Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
laziness, impatience, and hubris

Re^3: What's wrong with re-inventing wheels

by spiritway (Vicar)
on Jul 11, 2006 at 05:41 UTC ( #560317=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to Re^2: What's wrong with re-inventing wheels
in thread What's wrong with re-inventing wheels

Being skeptical is quite healthy. It's the cynical part I don't like

Well, let's put it this way. For every great new, improved idea, there are dozens, hundreds, thousands of wannabees. After hearing many dozens of times about how great something is, and getting disappointed (or burned, if you believed them without checking), a bit of cynicism is to be expected.

Your question is much broader than programming, of course. How does anyone ever tell the difference between the genius and the crackpot? To reject the claim is a self-fulfilling prophecy. You deny that they have a valid idea. Nothing comes of it. Therefore, it wasn't valid. It's fallacious, but safe, because chances are good you won't be proved wrong.

If you accept the idea, then you risk it being shown to be invalid. If you've committed lots of resources to it, you may be harmed - lose time, money, reputation, whatever.

I once read a comment by a physicist (I don't remember the book or the person). He said something to the effect that he wasn't sure he'd have recognized Einstein's papers of 1905 for being works of genius. He might have dismissed Einstein as being a crackpot, with his crazy ideas about space and time.

For every Einstein, there are endless Bozo's out there. If you have no better way of judging, then defaulting to skepticism will almost always make you right.

At the end of the day, only time will tell whether a new idea is a better idea. People will have to try it out, test it, play around with it. There are probably many unsung geniuses out there whose ideas were ridiculed, ignored, maybe even forgotten. That's unfortunate, but it's bound to happen. We are likely to err, false positives and false negatives being unavoidable. But the price of a false positive is immediate and can be severe. Jumping onto a new, but wrong, idea can be very costly, and you'll usually find out fairly quickly that you've been burned. Ignoring a genius might be more costly to the world in the long run, but it's safer for the decision-makers, and the error won't usually show up while it matters to them. Or does that sound cynical? ;-)

  • Comment on Re^3: What's wrong with re-inventing wheels

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://560317]
[Eily]: you could tie a variable into not having the same value each time, if you like to make people who try to debug your code facepalm
[Corion]: perl -wle 'package o; use overload q("") => sub {warn "str"; ""}, bool => sub{warn "bool"; 1}; package main; my $o={}; bless $o => o; print "Yay" if ($o && !length($o))'
[Corion]: But people writing such code should document the objects they construct and why it makes sense for an object to be invisible as string while being true in a boolean context
[hippo]: That's equal parts clever and horrendous.
[Eily]: the overload version wouldn't return true with "$x" && !length $x though, I guess
[hippo]: The more I look at this code, the more $x is a plain old scalar and the more this condition will never be true. I'm calling it a bug at this point.
[hippo]: Thanks for your input which has soothed my sanity (a little)
[Corion]: Eily: Sure - if you force both things into stringy things, then you break that magic. But that would also mean that you changed the expression, as now $x = 0.00 will be true instead of false as it were before
[Corion]: Ah no, at least in my feeble experiments that doesn't change the meaning
[Corion]: We sell sanity in small packages ;)

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others drinking their drinks and smoking their pipes about the Monastery: (9)
As of 2017-07-27 13:40 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?
    I came, I saw, I ...

    Results (413 votes). Check out past polls.