Do all the things like ++ or -- rants, post your own rants, comment on others' rants and build your customized dev avatarSign Up
The thing he has is the ability to get people to work together on a project.
It might sound easy to do, but in practice, you try getting thousands of people to all work together on anything. :-)
But thousands of those companies are not working on the right things. :-)
Take for example, Facebook.
One might say, the most successful to date social media platform.
Why was it successful and loads of others not ?
Was it because the other lacked the skilled people Facebook had to build it, or does it take something beyond just a band of skilled folk ?
That's not to ignore how it is mainly those folk behind the scenes who actually build these things for us.
After all, know one says who coded Paypal..
Or who coded Ebay in the early days..
If only we better understood what it takes to create leaders, we could develop more of them..
I do think though they are a vital ingredient, even though technically we could build things without them, we rarely do.
What are the ingredients of Elon's ?
A certain stubborn streak ?
How does he get his breaks, is it just luck, or can you bend fortune your way, somehow ?
I think we are only scratching the surface to better understand.
> started studying on a scholarship
That can help. :-)
Mixing with the right folk..
But with social media systems, are they the new networking opportunity for folk to come together projects ?
For success, do I just need to create a Facebook group and wait for it to fill up with knowledgable folk who can work on a project together.. ?
@Voxera Not bad indeed, it's even really impressive and I've no trouble admitting that. But again that doesn't change what I was saying at first : that's business skills here.
Surely that's not nothing, that makes him someone successful and proves he's intelligent I guess, and has some other qualities. But I still think he receives all the credit for things his employees are truely responsibles.
Just read or watch the medias, listen to some conversations about the topic and you quickly get to the easy thoughts: "Tesla is so innovating, Musk is a genious".
I'm sure these companies are full of creative minds, people who really have found solutions to complex problems. But we just never hear about them, just about their boss.
Facebook is an interresting case, personnally I think that starting this in a major university has really helped. After all, at that time many web developers were on the same path: adding more social features to their products, etc. MySpace was already there but not just it. I pretty well remember we were spending a lot of time on forums back then, and for those amongst us who knew how to code, the goal was to make a site like Facebook before Facebook was even born.
So yeah, I thing the audience targeted by Facebook since the begining has played an important part in it's development. I think somebody else than Zuck', in the same environment, could have get to a very similar result.
> I think somebody else than Zuck', in
> the same environment, could have
> get to a very similar result.
I dunno about that.
I might have agreed with you there in the past.
But I've seen such environments, full of all the right ingredients, but just lacking the right kind of leader.
Then just the right type of person appears and things happen.
A good example there is Cliff Stanford and Demon Internet.
I read the transcripts of all the messages posted about the creation of Demon.
In the very place where a company had its forums, with customers asking, 'can we have internet!?!', and the company saying "NO!".
So the customers organised themselves, lead by one man, to create Demon..
Consequently the same place was full of experts in every field, but yet, people did not come together and start projects in anything earth shattering..
Why was that, what causes folk to just give up and not keep working on a project ?
What has Cliff got that is different to most others ?
> starting this in a major university
> has really helped.
Agreed there, I think such a starting place really helps many projects.
Though it might be that any gathering of people in a physical location can help get a project going. :-)
Though I've been to countless meetings whose sole purpose seems to be to make sure no one ever gets organised enough to cause any trouble and actually make anything happen !
Perhaps good leaders have different kinds of meetings..
I try to study them as best I can to try and discover what some of these different ingredients might be.
And to experiment myself to see, can I be a good leader..
Still working on finding out that one. :-)
"For success, do I just need to create a Facebook group and wait for it to fill up with knowledgable folk who can work on a project together.. ?"
Well that's far-fetched. Of course you can't "just wait" for brilliant people and receive success. Of course management skills are useful in every project. But let's try to reverse the thinking here : You could be an exceptional leader. You could inspirate motivation and energy to people, you could bring them together around shared values and use that to make them work. But is it enough to really be successful ? Even if the people you choosed are lacking knowledge and capabilities ?
Without even taking into account the fact that "starting a projet with folks on Facebook" and "hire professionnals by contract to make them work in their field of expertise in exchange for money every month" are to very different things...
@Voxera take a 6 year old child from Somalia with an arm perimeter of 9cm, and that will be "Starting from nothing". If you however talk about someone who had all the conditions to research opportunity, study and move up - he's already got stuff which 90% of the population on the globe doesn't.
@Nanos "If only we better understood what it takes to create leaders, we could develop more of them.."
But we know. It is already well researched and known.
It takes blind luck, to make people see something great there where it's an ordinary person.
The total, complete contribution of a CEO's ability to lead a company, is at most 30%.
Source, you ask? Check out Daniel Kahneman.
"Why was that, what causes folk to just give up and not keep working on a project ?
What has Cliff got that is different to most others ?"
I don't know, and yeah I wish we had the answer to these questions. But I'm really well convinced that's not only due to one man. It's a social thing, fore sure, something happening between people at the right time and the right place. But in my opinion, the same "leader" with different collaborators, or a different environment, may not achieve similar results...
@Masta If you are a very good leader you either do not gather useless people ;)
Or you see behind the outer shell and manages to pull out competence hidden.
A great leader is not just a businessman but someone that inspires people to do more than they though they could.
Thats why a coach in a sports team can make or break a team without even playing them self.
And Musk has repeatedly manage to gather the right people and gotten them to do more while also handling the business part.
And those three skill are not present in many leaders, most have one or maybe two skills.
And for Facebook and Harvard, it's not just the "physical" location that played a part, but also the network aspect in universities. Students did (and still) have the needs to comunicate quickly and efficiently. And students were (and still are) young people, happy to discover and share new things.
At the time it was the perfect combo for Zuck': he was surrounded by people who needed his idea, and these people had the perfect age and habits to massively share this idea and the resulted product.
So yeah, starting Facebook in Harvard helped a lot, but not just because of the physical situation. It's not the fact that it was on a campus that helped. It's the fact that it was inside an already-existing network: the students network.
> The total, complete contribution
> of a CEO's ability to lead a company,
> is at most 30%.
I'm not sure that's true. :-)
If we look at Cliff for example.
Demon Internet only happened because Cliff made it happen.
Without him, all the customers would have just sat around complaining that no one was giving them what they wanted..
They still sit around doing the same thing today, about all the other things they want..
Collectively they have all the skills needed to make it happen, they even have the wealth and resources to make it happen too !
But they don't..
I'll read what Kahneman has to say, but I suspect he might be missing something.
> Thats why a coach in a sports team
> can make or break a team without
> even playing them self.
Perhaps there are more useful books on being a good coach, than being a good business leader. :-)
> Of course you can't "just wait" for
> brilliant people
How do herd brilliant people together on facebook into a group ?
At the moment, I just wait, because I don't know any better way !
I've tried different social media platforms, Facebook is the most successful so far at getting the most useful people into a single place.
"If you are a very good leader you either do not gather useless people ;)"
Why not ? You gather people you can reach. Maybe I'm a good leader, but somewhere in a small country without anyone with the skills I need around me.
I don't think that's such easy.
Kind, you born a leader and in every place you will go in your life, with every person you will meet, you will achieve great things because you were born like that and that's all. That's really to Disney for me, almost magical. The real world is much more complicated!
"Thats why a coach in a sports team can make or break a team without even playing them self. "
...and not because he has the ability to choose who plays and who don't ?
You're sure ?
Let's be fair here: I don't say leadership doesn't exist. You're partly right, a coach can have a psychological influence on the players without using direct authority. But he also has that authority by the rules, and no reason to not use it. Which strengthens his ability to "make or break" the team. You have more fear of the coach when you know he can forbid you to play the next match.
I'm so glad this isn't like Facebook and having to worry about posting more than 14 messages in 24 hours and risk a 4 day ban..
Also glad it isn't like facebook, where if you forget and press newline, your message gets posted !
It's shift and return always !
Who could have written something so awful :-)
> because he has the ability to choose
> who plays and who don't ?
I'm reminded of a time my team won for the first time, much to the horror of the teaching staff. :-)
I made useless player to sit and not play..
And used a computer to help plan everything, with a detailed task list for every player, taking into account their strengths and weaknesses.
The other team didn't use a computer, and had their most useless player playing. :-)
They spent much of their time arguing about who was in charge. :-)
So, could anyone have got my team to win, if they had done the same things I had ?
I reckon so.
Do some leaders inspire, well, I've seen folk follow total idiots with the worst ideas ever, and waste their time and effort.
So they must have got inspired right !
When I try to inspire the same people, they just aren't interested..
But then, I tend to say things like,"hard work makes you rich !"
Where as the other leaders say, "free money for no work !"
So where am I going wrong ?
What advice might we give to a yet to be successful Elon Musk type here today ?
Apart from, going to university is helpful. :-)
Not everyone can afford that part of a solution..
So, what advice might help the poorest leaders of tomorrow ?
I'm reminded here of William Kamkwamba.
If you post too much, Facebook also auto delete your messages too !
Not that you notice at first, because your side, they appear posted, but if you refresh the page and check, its vanished..
As such, it makes heated discussions rather, well, difficult..
"I disagree with every word you say, and I will reply a week next Tuesday with more!"
As such, it makes brainstorming sessions, rather, well, short lived..
What is needed is something better than Facebook..
But whose going to build it..
Or, whose going to be the leader to get other folk to build it. :-)
Unless, such a leader actually codes it themselves..
That is one of the reasons why Cliff was successful, he had a social media platform that didn't censor you, and he could write as much as he wanted !
(Well, they have message limits, but its 65k per message.. even I have a hard time typing so much regularly..)
Could Cliff have succeeded if he had just Facebook to use instead..
I suppose that is like asking, could someone succeed if they just went to college and not university, perhaps..
More difficult I reckon.
@Nanos It never hapened to me, but I can imagine the frustration.
Actually I almost never use Facebook anymore. I have a lot of "friends" on it, but the content is too useless. The only things that keeps me from deleting my account is I still use Messenger to talk with people. I wish it's possible to delete my fb profile while keeping all my friends on Messenger... But it's not.
This is by far the most interesting thread I have seen in devrant in quite some time. So here's my two cents
The media hypes Elon musk because it's their job to hype stuff. If they don't do it their rivals will, coz that's just business too.
If there was someone else in that situation instead of Elon musk they would have done what he has and if Elon musk was present in some other situation things wouldn't be the same either.
Yes there are a lot of companies out there but how many of them are named after a pun, how many are building spacex
I think the true genius of Elon musk lies in challenging our perception of normal.
Wack67593yDon't get me wrong but I actually hope he's the vilian, who just say's fuck it and on the way to mars drops the bomb... Come on a programmers gotta dream...
Musk may be just a successful businessman, but not every businessman can create so much technological progress in so little time. Some of his ideas are crazy and unrealistic but on the way he already achieved some great things that force the competition to wake up and get shit done as well.
People like him because he's proof you can be successful and still talk about cool technology and your sci-fi vision instead of business bullshit bingo.
cwizard6333yTo say Musk is anything less than a genius would be an understatement.
Yea yea he is Rich bla bla. Look if Musk was in it for the money he would be handling things a lot differently. He invested most of his own money during the 2008 crisis while he could've have just retired. So don't give me the 'he is an evil business man' bs. That is just jealousy speaking.
Now you can say that Musk is just doing management and that management is easy *spoiler its not* but even that isn't true. Sure he might not do a lot of engineering anymore these days but at the beginning I am pretty sure he was the lead engineer because of a lack of funds. Musk is a genius for a multitude of reasons in my opinion and you haven't given any proper arguments again in my opinion why he is not.
Starting businesses is hard, I wouldn't know where to start. Engineering stuff is easy, I do it every day. Heck all you have to do is pick up some books and read. Things will go on there own from there on.
> in the end there are very few
> truly useless people.
I'm not sure that's true !
I think the majority of people are useless..
I think Henry Ford understood this well and gave people jobs to do that was within most peoples limited abilities.
But how might we test our theories to see which is more right ?
I'm reminded of most online multiplayer games where those that win, are the ones that play well together in teams.
Have you noticed how few good teams there are out there ?
Is that because there is a lack of good team leaders, or just that most people suck at working with others in a coordinated fashion ?
Which often boils down to, doing what you are told..
A bit like working in the military. :-)
It is perhaps interesting to study different militaries around the world to spot common patterns of ones good at their jobs, and ones less good.
Are ones that are effective, is it because of leadership, or the men themselves ?
It seems like no one understands that CEOs of aerospace companies are more lead engineers than CEOs.
People like Bruno, Musk and even Bezos don't just run the company — they could build a turbopump with a blindfold on.
Sure, they have armies of engineers helping them, coming up with good ideas of their own, but a lot comes from their desk as well.
Musk doesn't even run SpaceX, Gwynne Shotwell does.
People over-hype a lot of things, and with Musk it gets out of hand because he still talks like a software dev. He thinks out loud, speculating about technology, disregarding deadlines.
Why people are getting angry on musk? You can be like he as well just read more change your behaviour a bit more ok a lot more self control less sleep start always think about it. Put everything else behind your reputation and you will be one. It is not a secret those good ceo never born like it they read 2,4 books per week about everything how many books you do per month 4? More? ... lazy generation just crying...
> He thinks out loud,
I do that a lot.
I like to brainstorm with others.
Often brings up things I never knew about, and helps to guide direction.
"> It is already well researched and known
Any pointers ?"
You say that you've read 15000 books so far, yet did not come across a famous, well written book written by a Nobel prize laureate who has changed the world a lot more than many other people you all know and cherish.
Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman have questioned human decision making and thought patterns, with successful attempts to bring psychology to science standards.
Their findings are that usually professional stock brokers are no better at predicting stock values than a coin toss, that CEO ability to lead correlates with a measure of at most 30% with company success and everything else is due to luck (and provided good examples of how that is so), and many others.
We, humans, tend to simplify observation, and create links in places where there are none. It gives us cognitive ease. It's easier to think that Elon Musk is a god, than to think that he was lucky.
> not come across a famous, well
> written book written by a Nobel
> prize laureate
You know there are a lot of books to read out there. :-)
I tend to go on recommendations, so if no ones recommended them before, they probably aren't any good..
Read and understand and connect the points requires specific thinking.. in business lucky people do not survive more than few years because they do not know how to run business if company survives more than 5 years with all those challenges i do not see any luck in it.. try be lucky by opening company and managing all documents.. to find way advertise business so all world will follow it and sell shares.. people read a lot as well opens companies just to learn how to manage business if by learning it they got lucky by selling some product it can be counted as luck but they done it not for money but to learn how to manage company.. some things are not written directly in single book but after adding few together and thinking why they got 'lucky' for some that luck took 2-10 years practising 'luck' so all programmers with courses are 'lucky' to be employed without having degree
@Nanos It's not a great idea to do that in front of customers though.
With technically minded coworkers I also just blurt out: "We could build a machine learning model on top of that database, set up an API to refine suggestions, etc" -- As in: Nice to have, in a year or two, lets build the basic version, I'm just putting a dot on the horizon.
But Musk does this out loud in front of the world, and I think it's his greatest weakness. It generates too much hype, and hype is a bubble. It will eventually pop.
Mass production of cars is hard, digging tunnels is hard, getting to Mars is incredibly hard.
I think his companies are of great value to the world, and will bring a lot of change, over time. But most of his timelines are off by a few years or even a decade, and there are a lot of blind fanboys cheering and believing everything he says as if he's some kind of prophet.
Oh, and fuck the rich kids buying a Tesla and thinking they paid off their negative externality tax.
It's a nice car, but don't pretend you just single-handedly saved all the polar bears. My bike was one-hundreth in manufacturing efforts, and it also has zero carbon emissions.
> Their findings are that usually
> professional stock brokers are
> no better at predicting stock values
> than a coin toss,
I remember reading about that years ago.
Then I met a rich retired drug lord, he's really really smart, and good at predicting stuff too.
I wonder, is it luck, or is he really talented ?
> findings are that usually
I guess the key word there is 'usually' :-)
So, usually, most folk are just lucky to be in charge of a business.
That makes sense, because so many businesses are run by complete idiots, it makes you wonder how they got to create such a business in the first place !
I guess eventually all those crappy businesses will go bust and the really smart people who get by with their abilities and not luck so much, will replace them with better businesses.
Employees are leaving if they see that is something wrong with ceo or management.. so business is not just going bust for no reason. Once smart people left 'lazy' ones nobody does work now and business goes bust
I'm reminded of one business I know that after 40 years is still run by idiots !
It's been sold a few times in that period.
They really should sell funeral plans, because the only customer growth they have is them dying !
They did try a new thing a few year ago, half price membership !
So many members left, and rejoined at half price..
I'm not sure that's what they intended folk to do..
They don't allow that anymore now. :-)
It's now a vanity project I hear, funded by the partner of the person who owns it.
Which might explain why the new signup page for customers didn't work at all for over a year.
Not until I got around to testing it, and letting them know.
I like to keep an eye on what they do, so I can try not to do what they do !
Not unless I can meet a new partner with deep pockets to fund my vanity projects..
Any other pointers ?
I like to have a spread of views on a subject, so I have a better chance of figuring out whose right.
Though ideally I prefer to test things to find out what works and what doesn't.
Though that can be a time and resource intensive process.
I'm hoping more use of computer games and real people can help speed that up and lower the cost.
@Nanos "they probably aren't any good.." - it's in the bestseller list for non-fiction in virtually any online book store.
It's an amazingly accurate, carefully-written, insightful book I ever came across. "Thinking, fast and slow".
Or even Michael Lewis's book "The undoing project", although it's more about the biography than the details, and does not mention the intention of success fallacy (not actual name, I just made it up. Don't remember if it has a name).
> it's in the bestseller list
That doesn't mean something is actually good !
Only that people think its good..
Books are like cakes though, you only find out after you've paid for your cake, and eaten it, whether you like it or not.
And its too late then to get your money back !
> It's an amazingly
I'll add it at the bottom of my, possible to read book list, and if several more people recommend it, I'll move it up the list.
Unless I've read it already and can't remember anything useful from reading it. :-)
I really should keep a record of books I've read, so I don't read the same one twice by mistake..
@Nanos "I guess the key word there is 'usually' :-)"
The point made is that you might find someone who is better at predicting, but it might be a statistical anomaly. Pretty much every big data enthusiast, statistician, or anyone working with numbers, will agree that it's virtually impossible to predict the stock market or to determine what will be successful or not.
A good example to illustrate the illusion that CEOs are geniuses, consider Larry Page and Sergey Brin.
They're geniuses, right?
Their decisions, at least at the very start, were all right, which is why they own one of the biggest companies on the planet, right?
They tried selling Google to Yahoo, for 1 million.
They made one of the stupidest decisions, at the very beginning.
They were lucky that it never got fruition.
They were stupid (in hindsight) and lucky.
@Nanos let's just say that Daniel Kahneman is one of the smartest people alive.
He is responsible for Israel beating the incredible odds in its first years of life as a sovereign state surrounded by enemies. Yes, THAT big of an impact.
His work has influenced tremendous changes in the way we live our lives:
* How people get hired
* How to make education better
* Mobile phones cause car accidents
* Thanks to him, the overwhelming majority of drivers in some European countries are now organ donors in case of fatal accidents.
He basically brought truth in the misconceptions about human perception
His work has shaped the 20th and 21st century societies arguably more than Einstein's.
And he wrote a book explaining the findings and the research behind them.
If company makes more profit every year you can predict that stock price will grow because profit grows you do not need broker for it because funds and big companies invests only in shares were they think that company profit will grow. Predict that profit will grow or not you do not need broker because nobody knows it.. past profit results done by analyst doesn't tell if company will make profit next year.. if profit goes done shares goes down if you do not agree check profit changes and share price reaction to it.. bubble is different thing it is same as telling i think they will be and everyone thinks but nobody has prove in the end someone understands that is no profit and starts selling and other follows..
> it's virtually impossible to predict
> the stock market or to determine
> what will be successful or not.
Having watched a retired drug lord predict things for 20 years, repeatedly accurately, I really don't think he is super lucky, even if he is Irish !
I must ask him, did he predict he would get caught and end up in prison for a few years. :-)
One thing I learned from him was to study history and the economic cycles you see in history to better predict what is going to happen next, and why.
I'm reminded of this 1995 story:
Can we accurately predict what will happen next in Cape Town ?
"One thing I learned from him was to study history and the economic cycles you see in history to better predict what is going to happen next, and why."
That will give you a false sense of understanding that which you just can't.
People are very prone to committing the fallacy of saying that if something has behaved in a particular way in the past, it will behave like that in the future. Despite overwhelming evidence that people who have used this principle for prediction in the past, have mostly failed. But you only see the ones that succeeded in their prediction because of the survivor bias (you never hear about failures).
Time is not correlated to anything. Effects stack up in a deterministic system - true. But that's not a time correlation, but a feedback loop, which is entirely different.
Right now, we're only capable of making very lose predictions on aggregated long-term behavior. Everything else is wild guesses.
> * How people get hired
Is that why we are hiring more idiots today than ever before ?
> * How to make education better
Is that why education is worse than its ever been and dumbed down ?
So, what exactly did they/he do that made hiring people different / better, and education ?
Maybe their work only effected some countries in a positive manner and completely missed the UK all together !
I dunno, but I'd be interested in some specific examples of things to do differently in a job interview compared to the old days.
Or how you might teach someone different these days in a better way than you did beforehand.
"Is that why we are hiring more idiots today than ever before ?" - evidence?
Good HR that have studied the latest science in psychology, will have great success at hiring the best people for the money.
Oh, by the way, the Oakland Athletics baseball club has had an unprecedented winning streak on a very low budget precisely because of the work based on this.
"Is that why education is worse than its ever been and dumbed down ?"
Dude, 2 problems:
1. Bring evidence
2. Could you expand your reach to beyond the availability bias?
Where is it dumbed down? Our scientific progress is now so fast that you can find scientific breakthroughs in DAILY papers, as opposed to once every month just 100 years ago.
Changes in teaching techniques include more interaction, which force the activation of "System 2", rather than relying on memorizing and "System 1" intuition. Derek Muller (Veritasium) wrote his PhD on this and is using the principle in his videos.
It's true that lower level staff builds the actual products but when people have only that argument I can't stop thinking how stupid they are.
For anyone disagreeing with that just look around you and name a single engineer that designed and built the products you use on a daily basis.
In most cases you can hardly name a single person working in the company that built the stuff you use.
No one really cares about the engineers that work at Musk's or anyone else's company, they just want to try and give some credibility to their pathetic attempts at getting some attention by not agreeing with the majority just so their insignificant lives get some meaning.
Conspiracy theorists claim they know the "truth" no one else knows because that gives a meaning to their, buried in brain-dead routine, lives.
As for you OP, name 3 persons that made this app a reality.
What education we talking about if companies start hiring devs without degree and some those are telling that you do not need degree or education so they can not even discuss things or understand... if you try to bring your opinion either they ignore or start thinking that you are negative about they opinion even if you want to bring some discussion to see and understand what point they are trying to make.. in some cases i just got that they do not even have a point just want to find the thing to cry or start argue.. i am not sure if it is mistake of parenting or education or social networks?
> Our scientific progress is now so fast
What you perceive as fast, I see as slow. :-)
I dunno, I guess I was spoilt by having family members who would invent something new over tea.
Not invent the kind of thing to hold glasses on your head with a rubber band, more, how to reduce error rates in radio signal transmissions and other, somewhat technical envelope pushing areas.
> Where is it dumbed down?
For example, when I went to collage I wanted to know how to work out square roots.
But they don't teach that anymore..
So, who programs the square root function on calculators then..
But wasn't the question, one you was supposed to be answering, rather than asking me a question. :-)
I want to learn from you !
> rather than relying on memorizing
Is that why no one these days knows anything, because they haven't bothered to remember a thing about the subject they are supposed to know about !
Memory is a useful tool, if you fill it with a basic toolkit.
But go too much new age learning,and you just churn out educated idiots as the saying goes.
I hear constantly from employers how they really don't like employing many of today's graduates, because they are nothing like graduates of years ago in their ability levels, or knowledge.
Kinda like how I hear from lots of people applying for jobs, how when they get a job someplace, managers are not like they used to be, but complete idiots !
Now, who hired the idiot managers..
@Nanos "What you perceive as fast, I see as slow. :-)" - the problem is that I see, you perceive.
I see, because I base my assessment on objective data - number of scientific advancements.
You perceive, because you still think it's lower (it's not, because one can easily compare 2 numbers, and there is only 1 response).
It now takes months (not years) to develop an efficient mass-produced vaccine for a completely new disease, as long as its antigens don't change every 2-3 weeks.
It is now possible to create new life forms, out of nothing. It happened. The scientists also encoded their names and credits in the DNA as "junk DNA", of that life form that replicates itself.
It is now possible to encode in DNA, and leave it there, information like photos, written works, etc. Ensuring that it will last much longer than any other media out there because it replicates itself.
We're now developing AI at unprecedented speeds and with great success.
I could go on.
@Nanos " when I went to collage I wanted to know how to work out square roots.
But they don't teach that anymore.."
But they teach a lot more which wasn't taught before.
Do you need to compute square roots in your head?
How useful will that be?
You know what they also don't teach any more? How to make stone spearheads.
> Oakland Athletics baseball club
Now that sounds an interesting case to look at.
I'm sure they didn't just hire people based on their physical looks. :-)
Which might explain why a place I worked hired a lot of short people and ladders, rather than tall people and no ladders..
What next wide people and narrow spaces. :-)
Actually they did that..
I really can't imagine what the HR department was thinking !
Perhaps they know nothing about the working conditions for the part of the company that actually earns the money for the rest of the company..
Does give you a lot of confidence in their ability to hire the right people, if they can't get something so basic as that right !
I mean, its not as if their company is one of the top ones in the world, in its field.
It was a great working experience there, I saw so much of the wrong ways to run things !
And they still made a profit !
Just think how much you could make if you ran it well !
Talking of success, I'm reminded about:
A common problem I notice in business, everyone wants your product, but you can't make it fast enough..
Is that considered a mistake ?
Of course, you can go the other way, and produce too many of a product no one ends up wanting..
So, how do you predict in advance the likely interest from customers ?
I predict that devRant will have a billion users in a decade. :-)
> Do you need to compute square
> roots in your head?
I need to at least know how to do them on paper, so I can check the maths library routines I'm about to use are accurate. :-)
I scored an A at college because the programming language we used had bugs in its maths routines that only I noticed and corrected for, whilst everyone else didn't. :-)
@Nanos "Is that considered a mistake ?" - It's an avoided risk.
Hindsight bias will lead you to take it as a mistake in one case, and a good decision in another.
Aggregated results however show that risk-taking people will fail most of the times, but when they don't - it will make them famous.
Coupled with survivor bias, we only hear about successful people who took risks and won. We rarely hear about their road full of failures, and surely never hear about the people who did exactly the same, and even more and better, but never saw that success because they weren't lucky.
> they teach a lot more which
> wasn't taught before.
I'm not sure teaching more people how to be hairdressers is as important as teaching folk to be automotive mechanics..
But I guess no one wants to be one of those anymore, since they stopped teaching about the internal combustion engine in science at schools here..
But some countries are thankfully, India still seems to be churning out trained people with skills.
But will it continue, or will it become infected by new age thinking and stop doing that, I worry a little there.
@Nanos "I need to at least know how to do them on paper"
Our progress rests on us relying on particular information, without knowing how it was determined. That gives us time and resources to develop further from that.
We have documents showing how it was achieved, so anyone interested can look. But it's not useful in practice to anyone.
What do you choose? To have useful knowledge about the new stuff that needs to be adopted in many places, or about stuff that one could do using anything from a coffee machine to a mobile phone?
If you're curious, you can find out. But you will most likely never ever need it.
At the university I learned the entire maths behind linear regressions and error checking. Its premises and how to get to the results, and how to tackle different problems, by using nothing but 19th century math, which I could already deduce using maths from Pythagora's era.
Completely useless. I would have rather learned about more machine learning methods in that semester.
> We rarely hear about their road
> full of failures, and surely never
> hear about the people who did
> exactly the same, and even more
> and better, but never saw that
> success because they weren't lucky.
Totally agree there !
I love to collect failure stories.
Try to figure out any common mistakes people make.
Or common, lets say, lack of luck things.
Like, you get into a lift and someone vital to your future success also gets in, and you have 30 seconds to win them over to your cause.
I remember someone I knew who had that chance, and didn't take it !
I also remember reading a gather good book and how to make luck, or rather, how to find yourself in favourable positions that you might be more able to take advantage of luck, should it appear.
Facebook is like that, if you are there, you stand an increased chance of bumping into someone who might change your life for the better.
If you aren't, then that bit of luck isn't going to happen !
You study in uni architecture designs and falls.. without uni people can make good programs but without knowing design and decisions they should never be lead dev ir lead architect.. i see a lot if companies start moving on microservices like it is solution for st.. designs it is even worst because they do not know what is bad with it and this technology is from 90s not new!
@Nanos "I'm not sure teaching more people how to be hairdressers is as important as teaching folk to be automotive mechanics.."
That's not what I meant. I meant that it's teaching more in every individual field.
And like it or not, we're still humans, that need to be entertained, that like parties, that like art, and like fashion. Hairdressers are trained because we're willing to give them money for their ephemeral art.
Thanks to them, hair products are developed, designed, produced and distributed, hair salons have to be built and maintained. And that creates a demand for many other jobs, including IT, where it creates new demands in solutions, and the respective science behind those solutions.
Thanks to hair stylists, someone at Rowenta will buy software to design and simulate physical products, together with airflow and shit. Thanks to them, new machine learning and AI fields will find their applications.
> What do you choose?
A good question !
I'd say when things have become reliable enough that you don't have to worry about them not working right.
At the moment, I'm a bit hard pressed to think of any examples of things that work right..
I see an ever increasing number of people relying on lower level stuff that simply doesn't work reliably.
And a lack of people who can design and build this lower level stuff we are coming to rely on.
> If you're curious, you can find out.
> But you will most likely never ever
> need it.
I'm finding increasingly, perhaps because I'm pushing the envelope a little, that more and more issues I'm having with things not working, are down to fundamental issues/mistakes further down the line.
If I didn't have the background to understand those things, I'd be completely stumped !
All I could do is swap out a part for another makers part and hope for the best.
But when they all fail, then what !
Someone has to build a better part. :-)
Want to know why that wheel fell off, its because the bolt wasn't manufactured to the correct specifications.
Oh, but it was, it was just the specification checking machine was designed with sub standard calibration software..
Thank goodness we had a real engineer who listening to the equipment said its wrong by the sound it was making !
"How do you know the floor is about to collapse?"
"The wooden beam is making certain noises.."
> Aggregated results however show
> that risk-taking people will fail most
> of the times, but when they don't -
> it will make them famous.
So, the lesson there is ?
Take repeated risks, but only risk what you can afford to lose !
So, marriage is out then. :-)
> surely never hear about the people
> who did exactly the same
It's never exactly the same though. :-)
So, what are the vital variables at play which cause success in one case, and not in another very similar one ?
@Nanos you see that, for which there is a high demand.
Very few people need someone who can re-invent the bicycle.
We're more and more narrowly specialized because there's just too much information.
My parents were taught how to raise crops, even if their majors were engineering and finance.
My grandmother was taught how to assist birth, even though she wasn't in medical school.
I don't need either of these:
* Survival in the wilderness (crafting tools, shelters, hunting, gathering)
* Farming (how to raise animals, how and when to plant stuff, how and when to water, etc)
* How to cook food on wood fire without suffocating with CO2 inside the house.
In order to move forward we have to specialize. Specialization is the backbone of all civilization.
I am not a lawyer, plumber, builder, musician, architect, doctor, electronics enginner etc. I am a skilled software engineer. I do my stuff best and pay for someone who is best to do their stuff best.
That works best.
.... To be fair, I am genuinely interested in other fields, and am quite good in some of them. I am a handy man, who fixes stuff around the house quite well. But this is because I want to do this, not because I need to or because I'm better than professionals at this.
Same with everything else. You are interested? Learn! The information is all out there, more accessible than ever. But it shouldn't be taught if it's not expressly needed.
> Hindsight bias will lead you to take
> it as a mistake in one case, and
> a good decision in another.
I dunno about that.
I can imagine if they got some reviews of the ET game first, they'd know it was so awful, no one would buy it !
Same for Tesla cars, get some reviews in first, see folk like it, that'll probably translate into sales !
But selling cars is pretty easy, just make a decent car..
Making a decent car, thats the hard part. :-)
Figuring out what folk want in a car, that's fairly easy, just ask folk, they will tell you !
Unless of course, no one ever puts their cup in the cup holder because its always the wrong size, and they think its for holding something else..
Doors drive me slightly potty, some manufacturers learn, and make them sliding, but others..
And yet, it seems every new vehicle coming out, the doors are designed for no wind
"It's never exactly the same though. :-)
So, what are the vital variables at play which cause success in one case, and not in another very similar one ?"
Not exactly the same in detail, but not quantitatively or qualitatively different.
More effort will not necessarily translate to more success.
Luck is a far more important factor, and one which is out of anyone's control, and one which is impossible to predict.
"Luck" - the thing that is influenced by factors far more complex than we or anyone else is able to even list.
Luck does not exist you can calculated possibility
@Nanos "Figuring out what folk want in a car, that's fairly easy, just ask folk, they will tell you !"
asking people doesn't work.
Pebble did that. Look where they are now.
It just doesn't work. As observed by people like Seth Stephens-Davidowitz, and documented in his "meh" book, "Everybody Lies".
Of course comparing a shit product that some idiots might think it would fly, to a product built to appeal people, with an unprecedented advertising campaign, is not even in the same ballpark.
I'm talking about ambiguous decisions like:
Should I go freelancing again?
Should I sell my house and invest all my money in bitcoin?
Should I make a startup that uses deep learning to predict an advertisement's success rate, using borrowed money?
Was it a good idea to invest in Yahoo in 2006?
Was it a good idea to buy GoPro stocks when they went public?
Was it a good idea to short sell Bitcoin when they reached 11k the first time?
> Good HR that have studied the
> latest science in psychology,
What will bad HR have done ?
I'm just reminded of a place that when it came to hiring, they would have the head of department, someone from HR, and a random member of staff from anywhere in the business.
Hiring was based on who got the most votes.
So, if HR and a random member of staff voted both for the person with no experience at all, they would get the job over the other person with 30 years experience and voted on by the head of department..
All decided by the best of what the latest research says is the best way to hire people I hear !
So, is this going to be good or bad ?
@Nanos "All decided by the best of what the latest research says is the best way to hire people I hear !" - but that's not the best way to hire people. Far from it.
Instead, take the qualified people for the job, and make a 6-7 question test, with answers that can be unambiguously assigned a score from 1 to 3 (worst to best). Include questions that would be hard to fake an answer for, that would highlight that trait. Ex. "How many times did you scold junior developers in the past? Never? Half the times they fucked up? Every time they fucked up?". Each answer gets a score (answers can be equal in score value). Each question can be assigned an importance weight. Compute the score at the end and get an objective fitness score, that is not influenced by looks, impressions or any other prejudices (and there are A TON of prejudices that we're not aware of). Use that, fuck gender/race hiring quotas, fuck subjective opinions about candidates, and build a team around the best people.
> Luck is a far more important factor,
> and one which is out of anyone's
> control, and one which is impossible
> to predict.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. :-)
After spending years searching the planet for lucky places to live, I moved here, specifically because one of its redeeming qualities is the increase in luck in the area..
Luck is an odd thing to study.
Can AI be lucky ?
"I grow my AI in that corner of the lab because its more lucky than the other corners.."
But isn't luck just a bunch of variables we don't know about..
"It's a wave, no its a particle!"
"Why you wearing a bullet proof jacket?"
"Because I don't want to get shot like Jeff did!"
I'd rather not rely on luck so much when it comes to dodging bullets. :-)
But I do agree that luck plays a much larger part in solutions that often people give it credit for.
That is one of the reasons why its always good to chat to strangers, because you never know how it might improve your luck !
Though in a dodgy area..
> In order to move forward we have
> to specialize.
Whilst I agree there.
> I don't need either of these:
I think you do need to learn the basics, because civilisation operates in cycles, one moment you need to be specialised, the next civilisation falls and you need to feed yourself !
Agree there is so much to learn these days, it is hard to be both a generalist who has a good grasp of the bigger picture, as well at the same time as a specialist who knows a tiny niche.
But too much specialisation leaves civilisation vulnerable to decay should those few people who know how something really important work vanish.
Like after the Romans left Britain, no one could get a decent plumber for 2,000 years !
> Very few people need someone who
> can re-invent the bicycle.
Isn't that like saying, very few people need someone who can re-invent the car.. ?
But isn't that just what Tesla did ?
Tomorrow, someone re-invents the toaster that can actually toast correctly !
I'm on the lookout for one of those, if one exists..
Someone did re-invent the butter dish..
Typical British company though, out of stock..
@Nanos "But isn't that just what Tesla did ?" - not really, no.
Made slight improvements to existing ideas about cars, electric cars, batteries, by combining existing technologies into a final product - that they did.
Spend a lot on marketing and creating a mountain of hype - that they did.