There's truth to the ScrumFall design process which is inevitable for most development processes. It's not just that a tool needs to be marketed, but that it needs to be integrated with work from multiple teams and other processes. What ScrumFall does is provide some level of feedback prior to delivery. In the age of Waterfall, devs would develop until they said they were done, we'd get to delivery and UAT only to find that key features work differently than expected and continually extend the release date by months or years until it finally goes out the door more from frustration than actual completion. That stress level would be pegged at 10 for months until it was completed.
Although not truly the point... we do know that people don't seen red and green flipped because color's don't work in isolation. It's also how they work together. If a person with flipped red/green mixed what they saw as red (actually green) with blue, they wouldn't get purple.
We could suppose that someone could see the entire spectrum inverted, but that causes other problems that we could test for. There are more hues between red and blue than there are between green and yellow. Instead of seeing brown (really dark yellow), they'd see dark blue.
The point he's making is that colors do not "really" exist - they're simply different levels of energy on the electromagnetic spectrum. How we perceive those colors is exclusively a product of our brain using input filtering from our eyes and then converting this into signals that we then perceive. But there's no reason to think that this processing and filtering eventually results in the exact same perceived color for every person. My red, blue, and purple could all be perceived simply differently than yours - even though every physical law interacting with what we perceive as color would behave identically.
And the even more interesting thing is that this nuance of reality extends to everything. The world as we perceive is only after extensive processing and filtering by our brain, driven by millennia of evolution. And it's very safe to say that our perception of the world has changed over those millennia and will continue to change in the future. So it seems essentially illogical to then assume that everybody at the current time shares the exact same 'experience' of perception.
You're just introducing more and compound things that we don't know if we have the same experience of.
Consider an enum type: we agree on labels (colour names) for different stimuli; as those stimuli combine they correspond to some other enum variant, and we interpret them as the same label. But we don't know, and I agree with the top-level comment that we can't know, whether our perception of the stimuli with that label is the same.
This is distinct from colourblindness, which is inability to distinguish stimuli for some of the enum variants, and so the labels get merged/boundaries between labels move. (Ok fine we also need a hashmap from stimuli to the enum..)
We agree to call the rose pink, and it's the same pink we see when we look at a colour card and agree it's the colour of the rose, but we don't know that what our brains reconstruct from the light when we look at 'pink'-labelled things is the same.
The same reason we don't have a race or sex limit on the Presidency. We should only have competency limits regardless of any other factors. My grandfather died at 101. He was extremely sharp until he was 98 and on no medication. I'd vote for that 95 year-old over either of our current choices without hesitation.
“Competency” is hard to evaluate, especially objectively, and that raises a whole host of other issues because it can’t be resolved expediently. Who raises a competency question? Who decides on it? When can the question be raised? What happens if we don’t have an answer by the time of the election, because it’s tied up in appeals?
Objective qualifications are much simpler. We could argue for months about whether a president is competent, but it takes like 7 seconds to decide whether they’re older than some arbitrary bar.
And at 98 did your Grandfather lead a country? How about a company? Manage a store? A team of employees?
All these anecdotal superhuman tales fail the smell test.
There is this hyped longitudinal study, but it doesn't say what roles these "superagers" were in, only that they had slightly better cognitive outcomes than their peers.
No one has cognitive capacity or neuronal volume of a 35 year old at 65, not to speak of 95.
It is delusional to think anyone can escape the effects of aging at this point in time.
Search engines go through cycles of usefulness. I was using qwant for over a year, but their relevance has dropped off. I'm very happy with startpage at the moment as my Google searches continue to drop. Perplexity (AI) is providing better augmentation than Google.
That can encourage it, but people will need to charge even when it's not windy. Having a smart charger wait for cheap electricity which may never come is a great way to end up with dead battery.
That's not too smart then. I'm talking about something with a bag of weighted goals. Having a dead battery would have a strong enough cost that it would pay more for higher market rates if state of charge is low.
This is a difficult fact to accept. We have all been told that people are generally equal, especially in intelligence, if given the same opportunities, but it becomes more clear in time that some problems are intractable to some people and no amount of training or exposure can change that. However, it's a better answer to the problem of why some people like Cleese's example do not absorb information. The alternative is to apply malice and laziness to them when it just isn't so.
We all have these intelligence holes that gives some insight into the mechanism. Eg. I'm bad at remembering names. As in the example, if you tell me someone's name, I'm likely to forget it 5 minutes later. I just spent 3 years reading Douglas Hofstadter's book and had to look up his name to type it here. This seems to happen because I don't see an application to remembering the name. I'm never going to meet Doug and rarely will anyone need to be told about the book, so why remember it? There's definitely a parallel to state capitals in that example.
Well said about not realizing it's important therefore names get down prioritized. Here's a counter point. I'm a movie geek. Yet when I reach for a name of someone from the cast I almost always end up describing, y'know, that guy who played together with that other guy in that movie, y'know, the one with the weird story line? Him! Yes, him. Love him.
While thinking is somewhat of a background process, our brains don't just solve the mysteries of the universe while we eat a ham sandwich. We tell our brains which problems are of high importance and it focuses on them. If you've ever laid down to go to sleep and told yourself to wake up at 6:30 and it worked, you've witnessed an obvious application of this.
The problem comes when we fail to point out the importance of a problem, or when we do so reflexively which means that we tell our brain that everything is important and it simply cannot process all of the requests.
Setting your thinking requests before doing a non-thinking activity is a good way to start. Think about the problem consciously and then specifically ask for an answer to a question. Then go do something physical or mechanical: take a walk, sleep, mow the lawn, watch a non-challenging movie, etc. Be prepared to accept whatever result you get. A common response is: non enough information, but it should point you toward what that additional info looks like.
There are parallels. You feed an LLM context data and then tell it what to focus on so it can pull relevant data.
Maybe the entire process isn't like feeding an LLM, but that step is. Relevance identification is an interesting part of the process. The LLM can do a decent job of making connections, but it doesn't know what is relevant. In the longer time frame of the thinking process, we constantly throw out data as irrelevant or identify previously unknown relevant data that needs to be added. It's a part of the process completely outside of the LLM.
