someone might want to crosspost to !196@pawb.social

edit: embarassing and annoying watermark

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 16 points 3 weeks ago (10 children)

Lack of an official paper =/= lack of qualification <3

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 weeks ago (9 children)

    Sure, but sucking at math is a good indication of lack of qualifications.

    (Fellow comp-sci dropout who sucks at high level math)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    Been programming for 15 years now on a journalism degree and English minor because I was "washed out" by calc 2 and physics courses despite being excellent in my programming courses, and decided to get an internship programming anyway - luckily they really needed a Linux guy.

    Turns out being a good calculator - which is all courses that don't have you doing proofs is doing - isn't a prerequisite for being a good programmer of a calculator.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago

    This is why a lot of scientific software sucks. And it's why a lot of good scientists used specialized kits like MATLAB for the longest time - they needed to program but were bad at programming.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago

    I don't think that's right. Some of the most high-level people I know are pretty mid or even bad at certain tasks that you'd assume were essential. A surprising number have dyslexia, some have dyscalculia as well, and a few can intuit interesting math but are unable to produce it mechanically themselves and require help.

    I think that that's normal really: today, science is so complex that no single person is going to come up with a major breakthrough in any field completely on their own. We work in teams for a reason, and we need people with different talents on those teams.

  • source
  • parent