Hacker News Reader

Comment by wccrawford | Hacker News Reader

Am I the only one that fails to be inspired by this? I think I'm not inspired because it's something I've already thought about. We've always had the option to go make money, or go try to fix the world... And whatever that brings us.

I am very clear on my chances of making big changes to the world: Almost nil. Instead, I decided long ago that I'd do my best to make money and improve my own life.

I'm not saying I don't do little things to help the environment, but there's no chance that I'm going to be on the team that cures cancer. There are too many people out there that are both smarter than me and more learned in the topics needed. The best I could do would be to get in their way.

View on HN

This is cynical past the point of healthy. There are plenty of sectors that would be revolutionized if smart people focused their attention on them.

You don't have to cure cancer; that's absurdly binary and based on fame. You can do less sensational things like invent a device that improves patients' lives using modern robotics and sensors. You can design a system for Alzheimer's patients that incorporates your knowledge of big data sets. I can't dream of all the things to improve, but your domain knowledge is probably tremendously useful in all kinds of fields.

In addition, even "cat picture project" technology can sometimes be used to implement "world changing" technology. I think "do what you love doing and always challenge yourself" still generally applies here.

e.g. YouTube.

That's the rationalization that smart people tell themselves so that they can sleep at night.

Accidents can always happen but if you're writing PHP to tag cat pictures, no, it's not going to do anything. But keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep.

Making the world better is a complex problem which depends on a hell of a lot of systems.

Having worked in academia, you rapidly appreciate that the people who keep the lights on - administrators, lab techs, librarians - are about the most important people there.

And that system? Depends on taxpayer funding. If you're doing things which are ethical, and you're doing them well, then you're helping cure cancer and all the rest, even if only indirectly. Maybe you could do something more direct; that's your call to make. But don't minimize the impact of doing good work.

I don't think he is trying to minimize the work of others. Steve is saying if you see a meaningful problem that you know how to attack, it's up to you to make it a priority rather than putting it off because you can't be bothered.

He's talking about working toward your potential and possibly making short-term sacrifices in exchange for the greater good.

Because if you have a unique perspective on a problem, you may be the only one in the world right now with the vision to solve it. Don't waste your time working on mundane shit when you know you could be doing something more.

Thanks, and I totally agree.

What I was really aiming for was "don't do yourself down" - and "don't underestimate the impact a well-placed tool can have".

I just recently decided to not pursue a PhD in scientific computing, so I'll be finishing my Master's and working at a startup starting in September.

One of the biggest reasons I decided to not do further research is that I have noticed that there are an unfathomable amount of people hobbling about on ancient and primitive tools when there are existing implementations and papers available that would make their lives orders of magnitude more efficient. So I've made a personal choice to not pursue the latest, fastest and most cutting edge algorithms and rather bring my knowledge, experience and problem solving abilities to people who are trying to solve real problems right now.

My point is that even though you think you can't compete with these guys who read, study and do 'real' science they could use a lot of help from the likes of you. Sure learning some linear algebra and bayesian statistics can help in directly implementing the algorithm, but usually the biggest problem I've seen is a complete lack of software engineering and hard coding specific to certain data sets.

I think the scientists can gain a lot from the software engineering field, especially open source practices. They will be resistant to it, as others have pointed out the incentives don't always line up, on the other hand there is a lot of low-hanging fruit in terms of improvements a decent programmer can pluck.

"My point is that even though you think you can't compete with these guys who read, study and do 'real' science they could use a lot of help from the likes of you. Sure learning some linear algebra and bayesian statistics can help in directly implementing the algorithm, but usually the biggest problem I've seen is a complete lack of software engineering and hard coding specific to certain data sets."

Yup you said it exactly right. More programmers to assist the scientist. The scientist know the science part but they need help with the informatics part (lots of it). If not they do it themselves and you end up with some software that becomes critical but with no one being able to maintain it.

Plus working with the scientist means you have access to expert in their field and usually they like to talk about it so you'll learn overtime the science and whys behind the stuff you work on.

Good luck with the startup.

No, you're not the only one. He's a bit naive if he thinks he's going to cure cancer by quitting his job and reading some undergraduate math textbooks. However misguided his plan may be, it's heartwarming that his wife agreed to be his study buddy, instead of divorcing him.

His dog also seems to be all-in on the concept as well. Godspeed, Yegge family!

"He's a bit naive if he thinks he's going to cure cancer by quitting his job and reading some undergraduate math textbooks."

This is a rather obnoxious strawman.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com