As far as I can tell, folks either learn everything beyond the mechanics and algorithms of programming from your seniors in the workplace or discover it for themself.
... or from Stack Overflow / Wikipedia, no? When encountering a difficult problem, one can either ask someone more knowledgeable, figure it out himself, or look it up on the internet.
I'm talking about things on the level of selecting which concepts are necessary and useful to implement in a system or higher. At the simplest that's recognizing that you have three types of things that have arbitrary attributes attached and implementing an underlying thing-with-arbitrary-attributes type instead of three special cases. You tend to get that kind of review from people with whom you share a project and a social relationship such that they can tell you what you're doing wrong without offense.
I think the learn to program by programming adage came from a lack of places teaching the stuff that makes people good programmers. I've never worked with someone who has gone through one of the new programming schools, but I don't think they purport to turn out senior-level programmers, much less 99th percentile programmers. As far as I can tell, folks either learn everything beyond the mechanics and algorithms of programming from your seniors in the workplace or discover it for themself.
So I'd say that there are nodes on the graph that I don't have labels for, and are not taught formally as far as I know. The best way to learn them is to read lots of big well written code bases and try to figure out why everything was done one way and not some other. Second best then maybe is to write a few huge code bases and figure out why things keep falling apart?
The Oxford Dictionary defines humility as to be humble OR having a lowly opinion of oneself. Well, if one is meeky, that could be a problem. I agree. My theory is that if you are modest, you have superior advantage in critical thinking compared to an arrogant person :)
Let us say that an arrogant scientist and a modest scientist is doing research. A modest person will be more open to hypotheses that seems unlikely. If evidence later is updated, I think that a humble scientist will have an easier time cooping with it and maintain his critical thinking while an arrogant person will be more likely to try to find evidence supporting his own claims.
Ok, then, humble from the OED: "Having a low estimate of one's importance, worthiness, or merits; marked by the absence of self-assertion or self-exaltation; lowly: the opposite of proud."
Clicking out.
Yes, and that is what I mean when i say you confuse the concepts :) Modesty is perhaps the better term here. Humlilty is modesty in all aspects of life. Compare it with Piety.
Humility means that you don´t overstate your own importance even when you are successful and that you respect others even if they are less intelligent/successful. It is the opposite of arrogance. If you are successful and brawl much you are arrogant, if you are successful and modest/humble, you don´t brawl.
Besides, shouldn´t a person who believe himself unworthy tend to accept ideas that contradict his own original beliefs more easy? E.g. Oh, Dr. Kopernikues claims that the earth ISN`T flat? Well, who am I to come and believe otherwise?
I think you understand the concept that I was trying to convey, and are trying to say that 'humble' and 'humility' are the wrong labels for that concept. Right? I basically agree with the OED's definition of humility: “The quality of being humble or having a lowly opinion of oneself; meekness, lowliness, humbleness: the opposite of pride or haughtiness.” Note the use of the word opposite, not absence.
Besides, shouldn´t a person who believe himself unworthy tend to accept ideas that contradict his own original beliefs more easy? E.g. Oh, Dr. Kopernikues claims that the earth ISN`T flat? Well, who am I to come and believe otherwise?
That's exactly the problem, at best one ends up following whoever is loudest, at worst one ends up saying "everybody is right" and "but we can't really know" and not even pretending to try to figure out the truth.
I disagree. Why would a humble person have problem to believe evidence? I think you confuse the concepts.
I was speaking more to how someone acts inside than how someone presents themself. If they believe themself unworthy or unimportant or without merit, they tend not to reject ideas very well and do a lot of equivocating. (Though, I think, all my evidence for that is anecdotal.)
You might say that they are both traps, at least from a truth seeker's perspective. The arrogant will not question their belief sufficiently; the humble will not sufficiently believe.
There're other calculations to consider too (edit: and they almost certainly outweigh the torture possibilities)! For instance:
Suppose that if you can give one year of life this year by giving $25 to AMF (Givewell says $3340 to save a child's life, not counting the other benefits).
If all MIRI does is delay the development of any type of Unfriendly AI, your $25 would need to let MIRI delay that by, ah, 4.3 milliseconds (139 picoyears). With 10% a year exponential future discounting and 100 years before you expect Unfriendly AI to be created if you don't help MIRI and no population growth, that $25 now needs to give them enough resources to delay UFAI about 31 seconds.
This is true for any project that reduces humanity's existential risk. AI is just the saddest if it goes wrong, because then it goes wrong for everything in, slightly less than, our light cone.
So... any bets on if/when any recursive fanfiction will be posted now that the story itself is complete?
It started happening well before the story was complete...
But what does one maximize?
We can not maximize more than one thing (except in trivial cases). It's not too hard to call the thing that we want to maximize our utility, and the balance of priorities and desires our utility function. I imagine that most of the components of that function are subject to diminishng returns, and such components I would satisfice. So I understand this whole thing as saying that these things have the potential for unbounded linear or superlinear utility?
I'm not sure if I'm confused.
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Why did you mention him then? Why not mention Erwin Schrödinger or Heisenberg for example?
Probably because they have been dead for forty for fifty years.
The best example still living might be Robert Aumann, though his science is less central (economics) than anyone on your list. Find a well known modern scientist who is doing impressive work and believes in any reasonably traditional sense of God! It's not interesting to show a bunch of people who believed in God when >99% of the rest of their society did.