←back to thread

We're not innovating, we're just forgetting slower

(www.elektormagazine.com)
139 points obscurette | 7 comments | 04 Jul 25 14:13 UTC | HN request time: 1.093s | source | bottom
Show context
raincole ◴[04 Jul 25 16:04 UTC] No.44465682[source]▶
> They can deploy applications to Kubernetes clusters but couldn’t design a simple op-amp circuit

And the ones who can design a op-amp circuit can't manufacture the laminate their circuit is going to be printed on. And the ones who know how to manufacture the laminate probably doesn't know how to refine or synthesize the material from the minerals. And probably none of them knows how to grow and fertilize the crop to feed themselves.

No one knows everything. Collaboration has been how we manage complexity since we were biologically a different species than H. sapiens.

replies(14): >>44465734 #>>44465874 #>>44465898 #>>44465912 #>>44465979 #>>44466012 #>>44466026 #>>44466117 #>>44466133 #>>44466193 #>>44466238 #>>44466369 #>>44466940 #>>44468200 #
alganet ◴[04 Jul 25 16:10 UTC] No.44465734[source]▶
I'm fairily confident that someone like Ben from Applied Science can both laminate circuits and write modern code.

https://www.youtube.com/@AppliedScience

https://github.com/benkrasnow

If he can, what's stopping you?

There are extraordinary people doing extraordinary things all around you. Aiming for these things is important, and we need those kinds of people with ambitious learning goals.

replies(1): >>44465816 #
1. rtkwe ◴[04 Jul 25 16:22 UTC] No.44465816[source]▶
Because specialization is vastly more efficient, productive, and I don't have an interest in cutting and laminating my own circuit boards. I can pay a tiny (relative to the alternative investment of DIY) to get multilayer boards in a day.
replies(1): >>44465870 #
2. alganet ◴[04 Jul 25 16:29 UTC] No.44465870[source]▶
You're changing your argument.

Before, you said people _can't_ (in general, anyone that knows how to code cannot possibly learn how circuits work).

Now, you're saying that _you don't want to learn_. That's on you, buddy. Don't project your insecurities on the whole IT field. People can, and will, learn across many layers of abstraction.

replies(3): >>44465886 #>>44465899 #>>44467586 #
3. hluska ◴[04 Jul 25 16:31 UTC] No.44465886[source]▶
You missed the point of that entire comment didn’t you?
replies(1): >>44465936 #
4. PickledChris ◴[04 Jul 25 16:32 UTC] No.44465899[source]▶
That is because you are replying to two different people.

People can learn across layers of abstraction, but specialisation is generally a good thing and creates wealth, a Scottish guy wrote a good book on it.

replies(1): >>44465951 #
5. alganet ◴[04 Jul 25 16:37 UTC] No.44465936{3}[source]▶
If I did, people failed to explain why.

I think I made an excellent counterpoint that is not against specialization, but complementary.

This counterpoint is particularly important in an age where specialization is being oversold and mixed with snake oil.

6. alganet ◴[04 Jul 25 16:39 UTC] No.44465951{3}[source]▶
There are many industries that specialized but kept and refined old knowledge instead of repeating the same mistakes over and over.

> That is because you are replying to two different people.

He chose to follow the argument of the previous dude, so, it's all the same for me. Everything I said still applies.

7. rtkwe ◴[04 Jul 25 20:22 UTC] No.44467586[source]▶
I don't know what raincole's meaning was but can't there doesn't have to be a permanent inability just a current one, IMO backed up by the next sentence about the people making circuit boards not knowing how to refine the raw materials into those that they use. That's what I took it as.