I am grateful that this was submitted to Hacker News, and that I was able to read it.
> No problem is too small or too trivial if we can really do something about it.
I think we try to think we can predict what are important problems and what are not. Sometimes this is easy and we're right, but often we aren't. This is true in math, physics, and computer science. In any domain. So do what you like because you never really know. Plus, they say interest is worth an extra 10 IQ points.
From all my reading of Feynman I think there's one thing he'd stress: have fun. To never lose the creativity, that child like wonder. In CS we got here because we loved to play around and hack. I hope we never lose that.
get a job with a few managers and a jira installation and it will dry up pretty quick.
Remember, they hire us for our skills. They hire us for our expertise. That means not always being a yes man. If you don't stand up for what you think is right, the product will become worse. The reason to question your boss is because you're on the same side: making the best product you can. It's okay to be wrong, it's okay to speak up, it is okay to ask questions. If anyone says anything different, they aren't interested in making the product, they are interested in their paycheck. Frankly, most of this loss we're talking about is because the business people took over and don't understand that an engineer saying "but what about <x>" is not "no" it is "yes, but let's figure out how". This culture needs to be fixed, and it requires every day normal people to make that normal.
This letter really allows that side of him to shine through.
I like this one:
This particle is a perfect ball bearing that can move at a single speed in one of six directions.
from "Feynman the Explainer" in:
https://longnow.org/essays/richard-feynman-connection-machin...
also:
"Don't say `reflected acoustic wave.' Say [echo]." Or, "Forget all that `local minima' stuff. Just say there's a bubble caught in the crystal and you have to shake it out." Nothing made him angrier than making something simple sound complicated.
I've been blessed to have a good paying career in software engineering, but I've never really felt passionate about the products I work on. At the end of the day, my job is a paycheck. I do feel joy solving problems for others, improve society, be able to answer colleagues questions when they "come to my office". My family is happy that I can provide and that I am a role model for them.
I sometimes think I should work on things that make me happier. Sometimes I think that my career path is a mistake, I should work on problems "closer to god", make more meaningful contributions, build the next Kubernetes/ChatGPT/Google/<insert revolutionary product>, advance AI, climate change. I end giving up, I'm not that ambitious or driven.
I'm important to my family and colleagues. That may be good enough.
E.g. I’ve found the “closer to god” in my yoga practice. And how I now realize that through words I can’t connect that much as through practice (e.g. just eating my lunch being fully present). I still think I can help through my software product building skills, but also know that if I can help people find a more joyful life / build a less painful body is closer to my purpose than “only” building software.
Sometimes the most important thing in the world is to be a good person to those around you. That can be in extremely short supply to some people.
I would argue it is.
I have had discussions with peers recently around doing the big flash-y <insert revolutionary product>. An interesting analogy surfaced. The nuts in the studs of the infrastructure of the many structurally sound homes in existence are just as important (meaningful) as the doors, windows, and more flash-y features. They may be _more_ important in some cases. They all make up the home.
It made me realize it might not be all about maximizing ambitious pursuits. Maybe it is more about experiencing the joy of solving the next problem and the fulfillment that comes from simply being needed pretty regularly.
To me, the interesting, fulfilling bits of building the next Google/ChatGPT/AI/climate change lie in the theory. Arguably with the exception of Kubernetes, this theory does not come from software engineering. As much as I enjoy software engineering, it's a trade. It's a tool to get the job done. And recently, I realized I like building things just as much as I like "the theory".
To me, that was a bitter pill to swallow. I'm not an ML engineer, but I suspect this is also the reason why you can find so many posts about ML engineers trying to pivot to ML scientist roles.
I think it's a kind of yearning that can't be satisfied in the outside world. It's an inside problem and can only be solved there.
> innumerable problems that you would call humble, but which I enjoyed and felt very good about because I sometimes could partially succeed.
> You met me at the peak of my career when I seemed to you to be concerned with problems close to the gods.
As problem solvers, we need encouragement to face the difficulties that lie in exploring problems. We need to believe that it can be solved but more so that WE/I can solve it. We need to raise our egos to healthy amounts (not sure what is the precise definition of healthy) so we don't back down or give up. And Mr. Feynman alludes to this with "the pleasure of success", "helping your fellow man", "answer a question in the mind of a colleauge", "I enjoyed ... because I sometimes could partially succeed", and "problems close to the gods".
I am exploring (and absolutely denouncing) this egotism for it leads to frustration, disconnection, illusion, entitlement, and shielding. I feel that (good) school/university/work environments raise ego levels (with "good job!") and aloof you from _........ (which is a utopian place with a healthy encouragement to do more work and work harder to a point where it does not overwhelm you).
The identify of this _........ place keeps occuring to me and flees from me as quickly as it occurs to me. If there is anyone who works without ego, please let me know.
Wise words
[1] https://www.jacobsurovsky.com/researchanddevelopment/2020/8/...
Do not remain nameless to yourself (1966) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23808400 - July 2020 (122 comments)
What Problems to Solve - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8030010 - July 2014 (45 comments)
I think this is a rare mix of deep humanity and intellectual thinking in one essay.
Lol then... I saw who wrote it!
Good advice for all HN. Often you see a comment and bio shows an amazing career. However they couldnt be amazing without rest of us being average (average of something...). Can't have a max without a median.
I'm having difficulty understanding what is meant here. Does he intend to say that his student thinks quantum theory is a humble problem?
My interpretation is that he is both meaning to say that getting where he is took a lot of patience and hard work, and also that it is on yourself to determine which problems are worth your time. Which are both very important insights to have if you don't want to feel miserable.
However, things have changed a lot. Nowadays we're bombarded with ideas and incredible "opportunities" of stuff we can make. It's almost like ideas are shoved into people's heads.
So, I have to add to Mr. Feynman's words an update:
_Be sure that the thing you want to solve is really the thing YOU want to solve_
This is specially true for software development and closed platforms. Sometimes, software vendors have this way of making developers work for free for things they won't get back, ever. They'll do conferences, and attract people, and show you all those nice tools you can use to solve problems (as long as you use their paid platform).
Don't fall for that shit. Remember Twitter and Reddit closing their APIs, platforms being discontinued, companies cannibalizing successful apps by independent developers. Those people wanted to solve problems, and they got scammed.
I don't worry much about that. I can be lots of things, change my mind, etc.
Another quote from that same link, from that same hateful person whose first grievance was that Feynman was just interested in calculations and playing the drum :
"I do not know—but I believe that Richard Feynman is either a Communist or very strongly pro-Communist—and as such is a very definite security risk."
Apart if you want more clicks on YouTube, I don't think it's fair to call him a sham, unless you believe every popularity is a sham, but I don't think it's the case being made here.
Also, Feynman never wrote any books. His "textbooks" are lecture notes, mostly compiled by other people.