Wapsi Square Forum

I’ve heard that the more recent generations are focusing less on internalizing knowledge itself but rather they are internalizing how to find the knowledge they need. So, proper use of search engines, proper research methods, how to spot bullshit, stuff like that.

Instead of memorizing all of the formulas and identities in a Trig or Calculus textbook, we are memorizing how to quickly find those formulas and identities online.

Which kinda explains how most every 12 year old “knows” how to fix grandpa’s computer, seemingly no matter what the problem is. They don’t. They just know how to diagnose the problem and look up and effective solution.

GlytchMeister wrote: ↑Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:25 pm I’ve heard that the more recent generations are focusing less on internalizing knowledge itself but rather they are internalizing how to find the knowledge they need. So, proper use of search engines, proper research methods, how to spot bullshit, stuff like that.

Instead of memorizing all of the formulas and identities in a Trig or Calculus textbook, we are memorizing how to quickly find those formulas and identities online.

Which kinda explains how most every 12 year old “knows” how to fix grandpa’s computer, seemingly no matter what the problem is. They don’t. They just know how to diagnose the problem and look up and effective solution.

That's always been my skill set, even in university. I considered going into information retrieval, but couldn't find a good way to start off. Yes, I can repair an enormous amount of things, but I know _how_ to find the right information, and how to diagnose it.

Now, the difference between the mathematics example you gave and computers is that with a computer, there are an enormous number of variables in diagnostics and service. Just because it's an 0x0000000A error, which is IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL, doesn't mean you'll be able to find the right fix.

It could be memory, it could be a hardware driver that's bad, it could be a video card, it can be the processor, it can be Microsoft... -- you have to be able to drill down and test each one.

That's why I was pointing out questioning the methodology, not the answer. Heck, even if they memorize the methodology - they've just shown they know how to do it

Bookworm wrote: ↑Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:48 pmThat's why I was pointing out questioning the methodology, not the answer. Heck, even if they memorize the methodology - they've just shown they know how to do it

No disagreement here! In the interviews I do, I try to set the problem up so that I can watch the candidate "walk through" the problem in the way to a solution... I try to study their thinking and problem-solving processes. Do they ask questions first to make sure that they understand what's being asked for? Do they talk through an overall solution (even if not in depth anywhere) before they "dive in" on the details of a small part of it? Do they discuss alternatives? Do they see and acknowledge the limitations of what they've done/written (that is, are they willing to admit mistakes) or do they try to bluff their way through? Are they willing to say "I don't know"?

Seniority and experience aren't everything... I've had a few very junior engineers do very well indeed, outclassing others with many years more experience. There were a couple where it was a real pleasure to write a "do hire, I like the way he/she thinks" recommendation.

GlytchMeister wrote: ↑Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:25 pm I’ve heard that the more recent generations are focusing less on internalizing knowledge itself but rather they are internalizing how to find the knowledge they need. So, proper use of search engines, proper research methods, how to spot bullshit, stuff like that.

Instead of memorizing all of the formulas and identities in a Trig or Calculus textbook, we are memorizing how to quickly find those formulas and identities online.

Which kinda explains how most every 12 year old “knows” how to fix grandpa’s computer, seemingly no matter what the problem is. They don’t. They just know how to diagnose the problem and look up and effective solution.

Lots of fields also have specialized language. So it's sometimes a matter of knowing how to word the question.

A couple decades ago I concluded that an expert is a person who knows how to word the question and where to look up the answer. Search engines mostly eliminate the latter half of the problem - you still need to eliminate 5 irrelevant common meanings of your technical term plus three technical meanings from other, unrelated fields.

Well... Dang it!

That new bolt carrier group I ordered came in, and it's really smooth, but the problem persists, so it's gotta be the bolt catch. Either they made it too thin, or the hole for the pin was drilled too large, or the slot for it in the receiver was cut too wide.

Given that I know that catch worked when I bought the rifle, my guess is that it somehow got a bit of wear around the pivot pin. If they fix the issue, and it comes back, I'm gonna have to see about getting a galvanized catch. Though a shim might fix the issue, too.

This sounds like a whole lot of too-coarse tolerances. One would think random spot checks would catch this sort of thing and alert the engineers.

GlytchMeister wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 5:56 pm This sounds like a whole lot of too-coarse tolerances. One would think random spot checks would catch this sort of thing and alert the engineers.

That is, sometimes, the difference between the "bargain" brands, and the "high-priced spread"... tolerances, and quality control.

Some manufacturers check every single piece for tolerances. Others just do statistical spot-checks. In the case of the latter, an occasional out-of-tolerance one gets out and is sold, because it didn't happen to be one of the ones that was actually tested.

Well, I found out what the problem was with my rifle.

A few weeks ago, I removed the buffers for both rifles for a comparison, to see if a commercial stock would fit my AR-10 (the AR-15 build is mil spec, however; I was seeing if there was a significant difference between the two). Someone had called me for something, and when I got back to my room, I looked at the two parts and thought "oh, this one is longer, and therefore heavier, it must be for the AR-10."

Then, while looking around for bolt catches, to see if they're supposed to be beveled on the top or not, I stumbled across a gun forum post that was three years old, and someone was having a similar issue.

It turns out, the catch on an AR-10 is supposed to catch the BOLT, not the bolt carrier, and is supposed to be across a couple of the lugs. And that wasn't happening here. Someone had also said to check the buffer, because an AR-10 buffer is actually shorter than an AR-15's buffer, to accommodate the longer bolt carrier.

So, I had actually switched my buffers by mistake, and when I switched them back, I saw the face of the longer buffer had scratches, which I remembered had happened before I ever got the AR-10 home.

And now, everything is fine, and I don't have to actually send my rifle anywhere.

Congrats!

And now you will remember to segregate parts from different projects. Wax on, wax off...

Atomic wrote: ↑Sun Sep 23, 2018 5:15 pm Congrats!

And now you will remember to segregate parts from different projects. Wax on, wax off...

A pile for everything and everything all over the place...never a good sorting method.

Just Old Al wrote: ↑Sun Sep 23, 2018 8:50 pm

Atomic wrote: ↑Sun Sep 23, 2018 5:15 pm Congrats!

And now you will remember to segregate parts from different projects. Wax on, wax off...

A pile for everything and everything all over the place...never a good sorting method.

Indignant Sarge in three... two... one...

GlytchMeister wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 1:04 am

Just Old Al wrote: ↑Sun Sep 23, 2018 8:50 pm

Atomic wrote: ↑Sun Sep 23, 2018 5:15 pm Congrats!

And now you will remember to segregate parts from different projects. Wax on, wax off...

A pile for everything and everything all over the place...never a good sorting method.

Indignant Sarge in three... two... one...

So, you need Maalox, or just a cardboard box to live in?

And THIS is what happens when you do things One Piece at a Time!

Well, I just ordered a reloading press kit. It was on sale, so I get a whole bunch of stuff for $150 or so. Though, I'm likely going to get a digital powder scale and calipers, to make things easier, and I intend to get a reloading manual, and apparently logbooks are available, so maybe they're somewhat necessary.

Alkarii wrote: ↑Fri Sep 28, 2018 10:23 am ...apparently logbooks are available, so maybe they're somewhat necessary.

Well, yeah. That way, the investigators and your heirs know how hot a load was TOO hot.

AnotherFairportfan wrote: ↑Fri Sep 28, 2018 2:55 pm

Alkarii wrote: ↑Fri Sep 28, 2018 10:23 am ...apparently logbooks are available, so maybe they're somewhat necessary.

Well, yeah. That way, the investigators and your heirs know how hot a load was TOO hot.

And, short of that, a logbook (or other fairly-detailed record keeping) is the only good way to experiment, and then be able to track the results and correlate them to the changes you made. If (e.g.) you try three or four different brands or types of smokeless powder, and a couple of different quantities of powder per cartridge, and then fire off a half-box or so of each combination on the range in each of a couple of rifles... you're going to want to have good records so that you can make any sort of sense of the results. Trusting your own memory to keep track of all of the details isn't a good idea.

The "how hot was TOO hot?" investigation does depend on your remembering to keep the logbooks safely outside of the worst-possible blast radius at all times.

That all did come to mind, but I'm not so sure I'm gonna notice much difference beyond recoil. I don't really have anywhere I can safely shoot that has a clear line of sight long enough to see any difference in accuracy (even 100 yards is difficult to find, with all the trees and hills), and I don't currently have a rifle designed for precision. My brother has an AR-10 build he's got on hold at the moment that's being built for it, and I intend to do something similar myself.

Mostly, it's gonna save me money on ammo in the long run, as I intend to stockpile at least a thousand rounds for each rifle, though I can't reuse anything fired by the C308, thanks to the fluted chamber, so I'll just use 7.62 NATO for that. (Apparently the brass itself is different.)

I am reminded of a loader/shooter who told me of his misadventures of trying to make an ultimate varmint load for his .222 rifle. It seems for all the noise and recoil, he just couldn't hit anything at 100 yards to scope in. Then he realized that white streak enroute to the target was the bullet evaporating.

Duh.

Alkarii wrote: ↑Fri Sep 28, 2018 5:57 pm Mostly, it's gonna save me money on ammo in the long run, as I intend to stockpile at least a thousand rounds for each rifle, though I can't reuse anything fired by the C308, thanks to the fluted chamber, so I'll just use 7.62 NATO for that. (Apparently the brass itself is different.)

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/201 ... -chambers/ is a pretty scary write-up about the incompatibility between G3 fluted chambers and commercial .308 ammo.

I don't know whether your C308 was built with a true G3-spec chamber, or one which is compatible with .308 ammo. Sticking with the 7.62 ammo for which the rifle was built, seems like a good safety decision.

Well, it is marked for .308, but I was planning on using NATO surplus ammo for it. NATO brass is a tiny bit different, or so I hear, and I'd rather keep the .308 brass for the other two .308 rifles.