5 ms·

Toxic expert here! I hate when blog posts try to teach complex subjects. It's almost always a non-expert doing the teaching, and they fail to do it accurately.

Toxic expert here! I hate when blog posts try to teach complex subjects. It's almost always a non-expert doing the teaching, and they fail to do it accurately. This then causes 1) the entire internet repeating the inaccuracies, and 2) the readers make no attempt to do further learning than the blog post, reinforcing their ignorance. I'll double down on my toxicity by saying I didn't like the page layout. As someone with ADHD (and a declining memory), I need to be led through formatting/sub-headings/bullets/colored sections/etc into each detail or it all blends together into a wall of text. The longer it takes to make a point (visually and conceptually), the more lost I am. I couldn't easily follow it. The Simple Wikipedia page was more straight to the point (https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_O_notation https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_O_notation), but reading the "full" Wikipedia page thrusts you headlong into a lot of math, which to me signifies that this shit is more complex than it seems and simplifying it is probably a bad idea.

AdieuToLogic 1y ago
> Toxic expert here! I hate that this declaration is both hilarious and one many might suggest I need to prefix with regularly. :-D
xenotux 1y ago
> Toxic expert here! I hate when blog posts try to teach complex subjects. It's almost always a non-expert doing the teaching, and they fail to do it accurately. This then causes 1) the entire internet repeating the inaccuracies, and 2) the readers make no attempt to do further learning than the blog post, reinforcing their ignorance. Ask yourself why. The usual answer is that top experts either can't be bothered to create better content, or they actively gatekeep, believing that their field must remain hard to learn and the riff-raff must be kept out. I think the first step is to accept that laypeople can have legitimate interest in certain topics and deserve accessible content. The remedy to oversimplified explanations is to write something better - or begrudgingly accept the status quo and not put people down for attempts that don't meet your bar. It's also good to ponder if the details we get worked up about actually matter. Outside the academia, approximately no one needs a precise, CS-theoretical definition of big-O notation. Practitioners use it in a looser sense.
- the_af 1y ago
  > Ask yourself why. The usual answer is that top experts either can't be bothered to create better content, or they actively gatekeep, believing that their field must remain hard to learn and the riff-raff must be kept out. This oversimplifies things. It's sometimes a third option: the topic is complex enough it cannot be digested into a ready to consume blogpost without previous work (reading and practicing), which in turn requires previous work, and so on, until you've turned it into an introductory course. And that's not gatekeeping or "cannot be bothered to simplify" -- it's a falsehood, a kind of internet new age mantra, that everything can be made simple enough to explain in a blog post. Some things can't. There's nothing elitist about it, since everyone has the mind power to take that introductory course. > It's also good to ponder if the details we get worked up about actually matter. Outside the academia, approximately no one needs a precise, CS-theoretical definition of big-O notation. Practitioners use it in a looser sense. The article made some genuinely serious mistakes and the author here (graciously, it has to be said) admitted to being wrong about some things like Big O being "the worst case". In this cases, maybe the damage could be limited by saying "I know this isn't Big O, this is what some engineers call it but it's actually something different. Because practitioners find useful nonetheless, I will explain it (explanation follows)". I found the visual presentation top-notch by the way, it's clear some effort was put into this and it shows!
  - branko_d 1y ago
    There is a lot of value in explaining the gist of something, even if it's not entirely accurate. In my experience, the cases where even that is impossible are very rare, at least when it comes to practical computer programming.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
- xigoi 1y ago
  > Ask yourself why. The usual answer is that top experts either can't be bothered to create better content, or they actively gatekeep, believing that their field must remain hard to learn and the riff-raff must be kept out. Before asking why, ask if. There are good articles about complex topics, they just get drowned out by bad articles.
croes 1y ago
Most of the time inaccurate knowledge is better than no knowledge. I bet you also have subjects where you use and spread inaccuracies unless you are universal expert
- sgarland 1y ago
  This varies wildly with the subject, and the degree of inaccuracy. If you say, “hash maps are generally O(1), and are a great default choice,” you’re not that wrong (subjectivity aside). If you say, “storing integers as strings guarantees precision, so you should prefer them over decimal or float types,” you’re technically correct about the first part, but are enormously wrong for a variety of reasons about the conclusion.
bonoboTP 1y ago
You can't satisfy everyone. My experience is the opposite. I hate the colorful books with many little boxes, pictures with captions in floaters, several different font sizes on the page, cute mascots etc, where even the order or reading is unclear. Instead I found it much easier to learn from old books made before the 70s-80s, sometimes back into the 40s. It's single column, black on white, but the text is written by a real character and is far from dry. I had such a book on probability and it had a chapter on the philosophical interpretations of probability, which took the reader seriously, and not by heaping dry definitions but with an opinionated throughline through the history of it. I like that much better than the mealy mouthed, committee-written monstrosity that masks any passion for the subject. I'd rather take a half page definition or precise statement of a theorem where I have to check every word but I can then trust every word, over vague handwavy explanations. Often these modern books entirely withhold the formal definitions so you're left in a vague uneasy feeling where you kind of get it, have questions but can't find out "is it now this way, or that way, precisely?". And I'm not so sure that these irrelevant-cute-pics-everywhere books are really better for ADHD at the end of the day, as opposed to distraction free black on white paragraphs written by a single author with something to say.
wy1981 1y ago
Writing is one of the best ways to learn something. Maybe non-experts learn something by writing about it? Don't think the entire internet is repeating inaccuracies. :) I also believe there are readers that attempt to learn further than a blog. A blog post can inspire you to learn more about a topic, speaking from personal experience. If there were no blog posts, maybe there would be no HN I believe. There should be a place for non-experts. One could remain skeptical when they read blog posts without hating blog posts about complex topics written by non-expert.
jpfromlondon 1y ago
It's an exercise most laymen undertake to reinforce newly acquired or partially acquired knowledge, and a valuable one. Where it falls short is the usefulness to others.
IOT_Apprentice 1y ago
Perhaps you could take the content and reformat it in a way that is better? I’d be interested in seeing your results. Thanks.

AdieuToLogic 1y ago

> Toxic expert here! I hate that this declaration is both hilarious and one many might suggest I need to prefix with regularly. :-D

xenotux 1y ago

> Toxic expert here! I hate when blog posts try to teach complex subjects. It's almost always a non-expert doing the teaching, and they fail to do it accurately. This then causes 1) the entire internet repeating the inaccuracies, and 2) the readers make no attempt to do further learning than the blog post, reinforcing their ignorance. Ask yourself why. The usual answer is that top experts either can't be bothered to create better content, or they actively gatekeep, believing that their field must remain hard to learn and the riff-raff must be kept out. I think the first step is to accept that laypeople can have legitimate interest in certain topics and deserve accessible content. The remedy to oversimplified explanations is to write something better - or begrudgingly accept the status quo and not put people down for attempts that don't meet your bar. It's also good to ponder if the details we get worked up about actually matter. Outside the academia, approximately no one needs a precise, CS-theoretical definition of big-O notation. Practitioners use it in a looser sense.

the_af 1y ago
> Ask yourself why. The usual answer is that top experts either can't be bothered to create better content, or they actively gatekeep, believing that their field must remain hard to learn and the riff-raff must be kept out. This oversimplifies things. It's sometimes a third option: the topic is complex enough it cannot be digested into a ready to consume blogpost without previous work (reading and practicing), which in turn requires previous work, and so on, until you've turned it into an introductory course. And that's not gatekeeping or "cannot be bothered to simplify" -- it's a falsehood, a kind of internet new age mantra, that everything can be made simple enough to explain in a blog post. Some things can't. There's nothing elitist about it, since everyone has the mind power to take that introductory course. > It's also good to ponder if the details we get worked up about actually matter. Outside the academia, approximately no one needs a precise, CS-theoretical definition of big-O notation. Practitioners use it in a looser sense. The article made some genuinely serious mistakes and the author here (graciously, it has to be said) admitted to being wrong about some things like Big O being "the worst case". In this cases, maybe the damage could be limited by saying "I know this isn't Big O, this is what some engineers call it but it's actually something different. Because practitioners find useful nonetheless, I will explain it (explanation follows)". I found the visual presentation top-notch by the way, it's clear some effort was put into this and it shows!
- branko_d 1y ago
  There is a lot of value in explaining the gist of something, even if it's not entirely accurate. In my experience, the cases where even that is impossible are very rare, at least when it comes to practical computer programming.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
xigoi 1y ago
> Ask yourself why. The usual answer is that top experts either can't be bothered to create better content, or they actively gatekeep, believing that their field must remain hard to learn and the riff-raff must be kept out. Before asking why, ask if. There are good articles about complex topics, they just get drowned out by bad articles.

croes 1y ago

Most of the time inaccurate knowledge is better than no knowledge. I bet you also have subjects where you use and spread inaccuracies unless you are universal expert

sgarland 1y ago
This varies wildly with the subject, and the degree of inaccuracy. If you say, “hash maps are generally O(1), and are a great default choice,” you’re not that wrong (subjectivity aside). If you say, “storing integers as strings guarantees precision, so you should prefer them over decimal or float types,” you’re technically correct about the first part, but are enormously wrong for a variety of reasons about the conclusion.

bonoboTP 1y ago

You can't satisfy everyone. My experience is the opposite. I hate the colorful books with many little boxes, pictures with captions in floaters, several different font sizes on the page, cute mascots etc, where even the order or reading is unclear. Instead I found it much easier to learn from old books made before the 70s-80s, sometimes back into the 40s. It's single column, black on white, but the text is written by a real character and is far from dry. I had such a book on probability and it had a chapter on the philosophical interpretations of probability, which took the reader seriously, and not by heaping dry definitions but with an opinionated throughline through the history of it. I like that much better than the mealy mouthed, committee-written monstrosity that masks any passion for the subject. I'd rather take a half page definition or precise statement of a theorem where I have to check every word but I can then trust every word, over vague handwavy explanations. Often these modern books entirely withhold the formal definitions so you're left in a vague uneasy feeling where you kind of get it, have questions but can't find out "is it now this way, or that way, precisely?". And I'm not so sure that these irrelevant-cute-pics-everywhere books are really better for ADHD at the end of the day, as opposed to distraction free black on white paragraphs written by a single author with something to say.

wy1981 1y ago

Writing is one of the best ways to learn something. Maybe non-experts learn something by writing about it? Don't think the entire internet is repeating inaccuracies. :) I also believe there are readers that attempt to learn further than a blog. A blog post can inspire you to learn more about a topic, speaking from personal experience. If there were no blog posts, maybe there would be no HN I believe. There should be a place for non-experts. One could remain skeptical when they read blog posts without hating blog posts about complex topics written by non-expert.

jpfromlondon 1y ago

It's an exercise most laymen undertake to reinforce newly acquired or partially acquired knowledge, and a valuable one. Where it falls short is the usefulness to others.

IOT_Apprentice 1y ago

Perhaps you could take the content and reformat it in a way that is better? I’d be interested in seeing your results. Thanks.