3 ms·

>You can't simultaneously optimize two unrelated things; What kind of illogical nonsense is this? I found the speed my car produces the best MPG and simultaneo

>You can't simultaneously optimize two unrelated things; What kind of illogical nonsense is this? I found the speed my car produces the best MPG and simultaneously found the best volume for the stereo. I suppose his overall conclusion works in one way, the article is both poorly written, and devoid of anything useful. Nobody would read it if it wasn't from pg.

gmzamz 1y ago
You can't optimize for two things at the same time in the /same system/. In your example, the best volume for the stereo will change based on how fast you're going. Noise from air going around your car will require a slightly louder volume. It technically goes the other way too, I'm sure louder music will affect your mileage slightly, reducing your MPG due to increased power draw. Realistically it won't matter, but they do exist in the same system. You can absolutely optimize for two things at the same time in different systems. The ideal speed optimizing for MPG in different cars aren't really linked and can be found independently.
mykowebhn 1y ago
Also, > But while we can't safely conclude that beautiful writing is true, it's usually safe to conclude the converse: something that seems clumsily written will usually have gotten the ideas wrong too. So, we have 1) Can't conclude that beautiful writing is true, and 2) Writing that is not beautiful usually has bad ideas too. But he immediately follows this up with: > Indeed, the two senses of good writing are more like two ends of the same thing. How does this idea logically follow from the previous statement? Indeed? I don't agree with other commenters that PG's writing here is good. The writing is bad, and so are the ideas. What are people smoking to think PG is such a great thinker and/or writer?
raldi 1y ago
An even better example is just a few sentences back in the essay: The speed of a car has nothing to do with its color, and yet you can improve the speed without changing the color.
- mykowebhn 1y ago
  Good find. Sadly there are many such examples

gmzamz 1y ago

You can't optimize for two things at the same time in the /same system/. In your example, the best volume for the stereo will change based on how fast you're going. Noise from air going around your car will require a slightly louder volume. It technically goes the other way too, I'm sure louder music will affect your mileage slightly, reducing your MPG due to increased power draw. Realistically it won't matter, but they do exist in the same system. You can absolutely optimize for two things at the same time in different systems. The ideal speed optimizing for MPG in different cars aren't really linked and can be found independently.

mykowebhn 1y ago

Also, > But while we can't safely conclude that beautiful writing is true, it's usually safe to conclude the converse: something that seems clumsily written will usually have gotten the ideas wrong too. So, we have 1) Can't conclude that beautiful writing is true, and 2) Writing that is not beautiful usually has bad ideas too. But he immediately follows this up with: > Indeed, the two senses of good writing are more like two ends of the same thing. How does this idea logically follow from the previous statement? Indeed? I don't agree with other commenters that PG's writing here is good. The writing is bad, and so are the ideas. What are people smoking to think PG is such a great thinker and/or writer?

raldi 1y ago

An even better example is just a few sentences back in the essay: The speed of a car has nothing to do with its color, and yet you can improve the speed without changing the color.

mykowebhn 1y ago
Good find. Sadly there are many such examples