- Pretty sure it was Peter Norvig
21 karma · joined July 22, 2010
- Pretty sure it was Peter Norvig
Being aware of why you are not developing a skill is probably key -- review from others helps to provide insight into potential underdeveloped areas.
"For ever reading, never to be read." - The Dunciad III
The use of the 'disagreeing with a commonly agreed concept' pattern, whilst useful, can be overused leading to discussions that get railroaded by blockers that gain credibility through the perception of being deep, simply for sake questioning.
Climate change discussions jump to mind here. 'Skeptics' ride on their ability to question fundamental and long-agree d concepts from the ocean and atmospheric sciences. They seem 'deep' in that they have questioned base concepts but in the end their argument is always flawed. Others who perhaps haven't the background or understanding don't see any flawed argument, just a 'deep' questioning of these concepts and thus gain some level of credibility. This can cloud discussions and create mis-information in my opinion.
Not in the context of other people (specifically non-Americans) trying to understand feedback. I find I can say something to an American that is "fantastic!" only to be told by a German "that it would never work". It just emphasises the need to get feedback from multiple avenues, ideally from people who have different world-views. Your example reactions to the three startups backs this point up.
'...REST always been a part of rails?' '...obsolete technology'
How is REST -- a set of architectural principles and constraints -- obsolete when you use it every time you browse to a web page? I feel people need to start treating REST more for what it is rather than an API or some library, or SOAP for that matter.
I agree it's not black and white, but I think failure is more stark and thus sticks with us, helping us to grow.
I also started with the Google tech talk and went on to his other work.