I'm not sure what to think. In the header, Karan writes about average, later again. But at another point, Karan says that good + good trumps excellent. With the latter, I agree. With the former, I strongly disagree.
The average is not good, the average knowledge is pretty poor in my opinion. With a lot of average/mediocre/poor skills, you will not get far.
On the other hand, to be good, you don't have to excellent, but you have to be above average. Those who make here comments are most probably already above average or they will be pretty soon because they are motivated to get better. The average just sits in the moss and don't give a damn about educating themselves.
The average is not good, the average knowledge is pretty poor in my opinion. With a lot of average/mediocre/poor skills, you will not get far.
I'd agree with this, but I sort of automatically translated this to an average among a subset who are above some really low threshold. Literal average is a pretty low bar, as you pointed out, but I still think the point gets across. Perhaps "solid" is a better word than average.
Currently all about using mindfulness/emotions to improve as a software engineer.
CTO/Co founder - doctorc.in, Previous - Employee @ Funzio (acquired for $210M), M Eng in CS from Cornell
I totally see your point and agree on a certain level.
My interpretation of Scott Adam's "good" is that its closer to the "average" than "excellent". Hence my use of the word average. The core of the idea is that you don't need to be excellent - which most people get.
I'm not sure what to think. In the header, Karan writes about average, later again. But at another point, Karan says that good + good trumps excellent. With the latter, I agree. With the former, I strongly disagree.
The average is not good, the average knowledge is pretty poor in my opinion. With a lot of average/mediocre/poor skills, you will not get far.
On the other hand, to be good, you don't have to excellent, but you have to be above average. Those who make here comments are most probably already above average or they will be pretty soon because they are motivated to get better. The average just sits in the moss and don't give a damn about educating themselves.
I'd agree with this, but I sort of automatically translated this to an average among a subset who are above some really low threshold. Literal average is a pretty low bar, as you pointed out, but I still think the point gets across. Perhaps "solid" is a better word than average.
I totally see your point and agree on a certain level.
My interpretation of Scott Adam's "good" is that its closer to the "average" than "excellent". Hence my use of the word average. The core of the idea is that you don't need to be excellent - which most people get.
Definitely agree.
Average + average < excellent. Butgood + good > excellent(in most cases).Very excellent point.