In fact, I've thought a lot about how to generalize these techniques to a data structure (i.e. knowledge graph) so that anyone can zoom in or out to whatever level of abstraction they please:
> There is the old scientific method which was falsifiable, repeatable, frequentist, and it involved directly observable quantities.
> ...
> There is now the new scientific method which involves models, paradigm shifts, bayesianism, and it may not require a control variable when measurements are constructed from multiple, indirect observations.
This doesn't make much sense to me. How can there be a new scientific method?
Shouldn't these somehow boil down to the same thing: hypothesis, experiment, evidence against the null?
I feel like my company is a little too liberal with it. I suspect it might be a sign of some sort of fragmentation, but I'm not sure what kind (e.g. org chart, proj mgmt, no established point of contact for certain things).
FWIW I thought they were both pretty spot on. In fact, you mentioned this about DNS:
"As I read articles and tried stuff out (and broke my server config more than once) I started to grasp the system, to get glimpses into how it all worked, until eventually it “clicked” and I felt comfortable working with it."
Have you written about your mental models for DNS? Color me interested!
Not who you replied to, but you described me to a T.
Problem is - I have no idea what to do about it.
It's so hard to do anything fun in my free time because the moment I think about doing / starting something, goal oriented t thoughts follow, which means stress follows.
I wish I could just go into "kick the can" mode whenever I wanted and turn off the part of my brain that wants to see results, progress, and checkmarks.