A lot of things in modern tech we don't think are useful- up-front design, code comments, estimations- are just skills we aren't pushed to practice. Of course they won't be useful if we're terrible at doing them!
-
Show this thread
-
I've talked with people who have actively trained themselves in estimation and they can estimate tasks pretty dead-on. But they worked to get better at giving good estimates
7 replies 3 retweets 24 likesShow this thread -
See also su3su2u1's rant about scope insensitivity, and how it might be something that people just don't train themselves inpic.twitter.com/NR2QXadd2t
2 replies 1 retweet 22 likesShow this thread -
-
Replying to @hillelogram
Funny, despite hosting this, the biggest problem (with my writing) in my last post was that I underestimated this problem. Many (a plurality?) of the objections are something like "No way, X is 95%-ile, that's very hard" where X = 2200 chess player, NBA player, D-I athlete, etc.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @danluu @hillelogram
But a 2200 USCF player is roughly top 1000 in the U.S., perhaps 1 in 100000 across all people who have played chess in the U.S., not 1 in 20, off by 4-5 orders of magnitude. I think looking at NBA players is probably an error of 5+ orders of magnitude.
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes
I should've added examples in various endeavors to provide a frame of reference for people who have the intuition that 1 in 20 (pretty good middle school basketball player, often picked first in gym class) = NBA player (literally among the best in the world).
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.