuring it gets where it needs to go is gross negligence. I could buy this argument, however: if we need to put constraints on it, then that's a business that needs to fail.
- jfornear 18y agoif we need to put constraints on it, then that's a business that needs to fail. Exactly! That's kind of what I was meaning to say... :)