Hacker News Reader

Comment by snowwrestler | Hacker News Reader

This Twitter account, and the DC scene reaction to it, is actually a condemnation of our current state of American national politics and government.

People are acting like this guy is some sort of savant. But we're talking about knowledge that a 20 year old UK college student picked up in his spare time by watching TV and reading a few books. It's not rocket science! Congressional procedure is not even remotely as complex as what you need to know to build an average office building, something that is being done all over the U.S. every day to a very high level of competence.

The commentary on this Twitter account (including this article) says way more about the people commenting on it. Specifically it reveals how few national politicians, consultants, staffers, reporters, etc. in DC want to do boring-seeming work like reading a procedural manual and some history. All of which is freely available to anyone.

View on HN

>People are acting like this guy is some sort of savant.

And we have an extensive record that shows that he is one.

>Congressional procedure is not even remotely as complex as what you need to know to build an average office building

[Citation needed].

Unless you're both a congressman and a construction worker, this is just an unqualified (i.e., worthless) opinion.

In contrast, the opinion that this guy is some sort of savant is that of professional staff on the Hill (named in the article), and is, by definition, qualified.

>But we're talking about knowledge that a 20 year old UK college student picked up in his spare time by watching TV and reading a few books

You just described every historian which learns from primary sources.

And "watching TV" is a very peculiar way to describe "watching live broadcasts of Congressional hearings and pouring through the archives".

>Specifically it reveals how few national politicians, consultants, staffers, reporters, etc. in DC want to do boring-seeming work like reading a procedural manual and some history.

"I refuse to acknowledge that a 20 year old can be exceptional, so I baselessly assert that literally everyone in the field must be stupid and inept instead"

>The commentary on this Twitter account (including this article) says way more about the people commenting on it.

Indeed it does. And to a larger extent than you seem to be aware of.

> the opinion that this guy is some sort of savant is that of professional staff on the Hill (named in the article), and is, by definition, qualified.

"Qualified" based on their personal experience with what is apparently common practice for Congress and its staffers, yes. But that just means that the common practice for Congress and its staffers involves an appalling level of ignorance about the rules and procedures of the very institution they are working for.

To run with the construction analogy, it's as if a bunch of structural engineers were calling a college student on Twitter who isn't even majoring in engineering a "savant" for having and sharing detailed knowledge of how to do load calculations to determine what size I-beams are required for a bridge or a building, based on reading the reference works that describe the details of those calculations. Yes, it would be impressive that a college student not majoring in engineering could gain such a detailed knowledge of structural engineering calculations in their spare time. But it would emphatically not be impressive for the people who are supposed to already have all that knowledge to be calling the college student a "savant".

>But that just means that the common practice for Congress and its staffers involves an appalling level of ignorance about the rules and procedures of the very institution they are working for.&
And what basis do you have to say that their "level of ignorance" is, indeed, "appalling"?
Let me guess, it's the fact that they found the expertise of the 20-year-old useful, isn't it?
Circular logic at its finest.

>To run with the construction analogy,...*

Oh, an unqualified (i.e. worthless) construction analogy, based on zero experience in subject matter. Great.

An analogy can be used to clarify your point (which is unnecessary - it's clear enough), but in itself, it can't be used to argue your point is valid, because you have zero basis to say that this analogy applies.

Maybe he's sharing the equivalent of I-beam sizes. Maybe he's sharing the equivalent of a Space X rocket blueprint.

You don't know which analogy is applicable, because you are not an expert in the field and your opinion is unqualified. And nobody should be convinced by your argument, since it is supported only by the conclusion you're trying to arrive at.

> what basis do you have to say that their "level of ignorance" is, indeed, "appalling"?

Um, the fact that they did not know the rules of their own institution?

If you don't find that appalling, I gotta ask, why not? These are the people who run Congress. It's their job to know these things.

> Circular logic at its finest.

Not at all. Just applying common sense to what people who run an institution ought to know as part of their jobs. See above.

> based on zero experience in subject matter.

Um, actually, no, I have considerable experience in the construction industry. That's why I picked that particular analogy to run with: beacuse I do know what people whose job it is to do things like structural engineering calculations are expected to know, and I can compare that with what my common sense would expect people whose job it is to run Congress would be expected to know.

> nobody should be convinced by your argument

It seems to me that if anyone here is making arguments based on unwarranted assumptions and zero actual information, it's you.

>Um, the fact that they did not know the rules of their own institution? If you don't find that appalling, I gotta ask, why not? These are the people who run Congress. It's their job to know these things.

I'd say that problem is that the rules are too obscure, unclear, complicated, and unsuited for the way they are used today.

It is appalling that we are at that stage, but assuming that the rules are simple, and the staffers are inept is unwarranted.

>Not at all. Just applying common sense to what people who run an institution ought to know as part of their jobs. See above.

Ah, same common sense that would require any lawyer to just know all the laws and precedent.

Similarly, every software engineer just knows the full spec of all programming languages, and in particular = C++, and would not ever need to resort to StackOverflow to look up or ask a question. It's just common sense!

Wait, no, it isn't, and your entire argument boils down to "it's just common sense that I'm right!".

For one, the US Congress is not a common institution, but even if it were, it's just common sense!" isn't even an argument.

>Um, actually, no, I have considerable experience in the construction industry.

The subject matter is congressional rules. You can talk about construction all day long, but your opinions on the subject matter are unqualified and based on zero experience (i.e. worthless).

Again, you aren't even trying to present any basis for why the work of that 20-year-old isn't deep and complex.

>It seems to me that if anyone here is making arguments based on unwarranted assumptions and zero actual information, it's you.

It seems incorrectly. I am basing my opinions on the information presented in the article, and on the qualified opinions of the professionals in the field who, having many years of experience, do think that person is a savant.

Also, a person quoted in the article commented in this very thread, saying essentially the same things as I said above [1].

So, I have a lot of basis for my assumptions, as well as actual information.

You're welcome to peruse it.

[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39648859

> I'd say that problem is that the rules are too obscure, unclear, complicated, and unsuited for the way they are used today.

Then it's the job of the people who run Congress to fix that. Which requires them to know what the rules currently are, so they can figure out how to fix them.

> assuming that the rules are simple

I made no such assumption.

> and the staffers are inept is unwarranted.

I didn't assume the staffers are inept; I concluded it from their observed behavior. I don't see what else I could conclude from the fact that they don't know the rules that it's their job to know.

> same common sense that would require any lawyer to just know all the laws and precedent.

Not off the top of their head, but being able to look them up without having to depend on someone on Twitter, yes. Similarly, the people who run Congress should be able to find this information themselves; they shouldn't have to depend on someone on Twitter to do it.

> every software engineer just knows the full spec of all programming languages

Not all of them, because no software engineer uses all of them. But for the ones you do use, yes, you should have a good working knowledge of their spec, and should be able to look up details when you need to, and not depend on someone on Twitter (or Stack Overflow, for that matter) to do it.

If you're at the stage where you're having to ask people on the Internet about such things, you aren't yet a software engineer. You're just an aspiring one. The people who run Congress are not "aspiring" to that job. They have it. Big difference.

Apparently you have much lower standards than I do for what people are supposed to know as part of their jobs. At least when those jobs are at the level of power and influence of Congress and its staffers. Sure, if you're just writing software for yourself or for a small company, you can get away with asking questions on Stack Overflow a lot. If you're just doing structural calculations for a doll house for your kid to play with, you don't need a PE license.

But we're not talking about that kind of job here. We're talking about the US Congress, the legislative body of the most powerful country in the world. You say the US Congress is not a "common" institution, and indeed it's not: our standards for what its members and staffers should know should be higher than they would be for a "common" institution. If your common sense isn't telling you that, I don't know what else to say: clearly you and I live on different planets if that's the case.

> you aren't even trying to present any basis for why the work of that 20-year-old isn't deep and complex.

I have made no such claim. I am claiming that the work of that 20-year-old should be being done by Congress and its staffers. That's their job. The fact that the work required is "deep and complex" does not excuse Congress and its staffers from doing it.

> the qualified opinions of the professionals in the field who, having many years of experience, do think that person is a savant.

Again, you're missing my point. I'm not saying that the 20-year-old is not a "savant". I'm saying that the fact that Congress and its staffers are calling him one means that they are not doing their jobs. If they were doing their jobs, their response to him would be something like "Wow, you have a level of knowledge of this stuff pretty close to ours." Not "Hey, can we ask you questions because we can't be bothered to do our jobs ourselves?"

>But for the ones you do use, yes, you should have a good working knowledge of their spec, and should be able to look up details when you need to, and not depend on someone on Twitter (or Stack Overflow, for that matter) to do it.

The staffers don't depend on Twitter to do their job, and software engineers don't need to depend on Stack Overflow to use it.

To say that people who ask questions on Stack Overflow aren't yet software engineers is asinine.

>If you're at the stage where you're having to ask people on the Internet about such things, you aren't yet a software engineer. You're just an aspiring one.

If your definition of proficiency is "never asks questions", then your definition is a bad one.

Otherwise, it makes no difference whether questions are asked on the Internet or not.

>If they were doing their jobs, their response to him would be something like "Wow, you have a level of knowledge of this stuff pretty close to ours." Not "Hey, can we ask you questions because we can't be bothered to do our jobs ourselves?"

They are doing their jobs. The responsibility for the job falls on them. And if they can use a resource (an enthusiastic savant, Twitter, reddit, ChatGPT, ...) that allows them to do it faster, they're doing a good job.

As a software engineer, if you are spending an hour on something you could find out by asking in 5 minutes (taking 5 minutes of your time, and 5 minutes of someone else's), you are a bad software engineer, and are wasting your employer's money.

> The staffers don't depend on Twitter to do their job

Sure looks to me like they are. I guess we'll just have to disagree.

Fair. Seems like that's the root of disagreement.

If they can't do their job without Twitter, then I can agree with the rest of what you said.

Sadly, the entire Congress is so dysfunctional that it's very hard to determine whether the staffers do or don't do a good job (and which of these possibilities is a better one).

That's the part which the UK student doesn't seem to get (and which makes me feel the savant label is fitting): knowing all the rules doesn't matter when playing by the rules isn't a goal.

Same goes for having the power which they never intended to use in the first place, because the unwritten rules matter more.

The whole thing about rules is that without a central enforcement mechanism, it's all about whether you have enough clout and chutzpah to use or break a certain rule. Just because a rule exists (and has been enacted before), doesn't mean invoking it isn't free.

It's just cheaper than doing the same thing against the rules.

> > Congressional procedure is not even remotely as complex as what you need to know to build an average office building

> [Citation needed].

We can just compare the books, per the article the Congressional procedures are 1000 pages and the International Building code is 832 pages https://shop.iccsafe.org/2021-international-building-coder.h.... So at first glance building seems easier. But then when you crack it open, you also need to read up on gas, mechanical, plumbing, fire, and energy efficiency, so there is an extra 200+186+270+692+302=1650 pages. So I think it is true - a Congressperson only needs one book, but to build an office building you need 6 books (and probably 6 people, each specialized in a book). Now building a residential house, that is the IRC which is roughly comparable in page count to Congress, and you do see house flipping businesses run by a single well-versed entrepreneur.

>We can just compare the books, per the article the Congressional procedures are 1000 pages and the International Building code is 832 pages

It keeps getting better!

Coming next: judging the complexity, importance, and impact of code by line count alone.

>"I refuse to acknowledge that a 20 year old can be exceptional, so I baselessly assert that literally everyone in the field must be stupid and inept instead"

Why not both. An above average (but not savant) 20 year old who appears more exceptional than he is because the professional class he's being compared with really does have a lot of rot.

>Why not both.

Because there's no basis or evidence for the latter claim (hence, baseless).

The justification "look how inept they are, they rely on a help of a 20-year old" is just circular reasoning, and nothing else has been presented.

I think it's worthwhile to ask - in what other fields do exceptional people become consensus world-class experts after four years of part-time study?

It's rare in any field, that's why he's coonsidered a savant.

But it's possible in many fields too - including mathematics[1][2][3], aerospace engineering [4][5], theoretical physics[6], computer science[7], etc.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Banach

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Heaviside

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantin_Tsiolkovsky

[6] https://insidetheperimeter.ca/where-did-it-come-from-bose-la...

[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds

Javascript?

As a fellow Brit with an American Studies degree, I follow US news and events to this day with a detached eye that really helps understand it, which I cannot possibly do with the UK, at least not politics, and having formally studied US history, culture, politics, foreign policy, means I know more about it than any of my American friends - so far - and I expect the converse to be true about Americans studying the UK.

This guy, however, is un-fucking-believable, because he's doing this for FUN and he possesses an amazing power that few people have - TO READ THE FINE MANUAL.

Simply awesome.

It's fascinating how distance encourages both absurd curiosity (“How does that work?”) and some form of detachment (“At least it isn’t personal to me.“).

As a German I started following British politics in the Brexit years, first for the fun of an utterly funny parliamentary culture (“ORDAAAAH!”) – then a few months later I found myself looking into Erskine May. But I'll be never on that guys level, too easily satisfied after a small-ish dose of something different.

I'm American in the UK for the past seven years, and this resonates with me. It's nice to be outside the daily fray and constant social commentary in the US, but still have the ability to watch and participate when I feel like it. The funny thing is, I don't care about UK politics at all... I enjoy learning the procedures but I don't follow the drama.

Another point from the article that resonated with me:

> Another advantage of his geographic distance: Congress generally gavels in around 10 a.m., perfect timing for Surdy, whose classes are just coming to an end at 3 p.m. in the UK.

I absolutely love the UK timezone. It's my favorite part about living here. I work remotely for a global company, and by sitting in the UK, I get significant overlap with people from California all the way through Japan. It's particularly nice for me as a night owl, because I don't mind evening meetings and chats. But I would hate to wake up at 530am like some on the West coast need to do.

Sometimes living in the UK really feels like having a head start on the US... I like to say that I'm geographically GMT, but biologically EST :)

I've noticed this in a lot of fields. The people best at making money are often those who have no emotional attachment to it, and treat it just like a number to be maximized. Oftentimes the best surgeons are the ones who don't really care about patients as people (witness the Dr. House trope, or McDreamy on Grey's Anatomy) but rather as bodies to be patched up.

Personally I think my big-company employer is deeply dysfunctional, but I (unfortunately) seem to be relatively good at operating within it, wracking up launches and promos for myself and my team. I suspect this is because I don't try to pretend it's something that it's not: I know that I'm in a fucked up system and nothing I do has any meaning long-term and don't pretend otherwise, which lets me look at things as they actually are and determine my best course of action rationally. A lot of other people are blinded by the halo effect and try to operate within the company as they think it should be, which is self-defeating because that's not reality.

It might be the same for Americans trying to navigate the American political system. We're so blinded by the myths and propaganda that we've been fed since childhood that we can't see how the system actually operates.

Yes, British politics has been on an absolute roll for entertainment the last few years for anyone not effected by it, but that said, you can never accuse the Brits of ever, ever, losing their own sense of humour about it (Economist & the Liz Truss lettuce comment stands as an absolute masterpiece). And I quite enjoy listening to German news here describing Uk politics in a far more truthful - and expletive-laden - way than the UK press can ("complete fucking shitshow" as one German newscaster labelled it).

Haven't been able to get into German politics in quite the same way, mainly due to my rage against the current hypocrisy, but as my German improves, maybe I'll understand it better.

No one ever got elected to higher office for putting their head down and doing a good job

It’s kind of similar to office politics in a way, you have to spend most of your effort on visibility

..and for every person who does put their head down and do a good job, there is a politician behind them taking the credit.

Some politicians will know a lot more about procedure. Especially if they want to go for a leadership position.

People like Lyndon Johnson knew Senate rules backward. If you could win or lose a critical vote based on some obscure rule last used 30 years ago it was worth learning them.

> “When was the last time a ruling of the chair was overturned on appeal in the House?”

> Less than a minute later, the mysterious account responded with an answer — 1938 — and a decades-old edition of the Congressional Record to prove it.

It's not so much that he knows procedures well, it appears that he has some sort of didactic memory that he has focused on this topic. He would have had to basically already memorized this fact obscure enough that a congressional scholar was tweeting for an answer.

Or perhaps really well trained AI? Until they named him I was expecting that to be the answer. That’s exactly the type of question a well trained LLM could answer, the proof is what gives it away as not AI, as most AIs I know are unable to offer up any sort of evidence to back up any claims they make bec they don’t actually know what they’re saying or why they “believe” something.

And fwiw both GPT-4 and Claude 3 Opus failed to give me the correct answer.

>Or perhaps really well trained AI?

We are really not there yet.

Not to mention the fact that he's been pouring through video archives to do his research, and finding the information needed for research is a big part of the work he's been doing (it's not available as readily as one would hope).

Or he knows how to use the resources available for finding the answer to this question, which is a more useful skill than memorizing facts anyway. The embarrassing part is that congressional aides don't have the same skill. I wonder if they'll stop tagging him in questions now that they know he's just a college student from the UK. Hopefully someone recognizes his talent and hires him as a staffer (there are plenty of Brits working in US government).

I agree, how to use the resources available is an underrated skill. I find an increasing part of the value I add is in being able to find answers in our vendor’s less-than-optimal documentation and search.

I do think the subject of the article has something much deeper going on.

> the subject of the article has something much deeper going on

Yes, he's got an obsession. That's the differentiator that can't be taught and that nobody can compete with, unless they've got it too.

> It's not so much that he knows procedures well, it appears that he has some sort of didactic memory that he has focused on this topic.

It's both. Source: I follow him on Twitter, and I'm a professor of American politics.

It is the former. The latter is not necessary: lots of those of us with ASD don't need anything close to an idetic memory to hold insane amounts of minutiae about some random topic or other if it happens to be the topic we're deeply interested in

Nitpick: 'didactic' should be 'eidetic'.

De rigueur:

[2011] https://www.theonion.com/congress-forgets-how-to-pass-a-law-...

[2011] https://www.theonion.com/twitter-messages-show-congressmen-d...

I agree, it’s quite the scathing indictment. This is nothing to be proud or excited about. Unfortunately, if there’s one thing politicians lack, it’s shame. Also, what does that say about Georgetown’s program?

> Specifically it reveals how few national politicians, consultants, staffers, reporters, etc. in DC want to do boring-seeming work like reading a procedural manual and some history.

I think Hanlon's Razor is thrown around far too casually in this era/culture....I find it very hard to believe that all of this is mere accidental incompetence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com