> I have seen far, far too many people say It is perplexing. I've jokingly called it "proof of intelligence by (self) incompetence". I suspect that much of t

> I have seen far, far too many people say It is perplexing. I've jokingly called it "proof of intelligence by (self) incompetence". I suspect that much of this is related to an overfitting of metrics within our own society. Such as leetcode or standardized exams. They're useful tools but only if you know what they actually measure and don't confuse the fact that they're a proxy. I also have a hard time convincing people about the duck argument in [0]. Oddly enough, I have far more difficulties having these discussions with computer scientists. It's what I'm doing my PhD in (ABD) but my undergrad was physics. After teaching a bit I think in part it is because in the hard sciences these differences get drilled into you when you do labs. Not always, but much more often. I see less of this type of conversation in CS and data science programs, where there is often a belief that there is a well defined and precise answer (always seemed odd to me since there's many ways you can write the same algorithm).