←back to thread

688 points samwho | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
jcalx ◴[] No.45018653[source]
This article and its associated HN comment section continue in the long tradition of Big O Notation explainers [0] and getting into a comment kerfuffle over the finer, technical points of such notation versus its practical usage [1]. The wheel turns...

[0] https://nedbatchelder.com/text/bigo.html

[1] https://nedbatchelder.com/blog/201711/toxic_experts.html

replies(8): >>45018700 #>>45019269 #>>45019323 #>>45019459 #>>45020278 #>>45022682 #>>45024681 #>>45026341 #
0xbadcafebee ◴[] No.45020278[source]
Toxic expert here! I hate when blog posts try to teach complex subjects. It's almost always a non-expert doing the teaching, and they fail to do it accurately. This then causes 1) the entire internet repeating the inaccuracies, and 2) the readers make no attempt to do further learning than the blog post, reinforcing their ignorance.

I'll double down on my toxicity by saying I didn't like the page layout. As someone with ADHD (and a declining memory), I need to be led through formatting/sub-headings/bullets/colored sections/etc into each detail or it all blends together into a wall of text. The longer it takes to make a point (visually and conceptually), the more lost I am. I couldn't easily follow it. The Simple Wikipedia page was more straight to the point (https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_O_notation), but reading the "full" Wikipedia page thrusts you headlong into a lot of math, which to me signifies that this shit is more complex than it seems and simplifying it is probably a bad idea.

replies(7): >>45020606 #>>45020717 #>>45022407 #>>45023373 #>>45024537 #>>45026531 #>>45032927 #
xenotux ◴[] No.45020717[source]
> Toxic expert here! I hate when blog posts try to teach complex subjects. It's almost always a non-expert doing the teaching, and they fail to do it accurately. This then causes 1) the entire internet repeating the inaccuracies, and 2) the readers make no attempt to do further learning than the blog post, reinforcing their ignorance.

Ask yourself why. The usual answer is that top experts either can't be bothered to create better content, or they actively gatekeep, believing that their field must remain hard to learn and the riff-raff must be kept out.

I think the first step is to accept that laypeople can have legitimate interest in certain topics and deserve accessible content. The remedy to oversimplified explanations is to write something better - or begrudgingly accept the status quo and not put people down for attempts that don't meet your bar.

It's also good to ponder if the details we get worked up about actually matter. Outside the academia, approximately no one needs a precise, CS-theoretical definition of big-O notation. Practitioners use it in a looser sense.

replies(5): >>45020890 #>>45023026 #>>45023427 #>>45026683 #>>45029659 #
1. bonoboTP ◴[] No.45023427[source]
Ideally it would be both.

It's a bit like the choice between two doctors. One is very polite, spends an hour by your bedside every day, smiles and holds your hand and encourages you not to give up but has no idea about how to interpret your symptoms, has a horribly confused idea of what's going on but can explain that mess in his head to you in a reassuring tone that feels authoritative.

The other doc is morose, doesn't smile, the meetings are brief like an interrogation but he knows exactly what's up, spends the time on reading the literature, case studies, phones up other doctors who treated similar illnesses, cuts you and sews you back at the right spot and hands you the exact pills that will get you on your feet in a few months, but at the same time was distant and cold throughout the whole thing and talked to you as if you were a car in the repairshop.

Ideally, it would be both. Of the two I'd still choose the second guy.