Hacker News Reader

Comment by CSchonwald | Hacker News Reader

The thing that always confuses me about these articles is how IT and computer science get equated. Its like saying doing research in applied mathematics is great training for being an accountant. Theres certainly a relationship, but theres certainly a huge difference between the two.

I guess the question is then: how does computer science pull a physics? Does there need to be some analogue of Feynman + Hawking etc, where theres both epic insight and just generally an outgoing ridiculous persona and also some reasonably good popular expositions of deep ideas?

View on HN

Does there need to be some analogue of Feynman + Hawking etc, where theres both epic insight and just generally an outgoing ridiculous persona and also some reasonably good popular expositions of deep ideas?

What ideas in CS are as interesting to the layman as the most interesting parts of physics? Tell a layman about black holes, galactic collisions, big bangs, quantum weirdness, nuclear fusion, or any of those other things in physics which are unimaginably (to us) big, small, hot, cold, fast, slow, or weird, and for the most part (with the exception of particularly dull laymen) they'll be fascinated. How much can you tell a layman about CS that will get the same reaction?

Well, quantum is applicable - or at least becoming so. A.I. is another one that springs to mind - not to mention robotics. Everyone loves robots.

Once, I had been dating a girl for a bit, and in one of the dates I was telling her about the distances between stars, and how there are more stars in the universe than grains of sand in the earth. And at some point I was trying to explain her 2001 A Space Odyssey, and the meaning behind the monoliths. --which is pretty fascinating to any person that has some geekiness inside.

She was totally bored.

Then I switched into how Rome is awesome, and Instabul was a romantic place, cools things to do in Europe blah blah.... a little bit more interesting to her as she had never travelled in europe.

I quit dating her after that night. I was "sick" for a while, then in "Boston" for a long time....

I just couldn't date a person with that low level of curiosity.

Anyways, you would be suprised on how layman might be totally un-interested to even these cosmical events. Something it is just beyond some people, it is like foreing stuff, that they don't need to understand, and trying to understand will only give them headaches.

Moral of the story: When dating, never trade intelligence for beauty. You will regret it as soon as the eye candy wears off.

I think Rachel Hartman's character Lalo said it best in "Blondweg Blossoming": the secret to being interesting is being interested.

My wife and kids and I have a rule - I'll watch whatever 10 minute video they want to show me on YouTube if I get to show them a 10 minute clip from Cosmos. Let's just say they that their about at their limit of "Star Stuff" :-) But I don't think any less of their intelligence or curiosity just because Carl Sagan isn't their thing. My wife knows much more about philosophy then I and my kids interest in biology and psychology is greater than mine.

Curiosity is nice, and have appreciation for another's interests is great. Aptitude takes many forms. Beauty can be its own topic of geekery. Just as there are more VB & PHP kids than hackers, there are more TV & Magazine idolizers than connoisseurs of taste.

EDIT: vapid eyecandy is good for one thing, and then it is seldom good.

Amen. CS is basically a branch of applied mathematics, and is interesting enough. But it doesn't even remotely approach the kind of profundity you see in the basic sciences. I went through college as a physics major, changing to CS at the end basically to be sure I could get a job. And I've regretted that ever since, constantly explaining to people that I'm really more of a scientist by training.

But that said, the practice of science, at a day to day level, doesn't even remotely approach the level of satisfaction you get from a good hack.

CS is basically a branch of applied mathematics, and is interesting enough. But it doesn't even remotely approach the kind of profundity you see in the basic sciences.

I guess we'll have to disagree, but I think artificial intelligence, machine learning, complexity theory (PCP theorem, zero knowledge proofs, etc), and algorithmic information theory (Chatin's number, etc.) are as interesting and profound as anything in the basic sciences. CS also has the advantage that much of the field is still in development, unlike almost every other field of science.

I'm really more of a scientist by training.

No offense, but completing most of an undergrad physics degree doesn't make you a "scientist by training". To be a properly trained scientist, I think you need to have done multiple pieces of significant, original research, and more than likely have a PhD.

Ahem. I said it makes me more of a scientist than a programmer by training. Please read carefully before flaming.

And if math is your thing, that's fine. Study what you like. Although I'll admit I'm more than a little confused by your assertion that basic science is no longer "in development"...

Please read carefully before flaming.

For what it's worth, he did start with "No offense, but..." which doesn't really sound like flaming.

Hahah, let me tell you how.

When I'm explaining computer science to someone who wants a capsule explanation, I don't tell the "computer science studies the problem X Y and Z, along with their generalizations", I say:

"Computer Science studies the limits of human thought, trying to understand exactly how hard a particular idea is to think, and what sort of problems it is reasonable (for various notions corresponding to best, average, worst case complexity)to ask a person to solve".

On the other hand, doing research in applied mathematics is great training for being a derivatives trader.

IT is a very broad industry and CS is very relevant to a significant subset of it.

Typically, for a recent CS graduate they get equated in the initial search for a job - put CS, put IT, put 6, put 'half a dozen'... in the end, when seeking that first job that gives you your experience that all the "good" jobs require, the HR manager does not know (or could care less) about the differences between CS or IT.

Basically, to most 'regular' employers they need a "tech guy" (or girl) who generally understands the domain of their needs. Or maybe I am applying for crap jobs - who knows? But I do know that typically when "cold" applying for positions, the two are usually considered equivocal.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com