You can find plenty pros that obsess over tools. Like look at Adam Savage's Tested youtube channel, in which he makes videos surrounded by a vast mountain of tools, many of which he made or customized himself. Recently he geeked all over the fractal vise.
The difference I'd say is that pros have a better understanding of what they need, don't expect tools to magically solve problems, and often customize or even make something from scratch.
I'd say there are two different types of "obsession" here. One is the attitude that that you need to use the best tools possible and by doing that you will get a good result. The other type is old fashion geakery. If you look at Adam, he is two things: a maker, and a tool geek. These aspects certainly intersect, but when he is making things, you do not see him reach for the most sophisticated tool in his toolbox. A great example of this is this video [0] where he geeks outs over his new measurement tool: guage blocks (and corresponding guage). The thing is, I don't think I have ever seen him do a build where he uses them, because they are simply beyond what his work demands.
I'm a similar way with programming languages. I'm a PL geek, and enjoy geeking out about the fine details of various programming languages, and pointing out flaws in langauges. But, at the end of the day, when it comes time to pick a language for a project, I typically reach for a combination of Java/C++/python/m4. There is nothing to geek out about those languages (except for how bad they are), but pragmatically speaking, they are typically the best tool available for very boring reasons.
look at Adam Savage's Tested youtube channel, in which he makes videos surrounded by a vast mountain of tools, many of which he made or customized himself.
While I don't dispute Mr. Savage's acumen, I wonder what the number and complexity of his tools would look like if he worked in private, instead of the glare of internet fandom.
I think there are two ways to "obsess over tools". One is to obsessively research and build your collection and sort of superficially admire your collection. Another is to bring in and master the tools one by one, driven by the needs of your process, and find meaningful places for each in your process. In essence, the former is cargo-culting the latter and they look similar from a distance.
For me, tools capture the experience of someone else in a way that typically expands my own skills. They include little features/details that I wouldn't think of on my own. That's particularly true with software tools where non-obvious edge cases are abundant.
I want tools that carry mental load for me, so I can focus on delivering maximum value.
youtube is probably not a strong argument but the recent fireball tools video about his welding table and jigs was pretty comvincing, even though it was an undisguised promotional work designed to convince.
(He submits a basic job to 3 diffferent class of pro fabricator shops, and has one of his video producers do the same job with no help (supposedly) but with his tools, and that one is the only one that adhered to the specs.)
I would like to see that same experiment reproduced by other people because if it's true I think that is a very important thing to know which would change how you approach things your whole life. You could obviously chase after awesome tools right now anyway, but it would be huge to know that it's proven to be essentially 'best practice' to do so rather than just your unfounded feeling that no one else, like your boss, is obligated to consider.
I have found Gall's law to be a corollary of "mastery before tools":
"A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. A complex system designed from scratch never works and cannot be patched up to make it work. You have to start over, beginning with a working simple system."
While I do not disagree in general – things not being black or white is probably correct – I think in Mr Savages case you could argue that knowing how to geek with/over tools is the mastery part.
This reminds me of a fascinating interview with Trey Anastasio (an absolute master of electric guitar tone and effects and loop pedals). His take was, while quality matters, you don't need the "best" gear -- but it's essential to really truly deeply know the gear you do have inside and out, so it can get out of the way and simply be an extension of your instrument.
i think the main difference is a pro can grab a cheap tool or make one from scratch to complete a task, whereas an amateur will hesitate to do a task unless he has the "best" branded tool
> We obsess over these tools, treating them like a crush—a fleeting infatuation that momentarily captivates our attention. All of this is wasted effort and delusion.
Amateurs obsess over forcing binary choices. Pros over integrating the best of what is available into the continued mastery of their trade (I actually really dislike this kind of generalization/framing, so my tongue is planted firmly in cheek here).
I think there is some truth in the general message of the post, and agree that complete fixation on tooling is a sign of a lack of focus on what matters.
But I'm curious how the author believes the "tried and true" gained that designation, if not by trying things that don't work and returning to the things that consistently do.
There's a different failure mode involved in a complete dedication to sticking to the tried & true: blindness to the moments when real step changes occur resulting in something that is truly better than what came before.
I'd argue that a pro does spend time obsessing over tools, but is differentiated from an amateur by knowing when to stop. I'd also argue that framing these behaviors as things characteristic of "amateurs" and "pros" is not useful.
> I'd argue that a pro does spend time obsessing over tools, but is differentiated from an amateur by knowing when to stop.
Well put. A more general statement (but less catchy) would be that “pros” navigate the search space more efficiently when evaluating tools.
I’ve noticed with myself that I prefer fewer tools now, and value maturity a lot more. When I was younger, I thought tool makers were near-perfect, and the few imperfections would have no impact on lowly me. Then I realized that tool makers are just regular people and that their tools are often poorly made, or too blunt, or too specific.
Now I know tools come with pain, so “looks nice” or “cool” is no longer good enough. Instead, the tool needs to be more useful than the pain it causes.
I like that specific loment of learning when you are using your usual tool but at one point you ask yourself "is this tool really neccesary? I think I'm using it because habit more than real utility"
Tools are important. Professionals use tools they understand and use them deliberately to specific ends. Mastering your tools is an important step in mastering any craft and being able to evaluate new tools is an important part of that.
"Tools don't matter" or "caring about tools is for amateurs" is plainly false and anybody who is proficient at any tool based skill knows this.
The actual fallacy of the amateur is thinking that having the tool is what creates the skill, when actually having the skill is what allows you to make use of that tool effectively.
Almost always having a good tool you are deeply familar with beats a great tool you have little understanding of. Regardless of that, bad tools lead to bad results, even if experience can reduce that effect.
That put aside, I do agree with the idea that tools are a means to an end. Some are essential (like glasses for vision impaired, or a computer for a software engineer). But using tools also gives us skill and understanding.
Author brought up guitarists - well, many world renowned guitarists have 100+ different guitars at home. To become a master, you need to learn most of the available tools, and learn them well. There is a lot of cross-pollination going on. You learn the sitar and the banjo, you learn flamenco etc and this will greatly influence your understanding and style.
Learning purely from books might work for some people. But I think using good tools in the correct way is essential for many, in order to reach mastery. Writing is a tool. Flash cards are a tool. Learning in groups (or hanging out at the hacker space) could be called a tool.
Pros can, in some cases, get to just buy the good stuff without having to agonize over cost. Pro sports photographers are all shooting the best cameras and lenses; when your income depends on the equipment, it can be self defeating to try to thread the needle of cost and performance. Just buy the $4k camera and $4k lens instead of experimenting with low grade stuff and risking a shoot.
There’s nuance to be sure, but at a basic level an amateur has no income offsetting the cost while the pro does.
Pro photographers, including sports, don't like to change gear much, and don't care for over-expensive "best" gear either. The stick to use a knocked out battered old camera they trust rather than rush to get any new "best" model.
But they will pay for stuff that is needed for the job, like expensive fast and light enough teles, or multiple continuous frames (but up to a point).
Youtube "pro photographers" do, because they get their money through gear reviews, peddling cameras, and sponsorship deals.
I was thinking of photography because there are endless forum threads and debates about whether camera x is 10% better than camera y, and the same about lenses, when in reality, a lot of interchangeable lens cameras (ILCs) have been so good for so long that, for the majority of people and majority of applications, there are a ton of great choices.
The phrase "gear acquisition syndrome" (GAS) gets thrown around a lot for good reason. A lot of people trying to shoot better photos and videos aren't limited by their gear.
A pro guitar player just has Gibson or Fender do a signature guitar so they can use their name to sell them and then get them for free. I wonder the last time anybody from... say... Metallica has actually had to buy gear. Just get it from the manufacturers so they can say that James Hetfield from Metallica uses it.
I think people that obsess over tools want to do it the 'right' way. Problem is, there is no right way. Most often, people never get started. Diet, work, sports, etc. I've seen it a million times. People research to death to try to figure out what the right thing to do is. The act of doing is the right thing to do. Just eat less and exercise, don't obsess over which new fad diet and exercise program is best. Just pick up the keyboard and type, don't research the best editor and plugins for two months. Go to the driving range / get lessons, don't buy a new driver. I think the root is everyone wants the path of least resistance but there is no shortcut in anything.
The problem is that there is too much garbage and too much consumerism.
Sure, go ahead and buy the cheapest rain coat you can find. You are going to regret it. Need a bookcase? Pick the cheapest Billy from IKEA. You can only put it together and take it apart exactly once.
This has nothing to do with obsessions, but rather avoiding to get fucked over crapware and planned obsolescence.
> The true magic lies not in the guitar itself, but in the virtuosity of the musician who brings it to life.
Arguments like these are often used to defend unpopular technology choices, like (insert disliked programming language here). "A true master can use any tool!" And yet, I've never seen a professional guitar player use a cheap shitty guitar.
Manufacturing is so good these days that even the cheapest guitars are pretty good. Justin Sandercoe is a well known guitar teacher on YouTube and he did a series where he bought the cheapest Amazon guitar ($60 IIRC) and went through a full setup with it. He and the guitar tech. were both impressed with how good the instrument was.
Jaco Pastorius famously played a Fender Jazz Bass from which he removed the frets with a butter knife, then sanded down and finished with marine epoxy.
Then it got broken so he had it restored and kept playing it.
Many touring or pub musicians play a plain old mass produced guitar, because if anything happens to it (for example, when flying) they can just pop into any music store in whatever city they are and get another for a reasonable price.
The hivemind advice is to use a cheapest tool for learning when you're just getting started.
...and I strongly disagree with it. I think if you are serious about learning, you should get a reasonably good one from day 1 (if it doesn't hurt you financially, ofc).
Shitty tools can sometimes waste a hefty amount of your time. Anyone who ever paint watercolor on papers that are not for watercolor knows what I mean. All the time you could've spent on... guess what, practicing.
I don’t know if you’ve over qualified to the point you can’t lose (“shitty”), or if this[0] counts. I thought Peter Buck (of R.E.M., most associated w Rickenbacker) might have worked w a Sears guitar too (he might have, but I couldn’t find a reference), but he apparently used a Sears Silvertone amp as a regular piece of his gear[1]. Is buying from a Sears catalog good enough to qualify as “use any tool”?
This is also glossing over the garbage and hand-me-down crap that many grow up with on their way to becoming experts.
>And yet, I've never seen a professional guitar player use a cheap shitty guitar.
Professional guitar players use "cheap shitty guitars" all the time. From the Beatles to the biggest stadium bands, not to mention people who make it a point of pride to do so, like Jack White.
If you're interested, this is pretty fascinating - he shows experimentaly that the guitar itself has little to do with tone.
Other than that better made instruments could (no promises!) hold their tuning a little better, but you can cheaply buy locks or spend some money having that re-done.
More than this and I have a hard explaining what a "pro" guitar could do to help an amateur. You get the same tones out of it, pedals and amps have much more impact on sound anyway.
And seriously, unless you have musical training, you'll never hear the difference between epiphone and gibson, or squier and fender.
Theres examples, though. Stephen Hendry, the Snooker professional played with the cheap 40£ cue of his youth for a long time into his professional career and won championships with it. It broke in 2003:
Kurt Cobain famously played cheap shitty guitars because that’s all he could afford but also the overpowered humbucker helped him develop his famous tone. He wrote some famous songs with them. Univox Hi-flyers to be exact. He went through a ton of them and they were about $100 each. He even played them after he was wealthy.
When I first got into cycling as a hobby/activity, I didn't know anything other than "get a bike and ride it." I didn't know about clipless pedals or carbon wheels or gear ratios or anything. Nor did I particularly want to know about any of it. I just bought a basic, average, all-around bike and started riding it.
That bike served me extremely well. It didn't do anything particularly great, but it also didn't do anything particularly badly either. It was totally average. I rode it thousands of miles around the Bay Area, and in the course of doing so, got really quite into the sport (which is now, thankfully, a major part of my fitness life). And in getting into the sport, I learned about all the widgets and gadgets and what equipment was better for what situations.
When that bike got stolen (thanks, SF), the timing was such that I was ready to treat myself to a major upgrade. And so I built myself a dream bike. And picking out every component was SUPER fun, because I knew exactly what I needed and why I needed it. I knew I wanted an endurance-optimized frame because I enjoyed long rides with lots of hills. I knew I wanted smaller diameter wheels because it's so darn windy going over the GGB that I'd get tossed around with deep-dish aero wheels. I knew the gear ratios that would be ideal for the type of riding I enjoyed.
And so I remember VERY distinctly when an old friend called me up one day and excitedly told me he too was ready to get into cycling. But oh, was he wracked with indecision, and could I help? Which gears to get? which frame? which brakes? Which indeed.
He was the quintessential amateur obsessed with the tools. And I advised him to take the same path I'd taken: Just buy a bike. Ride it. Learn what you like and what you don't like, and the decisions for the next one will be infinitely easier. Master the basics and then you can focus on mastery with the right tools.
BTW - this wasn't wisdom of foresight here. I lucked into the experience because I was truly an amateur when I started and just didn't care. But I think it worked out well.
I dislike these generalizations. There are pros and cons to both approaches. Engineers who have used the same tool for a long time will often fail to admit there may be better tools out there to solve a specific problem.
Agree that jumping between tools at the expense of focusing on craft won't get you the results you want:
> If we're fixated on acquiring every new tool that comes our way, we risk missing out on developing our fundamental, timeless skills—the abilities that transcend technological trends and persist throughout time
But the tools we use can have a big impact on our behavior.
Each tool makes some behaviors easier and others more difficult. By choosing tooling that aligns with your goals, you make it much easier to achieve those goals.
I'm currently knee-deep in the notes space* so will give an example there. I regularly talk to people who have invested a lot of time in their notes / productivity tooling. Their systems "look" good. But more often than not, they're over-engineered and get in the way of their goals.
When they take a step back and switch to simpler tools that align with their desired behaviors, they find more sustainable productivity and more space to hone their craft.
*working on https://stashpad.com - would love to chat if you've had a similar experience.
“Obsess” is a strong word, but keeping an eye out for tools that could make things easier is a no brainer. Things move at a fast pace and whilst the script or hammer from 10 years ago works, why not keep trying new things to see?
I’d say the amateur is the one who mastered the hammer and thinks everything is a nail.
Edit: rather, not realised yet that everything is not a nail
Inside my head, the Unix philosophy + graph theory + High Output Management have combined into one monstrous beast. It sits on my shoulder and forces me to view all tools as a set of inputs and outputs. Worse, it insists some tools make other tools, and has strong opinions on when they're worth the investment.
For a meta-tool like jq, I put in an initial investment of time and get out a tool to solve your actual problem, in the form of a jq command. I can then use the command again and again on my data set. The size of the initial investment determines when using a command is worth it, but making an investment once reduces the cost of the next, so I am never quite sure when to invest.
The ability to put together pipelines of these tools and meta-tools is more important than any one tool -- after all, jq could be replaced by a python script, json could be replaced by toml, and so on -- but at the same time each tool makes up the pipeline. The path to mastery of manipulating a tree (or using a functional programming language) might be through jq and json for me but through xml and xslt (or F#) for you. Learning the tool, and particularly learning how it fits in the broader pipeline of tools in terms of its inputs and outputs, drives our mastery.
I think mastery is a game of maximizing nuance/compromise and finding solutions in the middle. When you can take something that already kind of works and make it work 10% better, that is important. It is rare to find people who can consistently add incremental value to the same thing over and over. Even if you are "good" at something doesn't mean you are able to deliver it in a professional setting.
I've seen lack of nuance result in the most incredible architectures. I think the #1 offender still is: "It can NEVER EVER go down". This is the definition of amateur hour in my book. Usually results in a system that goes down far more often than a single node cave man approach.
I'd hesitate to imply that pros aren't interested in shiny new tools. The primary difference is that the pros usually go get new tools once every few years and typically wait for market sentiment to shake down first. The amateurs are shopping at Home Depot every weekend.
We are just now looking at building a cloud-native stack in 2023. I made us wait a solid ~decade (lambda launched in 2014) before I was willing to go beyond the safety of our vendor-agnostic VM bubbles. So yeah, we are using some shiny new FaaS/serverless tools, but we are using them in a really dumb & conservative way (i.e. serving old-school SSR HTML forms, etc).
The tooling change is really only to serve our operational convenience and improve compliance/audit stance. Not because it's fun/new/what everyone else is doing/etc. How many developers do you know will go out of their way on points like those? "I picked this technology primarily to make our audits and compliance conversations easier as we scale". Who does that? This is another example of mastery. Paying attention to and caring about all of the auxiliary things around the software/problem/tools.
Pros tend to deeply understand the fundamental problem that the tool is solving and are probably capable of either making the tool or deeply informing the process that resulted in the tool. An amateur or beginner is often looking for tools the hide those knowledge and skill gaps that a pro does not have. I wonder if Savage would have that vice if he didn’t generate income by making videos chronicling tools. In my experience, I’ve witnessed many beginner software engineers spend far too much time hunting for a tool or library, I always encourage them to take a step back and consider if they really need that tool. Often they don’t the tool and if they do it’s sometimes a better choice to code it themselves.
You must choose your tools before you can master using them, it's not an either or.
As an amateur woodworker, I can tell you that the quality of tools can make all the difference in your enjoyment. You absolutely will notice a difference in the quality of your tools. Quality tools feel better in your hand, almost like an extension of your body. They cut cleaner and with greater accuracy. They are less likely to strip screws. They are less likely to break causing you frustration and an unwanted extra trip to the store.
There is a point of vanishing returns. You definitely have to determine what level of quality you actually need, but Makita 18V cordless tools are a massive step up from their no name Walmart equivalents.
When I was getting back into recording music I went looking for how other people have their home studios set up. I quickly found http://www.reddit.com/r/musicbattlestations, but people there often hadn't done the basics that would help the most like acoustic treatment, and yet had rooms full of equipment. Whenever someone asked to hear what they'd made it'd be "I'm working on something now..."
At first I was confused but then I realised, their main hobby isn't making music, IT'S COLLECTING TOOLS.
[+] [-] dale_glass|2 years ago|reply
You can find plenty pros that obsess over tools. Like look at Adam Savage's Tested youtube channel, in which he makes videos surrounded by a vast mountain of tools, many of which he made or customized himself. Recently he geeked all over the fractal vise.
The difference I'd say is that pros have a better understanding of what they need, don't expect tools to magically solve problems, and often customize or even make something from scratch.
[+] [-] gizmo686|2 years ago|reply
I'm a similar way with programming languages. I'm a PL geek, and enjoy geeking out about the fine details of various programming languages, and pointing out flaws in langauges. But, at the end of the day, when it comes time to pick a language for a project, I typically reach for a combination of Java/C++/python/m4. There is nothing to geek out about those languages (except for how bad they are), but pragmatically speaking, they are typically the best tool available for very boring reasons.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qE7dYhpI_bI
[+] [-] reaperducer|2 years ago|reply
While I don't dispute Mr. Savage's acumen, I wonder what the number and complexity of his tools would look like if he worked in private, instead of the glare of internet fandom.
[+] [-] galangalalgol|2 years ago|reply
Also for tools with consumables, the quality of the consumables matters way more than the tool that you put them in.
[+] [-] shrimpx|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SkyPuncher|2 years ago|reply
I want tools that carry mental load for me, so I can focus on delivering maximum value.
[+] [-] Brian_K_White|2 years ago|reply
(He submits a basic job to 3 diffferent class of pro fabricator shops, and has one of his video producers do the same job with no help (supposedly) but with his tools, and that one is the only one that adhered to the specs.)
I would like to see that same experiment reproduced by other people because if it's true I think that is a very important thing to know which would change how you approach things your whole life. You could obviously chase after awesome tools right now anyway, but it would be huge to know that it's proven to be essentially 'best practice' to do so rather than just your unfounded feeling that no one else, like your boss, is obligated to consider.
[+] [-] QuantumGood|2 years ago|reply
"A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. A complex system designed from scratch never works and cannot be patched up to make it work. You have to start over, beginning with a working simple system."
[+] [-] jstummbillig|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chrisweekly|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] didntknowya|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SantalBlush|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] izelnakri|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] haswell|2 years ago|reply
Amateurs obsess over forcing binary choices. Pros over integrating the best of what is available into the continued mastery of their trade (I actually really dislike this kind of generalization/framing, so my tongue is planted firmly in cheek here).
I think there is some truth in the general message of the post, and agree that complete fixation on tooling is a sign of a lack of focus on what matters.
But I'm curious how the author believes the "tried and true" gained that designation, if not by trying things that don't work and returning to the things that consistently do.
There's a different failure mode involved in a complete dedication to sticking to the tried & true: blindness to the moments when real step changes occur resulting in something that is truly better than what came before.
I'd argue that a pro does spend time obsessing over tools, but is differentiated from an amateur by knowing when to stop. I'd also argue that framing these behaviors as things characteristic of "amateurs" and "pros" is not useful.
[+] [-] klabb3|2 years ago|reply
Well put. A more general statement (but less catchy) would be that “pros” navigate the search space more efficiently when evaluating tools.
I’ve noticed with myself that I prefer fewer tools now, and value maturity a lot more. When I was younger, I thought tool makers were near-perfect, and the few imperfections would have no impact on lowly me. Then I realized that tool makers are just regular people and that their tools are often poorly made, or too blunt, or too specific.
Now I know tools come with pain, so “looks nice” or “cool” is no longer good enough. Instead, the tool needs to be more useful than the pain it causes.
[+] [-] leidenfrost|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] constantcrying|2 years ago|reply
"Tools don't matter" or "caring about tools is for amateurs" is plainly false and anybody who is proficient at any tool based skill knows this.
The actual fallacy of the amateur is thinking that having the tool is what creates the skill, when actually having the skill is what allows you to make use of that tool effectively.
Almost always having a good tool you are deeply familar with beats a great tool you have little understanding of. Regardless of that, bad tools lead to bad results, even if experience can reduce that effect.
[+] [-] manmal|2 years ago|reply
> It is real alpha
I have a hard time reading past such phrases.
That put aside, I do agree with the idea that tools are a means to an end. Some are essential (like glasses for vision impaired, or a computer for a software engineer). But using tools also gives us skill and understanding.
Author brought up guitarists - well, many world renowned guitarists have 100+ different guitars at home. To become a master, you need to learn most of the available tools, and learn them well. There is a lot of cross-pollination going on. You learn the sitar and the banjo, you learn flamenco etc and this will greatly influence your understanding and style.
Learning purely from books might work for some people. But I think using good tools in the correct way is essential for many, in order to reach mastery. Writing is a tool. Flash cards are a tool. Learning in groups (or hanging out at the hacker space) could be called a tool.
[+] [-] ip26|2 years ago|reply
There’s nuance to be sure, but at a basic level an amateur has no income offsetting the cost while the pro does.
[+] [-] coldtea|2 years ago|reply
But they will pay for stuff that is needed for the job, like expensive fast and light enough teles, or multiple continuous frames (but up to a point).
Youtube "pro photographers" do, because they get their money through gear reviews, peddling cameras, and sponsorship deals.
[+] [-] jseliger|2 years ago|reply
The phrase "gear acquisition syndrome" (GAS) gets thrown around a lot for good reason. A lot of people trying to shoot better photos and videos aren't limited by their gear.
[+] [-] coffeepancakes|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chasebank|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] landgenoot|2 years ago|reply
Sure, go ahead and buy the cheapest rain coat you can find. You are going to regret it. Need a bookcase? Pick the cheapest Billy from IKEA. You can only put it together and take it apart exactly once.
This has nothing to do with obsessions, but rather avoiding to get fucked over crapware and planned obsolescence.
[+] [-] codeflo|2 years ago|reply
Arguments like these are often used to defend unpopular technology choices, like (insert disliked programming language here). "A true master can use any tool!" And yet, I've never seen a professional guitar player use a cheap shitty guitar.
[+] [-] criddell|2 years ago|reply
https://www.guitarplayer.com/gear/i-always-look-at-playing-g...
Manufacturing is so good these days that even the cheapest guitars are pretty good. Justin Sandercoe is a well known guitar teacher on YouTube and he did a series where he bought the cheapest Amazon guitar ($60 IIRC) and went through a full setup with it. He and the guitar tech. were both impressed with how good the instrument was.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0SHE_xooyU
[+] [-] chaosite|2 years ago|reply
Then it got broken so he had it restored and kept playing it.
Many touring or pub musicians play a plain old mass produced guitar, because if anything happens to it (for example, when flying) they can just pop into any music store in whatever city they are and get another for a reasonable price.
[+] [-] Forge36|2 years ago|reply
There are known examples of masters forced to use bad instruments to create great music.
I believe this story has been on HN before
https://www.entrepreneur.com/leadership/when-keith-jarrett-p...
[+] [-] raincole|2 years ago|reply
...and I strongly disagree with it. I think if you are serious about learning, you should get a reasonably good one from day 1 (if it doesn't hurt you financially, ofc).
Shitty tools can sometimes waste a hefty amount of your time. Anyone who ever paint watercolor on papers that are not for watercolor knows what I mean. All the time you could've spent on... guess what, practicing.
[+] [-] bch|2 years ago|reply
This is also glossing over the garbage and hand-me-down crap that many grow up with on their way to becoming experts.
[0] https://www.guitarworld.com/features/pro-guitar-players-who-...
[1] https://equipboard.com/pros/peter-buck
[+] [-] coldtea|2 years ago|reply
Professional guitar players use "cheap shitty guitars" all the time. From the Beatles to the biggest stadium bands, not to mention people who make it a point of pride to do so, like Jack White.
[+] [-] dmbche|2 years ago|reply
If you're interested, this is pretty fascinating - he shows experimentaly that the guitar itself has little to do with tone.
Other than that better made instruments could (no promises!) hold their tuning a little better, but you can cheaply buy locks or spend some money having that re-done.
More than this and I have a hard explaining what a "pro" guitar could do to help an amateur. You get the same tones out of it, pedals and amps have much more impact on sound anyway.
And seriously, unless you have musical training, you'll never hear the difference between epiphone and gibson, or squier and fender.
[+] [-] raddan|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ce4|2 years ago|reply
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2003/sep/02/snooker.clivee...
[+] [-] nemo44x|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eikenberry|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nlh|2 years ago|reply
When I first got into cycling as a hobby/activity, I didn't know anything other than "get a bike and ride it." I didn't know about clipless pedals or carbon wheels or gear ratios or anything. Nor did I particularly want to know about any of it. I just bought a basic, average, all-around bike and started riding it.
That bike served me extremely well. It didn't do anything particularly great, but it also didn't do anything particularly badly either. It was totally average. I rode it thousands of miles around the Bay Area, and in the course of doing so, got really quite into the sport (which is now, thankfully, a major part of my fitness life). And in getting into the sport, I learned about all the widgets and gadgets and what equipment was better for what situations.
When that bike got stolen (thanks, SF), the timing was such that I was ready to treat myself to a major upgrade. And so I built myself a dream bike. And picking out every component was SUPER fun, because I knew exactly what I needed and why I needed it. I knew I wanted an endurance-optimized frame because I enjoyed long rides with lots of hills. I knew I wanted smaller diameter wheels because it's so darn windy going over the GGB that I'd get tossed around with deep-dish aero wheels. I knew the gear ratios that would be ideal for the type of riding I enjoyed.
And so I remember VERY distinctly when an old friend called me up one day and excitedly told me he too was ready to get into cycling. But oh, was he wracked with indecision, and could I help? Which gears to get? which frame? which brakes? Which indeed.
He was the quintessential amateur obsessed with the tools. And I advised him to take the same path I'd taken: Just buy a bike. Ride it. Learn what you like and what you don't like, and the decisions for the next one will be infinitely easier. Master the basics and then you can focus on mastery with the right tools.
BTW - this wasn't wisdom of foresight here. I lucked into the experience because I was truly an amateur when I started and just didn't care. But I think it worked out well.
[+] [-] JamesonNetworks|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mkl95|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cborenstein|2 years ago|reply
> If we're fixated on acquiring every new tool that comes our way, we risk missing out on developing our fundamental, timeless skills—the abilities that transcend technological trends and persist throughout time
But the tools we use can have a big impact on our behavior.
Each tool makes some behaviors easier and others more difficult. By choosing tooling that aligns with your goals, you make it much easier to achieve those goals.
I'm currently knee-deep in the notes space* so will give an example there. I regularly talk to people who have invested a lot of time in their notes / productivity tooling. Their systems "look" good. But more often than not, they're over-engineered and get in the way of their goals.
When they take a step back and switch to simpler tools that align with their desired behaviors, they find more sustainable productivity and more space to hone their craft.
*working on https://stashpad.com - would love to chat if you've had a similar experience.
[+] [-] QuadrupleA|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bennyp101|2 years ago|reply
I’d say the amateur is the one who mastered the hammer and thinks everything is a nail.
Edit: rather, not realised yet that everything is not a nail
[+] [-] strken|2 years ago|reply
For a meta-tool like jq, I put in an initial investment of time and get out a tool to solve your actual problem, in the form of a jq command. I can then use the command again and again on my data set. The size of the initial investment determines when using a command is worth it, but making an investment once reduces the cost of the next, so I am never quite sure when to invest.
The ability to put together pipelines of these tools and meta-tools is more important than any one tool -- after all, jq could be replaced by a python script, json could be replaced by toml, and so on -- but at the same time each tool makes up the pipeline. The path to mastery of manipulating a tree (or using a functional programming language) might be through jq and json for me but through xml and xslt (or F#) for you. Learning the tool, and particularly learning how it fits in the broader pipeline of tools in terms of its inputs and outputs, drives our mastery.
[+] [-] crywas|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bob1029|2 years ago|reply
I've seen lack of nuance result in the most incredible architectures. I think the #1 offender still is: "It can NEVER EVER go down". This is the definition of amateur hour in my book. Usually results in a system that goes down far more often than a single node cave man approach.
I'd hesitate to imply that pros aren't interested in shiny new tools. The primary difference is that the pros usually go get new tools once every few years and typically wait for market sentiment to shake down first. The amateurs are shopping at Home Depot every weekend.
We are just now looking at building a cloud-native stack in 2023. I made us wait a solid ~decade (lambda launched in 2014) before I was willing to go beyond the safety of our vendor-agnostic VM bubbles. So yeah, we are using some shiny new FaaS/serverless tools, but we are using them in a really dumb & conservative way (i.e. serving old-school SSR HTML forms, etc).
The tooling change is really only to serve our operational convenience and improve compliance/audit stance. Not because it's fun/new/what everyone else is doing/etc. How many developers do you know will go out of their way on points like those? "I picked this technology primarily to make our audits and compliance conversations easier as we scale". Who does that? This is another example of mastery. Paying attention to and caring about all of the auxiliary things around the software/problem/tools.
[+] [-] whoiscroberts|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lockhouse|2 years ago|reply
As an amateur woodworker, I can tell you that the quality of tools can make all the difference in your enjoyment. You absolutely will notice a difference in the quality of your tools. Quality tools feel better in your hand, almost like an extension of your body. They cut cleaner and with greater accuracy. They are less likely to strip screws. They are less likely to break causing you frustration and an unwanted extra trip to the store.
There is a point of vanishing returns. You definitely have to determine what level of quality you actually need, but Makita 18V cordless tools are a massive step up from their no name Walmart equivalents.
[+] [-] xbar|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Nition|2 years ago|reply
At first I was confused but then I realised, their main hobby isn't making music, IT'S COLLECTING TOOLS.