Twitter | Pretraživanje | |
Andy Matuschak 17. sij
How should we evaluate tools for thought? There's no simple metric, as far as I can tell. The best tools change your paradigm anyway, so your old metrics (books printed per year?) aren't what matter. Here's one (vague, but focusing): how much meaning is unlocked on the margin?
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Andy Matuschak 17. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @andy_matuschak
That is, you can talk about Mathematica's value by asking how many students use it, or if it helps their test scores, or by timing people solving problems using different tools. But its most significant value is in producing marginal profound mathematical insights.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Andy Matuschak 17. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @andy_matuschak
It's all a variant of Kay's "Sistine chapels per generation," I guess! But the marginal meaning doesn't have to be a grand edifice: Twitter's most powerful metric as a tool for thought is in creating transformative (off-platform) personal connections.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Collin Ferry 17. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @andy_matuschak
I'm not familiar with Kay's "Sistine chapels per generation". Google isn't helping. Is this a meaningness metric?
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Rita J. King
Curious about this too (especially since I’ve been studying the Sistine Chapel for the past six years).
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se" More
Leo 18. sij
+1 Suspect this is Alan Kay and he does reference the SC in this interview ... but diff capacity
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Andy Matuschak 18. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @dmonished @RitaJKing @collinferry
It’s from this remarkable paper:
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"