Needless to say i’m talking about the oversimplified and misleading version of the Schrödinger’s cat paradigm, where he is both dead and alive until you watch it.
I don’t have a job but i follow theater courses at an academy. And my improvisation is both funny and awful until i show it to others.
Employee salaries in HR; they are both correctly paid(employer perspective often), underpaid (employee perspective often), and overpaid (company and co-worker perspective). Depending on how and how often you open the box, any of these views can be accurate.
I guess the best one for me may be elite university students are “just smarter” than others until I have to read their term papers.
For some reason it’s always the non-native English speakers who write well.
Just a guess, but I’d think that a smart person who is ESL will read more good books than their native language peers. When you write you imitate the style of the people you’ve read. The native speakers are reading comic books and the ESLs are reading the classics.
Again, mho
Probably a good take :)
Autonomous vehicles are at times both amazingly advanced and bedshittingly idiotic.
I’ve ridden ~25k miles in them for work, and I trust them more than 95% of the drivers on the road. But I’ve also experienced them acting in ways that are still quite far from the way humans would.
Print jobs are both completed successfully and failed until someone checks the queue.
Schrödinger’s fatigue crack. With old enough steel, you don’t know if there is a crack propagating until you see it.
I’m lifeguard, all my day is like that
Another good example is reading book reviews then reading the actual monograph. Sometimes there’s just nothing there
Code is both great and terrible until it compiles.
In programming there is also the Heisenbug: as soon as you try to observe the bug, it disappears or changes its behavior.
I fucking hate Heisenbergs!
Hrm, weird reproducible bug. Ok let’s hook up the ol’ debugger and… Where did the bug go? Shiiiiiiit.
It’s mostly because many observation processes are invasive and change the nature of the system under test
My company is basically 30 startups in a trenchcoat. The bulk of our my org’s application was written 5-10 years ago by like 4 dudes, none of whom work at the company anymore. Cowboy coding doesn’t come close. We have so much legacy code and I alternate between “how the fuck does this work” in an impressed way and a horrified way anytime I look at it
Site reliability engineer here, your application is both alive and dead until the monitoring server pings its health status API.
As a bicyclist, I see that we have Schrödinger’s Cyclist: Too poor to be able to afford a car like “normal” people, but also a rich elitist who can afford to commute by bike.
Also, Schrödinger’s Bike Lanes: A conspiracy by car-hating politicians to punish drivers, but also an amenity that only rich elitists get in their neighborhoods.
For work I use a database written in COBOL. Reports are simultaneously running and frozen until I either get the report results or sufficient time has passed that I’m certain the system has crashed.
What thinking about a close one. Some Application and servers are OK and KO as long as you don’t look at it
Isn’t that the halting problem?
A textbook example, yes. And Today I Learned something!
Well, I work as a bartender, and here in Finland it’s strictly against the law to serve alcohol to, or even allow a “visibly intoxicated person” to enter the premises (a law which almost every bar breaks at some point, intentionally or no), and I think I’ve witnessed multiple times myself how a customer’s level of intoxication reveals itself only after you have served a drink to them and they’ve payed for it. Could it be called a Schrödrinker’s cat?
Not related to the Schrödinger question, but my advice for solving that problem would be to have some little robots trundling about with boxing gloves on. They can randomly harry each your walk-ins with a sudden flurry of blows. By seeing how these people handle the unexpected robotic assault, you should better be able to assess their level of inebriation.
Oh yeah, and maybe add some voice output to these automatons, so the machines can call the potential customers gay, and insult their fiscal levels (the go-to insults in any finnish bar).
A person that has a lot of certs or a high title is both extremely smart or extremely unintelligent. You don’t know until you start talking with them about things more than surface level.
Projects will either be done next month or take at least a year to complete. Also, if you ask my team to calculate how long a project will take, and then ignore the estimate, the project will take infinite time because you are an insufferable moron.
“The Computer never makes a mistake” is true and also probably responsible for people believing LLM-hallucinations uncritically
llm’s are dangerous and should never be used; but an overwhelming majority use it nonetheless.
I’m not sure I understand the question
If you’re looking for a “something is two opposites at once until met” then that’s anywhere any unsureness exists. Lesson plans are decent and lacking until taught to students. Visual art is pretty and dismal until witnessed by another beholder. Speeches are rousing and dogshit til spoken at the mic.
If you’re looking for a “something that’s explained oversimplifiedly then a lot of people say they get it (and are wrong)” then that’s like a subset of all misconceptions.
- Monads in programming. Lots of people say they “get it” after a simplified explanation, but actually don’t get it (judging by blog posts that recite a simplified explanation, but actually don’t get it).
- Tariffs. Lots of people learn middle school mercantilism (zero sum wealth) then guess that the economy is still import export balance, and that if we make people exporting to us more expensive then we get more of the zero sum pie. (Obviously wrong, and a basic macroeconomic lesson on consumer welfare in a system with a world price is useful)
- A lot of physics terms tbh. “I get momentum, that’s when it’s hard to stop when you’re fast.” Often they mean something closer to inertia. “I get the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. It’s when seeing something changes it!” It’s closer to uncertainty in the measurement of tiny things because of the physical implication of what we measure it using. (e.g. by reading a photon off of something, we know we’re kinda inaccurate cuz the photon was discharged)
If you’re looking for a “something that’s explained oversimplifiedly then a lot of people say they get it (and are wrong)”
I studied math and my first thought here is Gödel’s incompleteness theorems.
In what way?
Please never answer this question.
I’m confused.
The joke was that it would be incomplete if christian wouldn’t answer your question about Gödel’s incompleteness theorems.
