3 ms·

This isn't utterly pointless. I'm glad I know about it, and I wouldn't have without this essay. Or were you just saying "in general"? If so, point me to someth

by cschep 17y ago

This isn't utterly pointless. I'm glad I know about it, and I wouldn't have without this essay. Or were you just saying "in general"? If so, point me to something PG has put online that is utterly pointless. He has a remarkably good filter for useful content, even within his own essays there are rarely sentences that are extra.

TriinT 17y ago
You're reading way too much in my comment... For starters, I didn't say that the story about oaks getting hacked is pointless. Note also that I didn't say that PG puts pointless essays online. My comment was on what PG comments on HN. If somebody asks PG a question and he briefly replies "yes", the comment gets upvoted beyond what is reasonable, even if it's the question, NOT the answer, that carries the interesting information. Hell, a Y/N answer only carries 1 bit of information... I was trying to point out that, contrary to popular belief, HN is not immune to herd phenomena. In a way, this might be a good sign. It shows that we're humans. It shows that computers haven't yet passed the Turing test.
- gjm11 17y ago
  One genuine full-entropy bit of information on an important subject can be very valuable. You can double your wealth with one bit. (Toy example: you know whether a roulette wheel is going to come up red or black next time. You stake everything you own on the outcome. There are of course less-toy examples and less hair-raising ways to make money out of bits.) It doesn't take all that many bits to state (e.g.) Maxwell's equations. I largely agree with you about this post, though I don't mind its being here and I read it with interest despite not living anywhere near Silicon Valley. And I agree that PG gets much more karma than a clone who happened not to be called PG would (which suggests an interesting experiment...), and that that's kinda silly. But don't disparage bits.
  - TriinT 17y ago
    "One genuine full-entropy bit of information on an important subject can be very valuable." Oh, it sure can! For instance, suppose that we're back in 1986. The Microsoft IPO has just taken place. I ask God if Microsoft will ever be a huge success, and God tells me: "yes". There you go, 1 bit of information that would have made me very rich. However, despite the worship, I have doubts that PG has become himself God. Hence, his 1-bit answers are less valuable than God's 1-bit answers ;-)
    - gjm11 17y ago
      Assuming for the sake of argument that in 1986 you'd have expected Microsoft not to be a huge success, a "yes" answer to that question would have been considerably more than 1 bit of new information for you. (And therefore, of course, a "no" answer would have been somewhat less than 1 bit of new information.) Of course I agree that a bit from PG is not as reliable as a bit from God (making the obviously-necessary assumptions about God). But that's not a problem about bits. :-)
qwsdfrty 17y ago
cum
qwsdfrty 17y ago

by cschep 17y ago

TriinT 17y ago

You're reading way too much in my comment... For starters, I didn't say that the story about oaks getting hacked is pointless. Note also that I didn't say that PG puts pointless essays online. My comment was on what PG comments on HN. If somebody asks PG a question and he briefly replies "yes", the comment gets upvoted beyond what is reasonable, even if it's the question, NOT the answer, that carries the interesting information. Hell, a Y/N answer only carries 1 bit of information... I was trying to point out that, contrary to popular belief, HN is not immune to herd phenomena. In a way, this might be a good sign. It shows that we're humans. It shows that computers haven't yet passed the Turing test.

gjm11 17y ago
One genuine full-entropy bit of information on an important subject can be very valuable. You can double your wealth with one bit. (Toy example: you know whether a roulette wheel is going to come up red or black next time. You stake everything you own on the outcome. There are of course less-toy examples and less hair-raising ways to make money out of bits.) It doesn't take all that many bits to state (e.g.) Maxwell's equations. I largely agree with you about this post, though I don't mind its being here and I read it with interest despite not living anywhere near Silicon Valley. And I agree that PG gets much more karma than a clone who happened not to be called PG would (which suggests an interesting experiment...), and that that's kinda silly. But don't disparage bits.
- TriinT 17y ago
  "One genuine full-entropy bit of information on an important subject can be very valuable." Oh, it sure can! For instance, suppose that we're back in 1986. The Microsoft IPO has just taken place. I ask God if Microsoft will ever be a huge success, and God tells me: "yes". There you go, 1 bit of information that would have made me very rich. However, despite the worship, I have doubts that PG has become himself God. Hence, his 1-bit answers are less valuable than God's 1-bit answers ;-)
  - gjm11 17y ago
    Assuming for the sake of argument that in 1986 you'd have expected Microsoft not to be a huge success, a "yes" answer to that question would have been considerably more than 1 bit of new information for you. (And therefore, of course, a "no" answer would have been somewhat less than 1 bit of new information.) Of course I agree that a bit from PG is not as reliable as a bit from God (making the obviously-necessary assumptions about God). But that's not a problem about bits. :-)

qwsdfrty 17y ago

cum

qwsdfrty 17y ago