> I wanted to understand how SHA-256 works, so I...
... taught everyone else how SHA-256 worked...
This is an awesome intro. And now I also want to know more about the things you mentioned wanted to learn more about.
... taught everyone else how SHA-256 worked...
This is an awesome intro. And now I also want to know more about the things you mentioned wanted to learn more about.
An exercise I go through constantly is figuring out how to explain a thing I think I know to a curious person with no relevant training. Often in the process I discover I need to go do more research or actually test things because I did not understand them as well as I'd maybe thought.
Mostly this is just an exercise. But every so often I actually get to use this in anger. A non-technical friend who works in a Computer Science department asked me on Facebook to explain a joke she'd seen which involved localhost addressing, and I was very pleased to be able to provide a concise explanation using analogies that I know hold up to scrutiny. Obviously a joke isn't very funny if you need it explained, and I can't fix that, but I can avoid the discomfort of her not understanding a joke other people are laughing at in her place of work.
Given the content of knowledge sharing sessions that I sit through and the convoluted nature of some of them, I wish that people recognized that presenting information is not all that is required to teach. You can understand something perfectly, but teach it horribly.
Ideas take time to digest and it's not accurate to say that if someone leaves a room not understanding what you've just shown them, you don't understand it yourself.
Or even without replacement. Teaching someone doesn't imply a successful result.
[https://www.aip.org/history-programs/niels-bohr-library/oral...]