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
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" More
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"
Andy Matuschak 17. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @mairwatching
It's not clear how to get leading indicators for any of this! As far as I can tell, you want to be on the lookout for very strange stories, like casually making an animation system in Smalltalk at age 12. Do any of you have good leading indicator stories here?
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"