Jump to content

It's late and I'm tired


Sir Motrax of Exile

Recommended Posts

Quote:
I'm pretty sure that 2 seconds before the the end of the world from whatever is too late.

I'm not familiar with the world from whatever. Is it a planet which has arrived in our area from a place known as 'whatever', or is it perhaps the setting of a piece of fiction entitled 'whatever'? Is it known to have ended, or to be going to end, at some particular time?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Niemand
I'm not familiar with the world from whatever. Is it a planet which has arrived in our area from a place known as 'whatever', or is it perhaps the setting of a piece of fiction entitled 'whatever'? Is it known to have ended, or to be going to end, at some particular time?
This is for me to know, and the waffle mafia to find out. Alternatively, you could ask the fluffy turtles.
Originally Posted By: The only name in town
Everyone, this is everyone else. Shake hands, et cetera.
I can't, not without putting my flamethrower down, and if I do that I will be vulnerable to the Avernum/Geneforge crossovers. Averforge must burn!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Nikki.
Originally Posted By: The Mystic
Maybe if Dikiyoba ever gets the urge to write another Spiderweb episode, it could be called "Return of the Oldbies."

Gah! Now Dikiyoba has to start the timer again!

(edit: as in reset it, not unpause it)
Actually, saying "if" doesn't reset the timer; saying "when" does. Besides, a new episode can't be posted until a year after I finish reading all the other ones.
Originally Posted By: Sir Motrax of Exile
Are lots of oldbies coming back?
A few. Every so often, an oldbie will return for a while.
Originally Posted By: The only name in town
Everyone old is new again.

—Alorael, who supposes this is literally true for anyone who arrived after someone older left.
Having experienced this, I can say it is.

I've often wondered, how long do you have to be here to be considered an oldbie?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: The Mystic
I've often wondered, how long do you have to be here to be considered an oldbie?

Until everyone older than you has either left or stopped caring.

Quote:
Actually, saying "if" doesn't reset the timer; saying "when" does. Besides, a new episode can't be posted until a year after I finish reading all the other ones.

Too bad, because Dikiyoba is going to reset the timer anyway.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: The Mystic
Originally Posted By: The Mystic
Maybe if Dikiyoba ever gets the urge to write another Spiderweb episode, it could be called "Return of the Oldbies."
Actually, saying "if" doesn't reset the timer; saying "when" does.

THE DEMON OF GOOD TASTE *AND* THE NINE-HEADED CAVE COW
FROWN
UPON THE DISHONEST MANIPULATION OF LANGUAGE.
IMPLICATIVE TIME
IS CLEAR AS WHEN,
OR CLEARER EVEN THAN.
YOUR WEAKEST INK, GOODBYE!
THOU RUNNEST IN FINK
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Tirien
Originally Posted By: FnordCola
... Vahnatai Shapers...
-Rallys the angry mob, hands out pitchforks and torches, and prays to the Nine-Headed Cave Cow for assistance-


If you have free pitchforks and torches to hand out, you already have more than the nine headed cave cow wants you to. He's too busy to help our kind.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

...good to know Spiderweb has retained absolutely every little bit of it's lack of sanity.

 

So everybody is very clear, it is now late, and I am very, very tired.

 

I'll probably call it a day until the next wave of newbie-oldbies gets smug, thinking there's nobody with more seniority, and then I'll jump onto the scene again and throw some old-fashioned firestorms and walls of blades around so everyone knows who's boss.

 

Cheers!

 

SMoE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Catch you later, you senile reptile you. I am also late, and it is tired. Just hit the 41 hour mark.

 

Click to reveal.. (This came out far more whiny that I thought it would...)
Youpi for grad school, where instead of performing research, reading papers, or working on teams, you attend lectures and work on assignments. Basically Undergraduate 2.0. Why did I sign up for this again?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What kind of program are you in, Dintiradan? A lot of places make you do coursework as part of a Master's degree, and you might not necessarily do any real research at all (since a Master's thesis does not strictly have to report new discoveries, the way a PhD thesis must). Normally the stuff you describe are the main activities in PhD work. The Master's is a transitional stage. A lot of places let you transfer into PhD after one year or two, without actually taking the Master's degree, but you still don't go directly from the lecture hall to the lab.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also some graduate courses are more interesting than your undergraduate ones. You have to go through some core courses to prepare you for written and oral exams.

 

If you have decent professors, then the classes can be enjoyable. By grad school they sometimes teach in their areas of research.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By *****Cola:

Quote:
It's more interesting than being unemployed?
This, really. Nice username, by the way, but for some strange reason it fills me with unease...

 

Click to reveal.. (Slightly less whining)
Don't get me wrong, the lectures are great, taught by profs who work in those areas, oftentimes lecturing on their own work. But they're still just lectures. I understand the need for core courses, but these are just training and testing the same skills I needed for my undergraduate. I'm still unsure if I'm graduate material, and there's been very little to train and test me from a research standpoint.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A friend pointed out to me that "Fnord Cola" would actually be a singularly ineffective soda name, since to anyone not in the know it would simply read "Cola" (well, and fill the reader with nameless dread).

 

I'm still debating the whole grad school thing with myself. I'm not entirely certain that academia is what I want to do with my life, and in my field of interest (religious studies; draws on both social sciences and humanities, though I'm more into the former), with its relative dearth of jobs, it pays to be sure. What do you study?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Click to reveal.. (Well, I've spoiled everything so far...)
Computing science; specifically interested in game theory and machine learning. Both are areas my school excels in, thankfully.


Anyway, I am the derailing of the topic. Le tiered reidi tired tiered ireitec itired iteirfd dired tired tierefd iterdid ritrddc iteitd tirede iteid ditedtd dtited titrde, itedt itdetrd iterd d tidtd itirded tidretd iterd ritderd tired.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Dintiradan
[T]here's been very little to train and test me from a research standpoint.


Unfortunately people usually don't really get to grips with research until a few years into grad school. To some extent this could be improved on. Undergrads could so some research projects, for instance. But that's not always easy to do. There aren't too many opportunities to begin fresh research from a starting point that was a several decades ago. But undergrad training doesn't usually bring you any further than that. There's just a lot more that you need to learn, to even begin doing anything new.

That's unfortunate, because research really is a LOT different from listening to lectures, reading textbooks, or writing short term papers or homework problems. It's not clear what the right questions are, it's not clear what the right approach is to any question, and it's not clear what answers to expect in advance or believe in the end.

As far as I can tell, there is really only one big issue to face in research, but it is so big that a lot of people just can't cope with it.

Stupidity.

Doing research means being stupid. Even if you're a freaking genius, if research doesn't make you stupid, you're just not really trying. Research means never being able to flick to the back of the book for the answer, nod your head wisely, and tell yourself that you would have gotten it yourself in another few minutes. You're stuck facing your own stupidity, in the face of real unknowns, for months and years on end. And invariably, once you do finally figure something out, it appears so simple that you only feel stupider than ever, for having taken so long to understand it.

Often there's an intermediate stage where you feel clever, because the answer seems extremely subtle, but you think you have it. In my experience this phase is always an illusion. Subtlety only means that you don't yet really understand it. Once you do, you will feel stupid for ever having thought it was subtle at all. It is quite possible to feel stupid without being right, but it is not possible to be right without feeling stupid.

Some people manage to cope with the stupidity of research by holding the illusion of subtlety, so that they feel clever. In my experience, these people can be successful, but never really first-rate, because there is too much they never understand. Others simply have enormously robust egos, and manage to focus enough on how much less stupid they are than others, that this is almost as good as feeling smart. A few great researchers may cope by using actual humility. That's probably the best method, but it's really hard.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Wow. That's a pretty harsh but rather fascinating point of view, SoT. Would apply this only to scientific research? It doesn't fully match up with what I've seen in history, though I found your closing comment about humility quite striking; humility is definitely something more historians would profit from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I'd say that's really about science. For most historical research, you spend less time totally clueless or, worse, wrong. The broad outlines of history tend to be known, and most research is either overturning paradigms or elucidating details. Both make you smart!

 

So-called soft sciences still might fit, though. Do sociological research and you can find that all your intuitions are way off base. There's still a remaining difference, though, I'd argue: in hard sciences, it's much easier to attack problems with the wrong methods. It's much easier to misdiagnose questions and look at things entirely wrong. Once you know the answer, there's usually a couple of elegant experiments that can prove it. That's backwards, though; it's creating and performing those experiments the first time that's so wall-bangingly difficult.

 

—Alorael, who was very struck by SoT's description. It's something he's never heard or read before, but it rings very true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I've been talking about stupidity in research for years, my last post also owes a lot to this article.

 

It's interesting to consider whether there's less stupidity in the humanities. If that's really true, I'm afraid I consider it a damning indictment of those fields. Humans are stupid. What do we think we can really do with these jumped-up little monkey brains of ours, these blobs of grey meat in our skulls? We are not gods, by any stretch.

 

The only way we can appear impressively intelligent is to work on bogus problems, where the standard for success is simply invented by ourselves, and expressly designed to be achievable. Anything real will reveal our stupidity. No stupidity means no reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:
Doing research means being stupid. Even if you're a freaking genius, if research doesn't make you stupid, you're just not really trying.
That reminded me of something, or rather someone, and I went looking for the quote. Here it is:
"I get that feeling all the time that I'm an ape trying to put 2 sticks together. So I always feel stupid. Once in a while though, the sticks go together for me and I reach the banana." Richard P. Feynman, 1963
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Not all scientists are going to make that next amazing discovery or insight. Most will just be plugs filling in small gaps in knowledge, setting out to achieve easily achievable goals. We need those scientists so that the less stupid ones can form everything into a somewhat coherent story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know it's just semantics, but I think of stupidity as "you should know better," but do something else anyway. Concerning that which we do not know, are unable to know, or simply don't know that we don't know, I'd label these as ignorance. What SoT is calling stupidity is another way of saying we are finite, and have limited perception and ability. Our awareness, our consciousness, is at a fairly immature level of development for a species that has become self-aware.

 

Also, as conscious beings, there is no way to arrive at absolute objectivity, or even reality. We are unable to observe anything, from social phenomena to a quark without either directly altering it or projecting something into it (thus altering it, as far as our own perception goes.) I wouldn't call our difficulty in being "objective" stupidity either, but it is a limitation we currently possess.

 

I'm not sure how pessimistic or cynical SoT's tone and perspective is, if at all, but I want to inject some optimism into the assessment of humanity. We may be slow, ignorant, limited, foolish, egotistical, careless, biased, or any other human quality that impedes our progress, but we are also ultimately brilliant, ingenious, driven, creative, clever, flexible, adaptable, empathetic, and capable of perhaps unlimited evolution and improvement. The drama of being human is experiencing our seemingly contrary aspects in conflict, while we steadily—or fitfully—press forward.

 

-S-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're missing the point of what SoT said. It has very little to do with human nature and a lot to do with the process of science.

 

Maybe another way to put it is that if it's easy, someone has done it already. If not, you do it, and then you're done. Mostly, the actual labor involved in learning more about stuff is not terribly intensive. Consequently, if you can figure out the right thing to do, you do it and you're done. Most of your time spent on any given problem, therefore, goes into doing the wrong things the wrong way.

 

You know joke about how everything is in the last place you look because nobody keeps looking after finding the thing? Science is just like that. You don't keep researching once you know the answer, and the actual time from figuring out where to look to looking there is short. Or the actual time from figuring out what experiments to do to having carried them out, rather.) But in retrospect, most of your time is spent on the wrong experiments, and at any given moment, you're likely to be wrong.

 

It's not ignorance; that's the state before you've done the research that you're alleviating by researching. It's not limited objectivity, exactly. It's also not a matter of inability; most of the time, you eventually figure it out and get it right, and science marches forward. It's just the grind of spending most of your career having all the right knowledge and tools and doing the wrong thing with them.

 

—Alorael, who also isn't sure that brilliant scientists are less stupid. Even the best scientific minds don't come up with exactly the right protocol instantly and from first principles. Often they're the ones who come up with clever tricks to solve intractable questions or are the first to realize that there's a question there in the first place. But you know what they do? They fumble around a lot before arriving at the answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:
Minecraft has multiplayer?
Yep.

Quote:
How does that work?
Not that well (actually, things are apparently less buggy now; I wouldn't now, haven't played multi in ages actually).

Quote:
Can you stab your fellow players?
Yes.

But why just kill other players? They can walk back from their spawns in a minute or two. Instead, flood their mines, steal their swag, and destroy their homes. Why cause moments of inconvenience when you can destroy hours of productivity?

EDIT: Hey, Frozen Feet!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Dintiradan
Quote:
Minecraft has multiplayer?
Yep.

Quote:
How does that work?
Not that well (actually, things are apparently less buggy now; I wouldn't now, haven't played multi in ages actually).

Quote:
Can you stab your fellow players?
Yes.

But why just kill other players? They can walk back from their spawns in a minute or two. Instead, flood their mines, steal their swag, and destroy their homes. Why cause moments of inconvenience when you can destroy hours of productivity?

EDIT: Hey, Frozen Feet!



Is it possible to find their spawn point and just keep killing them every time they spawn? I have fond memories of doing that to people in Neverwinter nights multiplayer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Nikki.
Originally Posted By: Frozen Feet
Pssst. I think the real intention is for you to be able to build more awesome things faster with a friend. wink


You're clearly underestimating humanity. tongue


So the goal of multiplayer is to systematically execute those players with avatars that are dissimilar to yours? That would be about my assessment given most of human history as a backgroud.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...