[Reprint] What are masters and others?

Author: azy
Source: Kernel pollution

What are masters? I tried to find the answer to this question with great enthusiasm. After several years of thinking, I finally failed to realize it. However, it was estimated that God didn't want me to feel desperate about my own IQ. With this inspiration, I have come up with a perceptual definition: people who have experience in a certain field and are good at creating and solving problems independently can be described as masters.
Of course, here we will only discuss the definition of experts in the technical field. In fact, this definition can be simply summarized as "a master with experience and ability", but I guess some information is lost. The term "experience" is very informative in China. It is not uncommon to hire a nanny if you require xxx job experience. This experience allows you to stand alone in the "technology" of the crowd, and you can also seek peace of mind for you. Experience, whether engaged in technology or industry management, is a good thing. It allows you to point your fingers to others. Because of this, the definition of experts must be followed by "being good at creating and solving problems independently ". Because our thinking involves many components of the "moderate way", people who give their fingers to others all day long obviously do not conform to our master image. A real master should be deyi shuangxin, instead of messing with others.
Deyi shuangxin is able to accumulate and extract from the problems created and solved. Because of the suffering of thinking and the pleasure of conquering independently, under the catalysis of unyielding and constantly surpassing self-belief, it is bound to cut down the impetuous and high-profile components in the hearts of masters, while low-key people are often modest, approachable, can be called good virtue. It creates and solves problems and is still "independent". I think this is on one or several levels. For this reason, experts can be described as "masters ". The process of human learning is to recognize, analyze, and integrate unknown things so that they can become known knowledge and be incorporated into their own knowledge structures. For an ordinary person, if learning the existing knowledge is only his initial instinct, then using the existing knowledge to solve the existing problems should be intermediate. The advanced one is to create and solve the problems, this is just a bit innovative. You must know that the most difficult thing in the world is to discover and solve problems. The reason why experts are "high" is that not everyone has innovative thinking, and wisdom always points to nothing.
In addition, another basis for determining a master is that if another master calls it a master, then generally it should be a master, but this is a bit of a rogue logic.
"A real expert is dedicated to using hooks ". I forgot where I saw this sentence, and I did not search it either, but I can be certain that it is definitely a sentence I took to the stage when discussing some XX technologies. Of course, I still know what the speaker wants to convey, that is, the real experts will not hook up with such "Bottom three abuse", "three-legged cats", and mean shameless tactics. Even if the real master is forced to use MDL to rewrite the memory, it will not touch the Cr0 write protection bit. In fact, the talker is not malicious, and I have never grasped a sentence from someone else, so it is a habit to pick it up. Moreover, people are admonishing us: Do not use hooks, which is not conducive to your becoming a master. Experts should use stable and mature technologies.
Yes. According to my self-satisfied definition, those who haven't done a few product-level things really cannot be called Masters. Maybe you will say that experience does not have to come out of the product level. Maybe I am too narrow-minded. If I am misled by experts, I think it is very troublesome to make a product. I am the best at training and training, increasing experience and improving technology. In a back-to-end lecture, I have never written 0.8 million lines of code (this variable number). It cannot be called a master because the master needs experience. You may say that your definition has a problem at all. Who said that experts need experience? What kind of experience do you need? Then, my answer is: I have always thought that the person who has no experience can solve the problem is a genius, not a master.
If a master is only red and professional, and uses stable and mature technologies, coupled with some resource integration capabilities to do things, it cannot be said that I cannot admire it, but it may be far less attractive to me than some evil ideas. Find a serious reason: curiosity is human nature. In fact, people are so cheap. But objectively speaking, what the former needs to break through is the complexity and complexity of the system and the involvement of a team. It is impossible for individuals to fight independently. While the latter is more test of imagination and must be able to "dare to eat crabs first. On the other hand, I really don't know what kind of expert he refers to when "a real master is used as a hook. Are those architects of M $, Intel chip designers, domestic operating systems/chip design developers, or those experts of the national 863 Program research group? If they are, I am sure they are definitely using hooks. Those are their grandsons, but they cannot think of their grandsons. If you tell me that the high-finger scientist is actually a scientist studying quantum physics and Cosmic Physics, then I will be so loyal to Bruno that even if it is burned down, and will scream with a strong belief: they used hooks!
However, I guess that the speaker referred to by the speaker is not the above master, but the "master" who is under the same roof as those who use hooks ". It is difficult to judge whether they use hooks. Even if they are very technical, they will not use the word disdain. This word is too emotional. If there is a research architecture, there is a research link, and if there is a software model, there is a vulnerability analysis, only the social division of labor and their own career planning and personality hobbies are different, it is unnecessary to draw a line between yourself and some technologies in a hurry.
I don't know if the XX field has been attacked by the right people. The reason is that some moral scholars jumped out to preach the XX field. Knowledge and wisdom are both beautiful after all. If we need to divide our knowledge into three or six levels, and we need to identify a good person or a bad person when discussing the problem, it will be completely helpless. Besides, they are still people mixed up with others. I really don't know where they really are. The main person has a master, and the X person has a master. What are the advantages of the two? I think this is incomparable. It is said that there is no best job, only the most suitable job. What everyone is good at is different. If you want camark to attack and play social engineering, and Kevin to develop a graphics engine, isn't the world messy! In a word, my point is: quarrel, scolding, or giving different types of technology a free and tolerant space. After all, there is always a reasonable existence, there is no such thing as opposition and unity, but it is already a fact that the game is balanced.
For some people who are reflecting on it, it is always good to be wise, but there is no need to be arrogant. Just take the lead and make up for yourself. Like the experts mentioned earlier by scientists-or the word Daniel should be used to better vent the box of worship. Most people are still holding the "mountain standing up" attitude, however, it would be better to save a copy of the excellent progress that "although not enough, you can move your mind forward.
For people with technical sentiments and intellectual worship, I cannot say more. After all, Intellectuals tend to be wise. Someone asked me one question before: What kind of job do you think the smartest person in the world is engaged in? I thought for a moment, and the answer was a player and a political player. Because I have always thought that the smartest thing in the world is people, and the most complicated thing is people, so I have to deal with people all day, it is undoubtedly the smartest player and politician to figure out how to compete for intelligence. Because human thinking is not transferred by material. Machines are also artificial, so people who are dealing with machines, such as scientists, should be the second smartest. This argument may be a bit confusing. However, the scientist said that a person is doing two different things, such as a player, and the success or failure is determined by his worst state. That is to say, if a game makes a mistake, it is all done. There is another kind of inventor, as long as one day the state is good, made into an invention, it will be successful, how many times before this can be done confused. I think this is brilliant. There is no doubt that in some time periods, we should belong to the next category.
Finally, I want to make a summary of this article. I have made it like this: there is no need to despise or develop scripts for the kernel, and you don't have to look down on the bad paths if you are right. Because there are experts in every field, there is always something we don't know.