1. 15
  1.  

  2. 2

    What would SU-type workers look like?

    1. 2

      I don’t think they make sense. It means you’re doing good stuff and you don’t know it’s good. It’s very hard to believe that in a discipline where people are trained to look for quantifiable evidences of the value of their work this would go unnoticed.

      This could happen in other fields, where you might be making a great experimental movie that everybody will consider a masterpiece while during the shootings you think: “why am I doing this?”. It’s unlikely to happen in data science, where the impact and soundness are tested, ideally, throughout the research and development. If you’re developing a data product completely in the dark, writing code for years before trying it on any real or synthetic scenario, that stops being data science even for the very loose and permissive definition of the industry.

      1. 1

        I dunno, if we’re talking about data science then the final category should at least be mentioned, to make sure we consider all the combinations!

        1. 1

          I think it wouldn’t add much to the article. I prefer to tease the obsessive need for simmetry that some STEM people have :P

          1. 1

            That’s because symmetry is perfect and if its missing that makes everything worse. :P (More usefully, from a scientific perspective you have to at least mention the combinations that are invalid and say “these are invalid because X”, instead of assuming the reader gets it.)