|
|
|
|
|
|
by deepdarkforest
342 days ago
|
|
|
>if your code doesn't work it doesn't work you can't bullshit a computer this is wrong. I would argue the difference between a junior dev/intern and a senior engineer is that while both can write code that works, the juniors find local maximas, like solutions that work, but can't scale, or wont be very easy to integrate/add features on top/maintain etc. This happens in maths, biology, in all science fields. Experience is partly the ability to take decisions between options that both work. This is why coding assistants are amazing at executing things you are clear on what you want to do, but can't help (yet) on big picture tweaks |
|
|
My point being that it's quite easy to demonstrate that it can't scale, by running an experiment.
Meaning that you could quite easily BS your way through that by just agreeing with whatever the status quo is.
Whereas in social science you can't do an empirical experiment, so you're epistemologically on much much more shakier ground
> This happens in maths, biology, in all science fields Right but I wrote social science and not maths or biology.
For instance if someone where to say that due to Hegelian Dialeticts and gender critical theory, in the future women are destined to rule the world, this is a good thing, and this will lead to the abolishment of racial inequality and exploitation through capitalism
how do you prove that?
in comparison if the problem is that your software isn't efficient when there are over 100 instance, you can prove that by spinning up 100 instances?
You can't clone earth and force all the inhabitants to enact ideologically pure race critical theory, and then ask the inhabitants in the control group to try out nazism, wait for a while and then use that to prove that one or the other is the best way can you?