generic

generic is my research blog for school, where i go, where i am a graduate student. It has a wiki at pbwiki, too. who knew?
Sep 11
Permalink

My late work policy conflates mastery of content with professional work habits. A student can learn everything I want him to learn and more, yet earn a low grade by not submitting assignment on time.

To be honest, that’s probably not a problem. In our current system, it is not entirely clear what a grade means anyway.

Sep 09
Permalink
take that, hawking!

take that, hawking!

Aug 30
Permalink
samizdat:

This happened while i was trying to code up an index page today

samizdat:

This happened while i was trying to code up an index page today
Permalink
emspace:


Weird Science: It’s a UNIX system, I know this

emspace:

Weird Science: It’s a UNIX system, I know this
Aug 25
Permalink

So, if you think you can learn a tool’s mindset — the kind of hammer it is and therefore what sort of nails it thinks everything is — by trying things without understanding, you should. But typing random svn commands, or calling random layout-related functions when building a UI, or is like playing Battleship or Mastermind: you only get a few bits of information on each attempt, and the information you get is more like clues in a puzzle than a clear explanation of what you need to know. Please pay attention to the time you spend in trial and error. Because if it’s more than the time it takes to read the manual, you’re actually getting less done than you could. And it’s easy to notice this time: it’s generally frustrating, unproductive, quality-of-life sucking time.

If you find you’re working that way, please don’t feel bad. Most people do it. I’m not sure where it comes from. Bad, “results oriented” managers? Most people learn it before the first job. Bad managers depicted in movies and TV? Parents? Teachers? I don’t know.

But if you really want to spend the most time on the fun part of your craft — creating stuff, not debugging it or pounding your head against the wall — then you need to invest in yourself. It’s in your best interest. And it’s in the best interest of your company.

Permalink
you should only spend two hours on something boring (like reading manuals) if it will save you more than two hours over the course of your life. And usually, you spend a lot more in the trial-and-error — commonly called floundering — than the two hours it would take to read the manual.
Aug 20
Permalink
The casual request ‘give us a smile’ makes the act sound effortless and unconditional. Realistically, however, people are a little more complex than this.
Smile
Aug 18
Permalink
the “middle” you talk about is, in my experience, the most difficult material to write. not only do you need to know the target technology extremely well, you also need to know the problem domain very well. most authors of computer books today are not up to that kind of work.
Permalink

It struck me that there was a massive chunk of the book missing, which was bridging the technical details of the RDF spec with how a car company might design and implement a shared ontology using the specs just described. This gap was so apparent that it got me thinking about the different kinds of computer books out there, which generally come in three flavors:

  • High level books about technology concepts, principles or “the future”
  • Learning a specific technology at a pretty deep level
  • Algorithms and computer science books that are math-heavy and at best use pseudocode
Jun 01
Permalink
science is so much more than its technical details. And with careful attention to presentation, cutting-edge insights and discoveries can be clearly and faithfully communicated to students independent of those details