I loved this. Having recently transitioned from running ultramarathons to trying to break 100 on the course, I figured I already had the discipline to brute force effort my way by hitting balls 4-5 days per week. It wasn't until I worked with a coach and rebuilt my swing from scratch that I began to see any improvement and I actually got worse in the beginning for weeks.
One thing the two sports have in common is that good decision-making has much more leverage than in short distance sports like swimming and shorter road races (and presumably rowing, I wouldn't know). Most of my score improvement in golf so far has been due to making better shot decisions on the course rather than improved shot execution. Feels like a life metaphor in there somewhere but im sensitive about becoming one of those ppl who compare everything in life to golf.
Decision making is really important for people that can play golf well. I've played with a buddy a couple times and every time it's eye opening to see how he is practically playing a different game than me. I'm just trying to get the ball in the hole, get par if I'm lucky. On the other hand, he knows, most of the time, that he can get par quite easily. Instead, the game becomes about positioning, club selection, and approach; if I'm being honest, though, those concepts aren't even part of my game. I'm just trying to finish, to play the course, while he's trying to beat the course.
You can get in the weeds with complex decision making even when you suck. Say you hit your 3 wood 200 yards and you are 200 yards away from the hole. Course management would tell you that you hit your 9 iron well x% more often than three wood so maybe try and hit it twice laying up instead of the hero shot. Then there is the true reality unbound by theory like course management is, where if you thin the hell out of that 3 wood it is still going to skip forward at least 130 yards making it a safer shot than the 9 iron with a risk free attempt at the green coupled in.
Taking a moment to consider the green before you chip on is also a simple concept that would benefit golfers of all handicaps. Setting yourself up for easier putts or the chance to roll the ball in off the chip just takes awareness rather than skill and repetition.
Golf is one of the more interesting sport just from a standpoint of how many considerations you are making and how lies aside from the teeshot are often so unique.
>Then there is the true reality unbound by theory like course management is, where if you thin the hell out of that 3 wood it is still going to skip forward at least 130 yards making it a safer shot than the 9 iron with a risk free attempt at the green coupled in.
Yes, I improved when I accepted that the objectively correct decision based on a perfect shot execution was not necessarily the right decision for me. Subtle but crucial distinction I didn't have at the beginning and had to develop with experience.
If you go to a golf coach to "learn golf", they will teach you how to hit the ball. A crucial step, no doubt, but that's well short of "playing golf".
Golf is first understanding what to do, then executing it. It's a risk/reward balance. Yes, execution will fail sometimes (ok, often), but at least trying the right thing is better than successfully expecting the wrong thing.
In so many ways, it's just like software development.
> It wasn't until I worked with a coach and rebuilt my swing from scratch that I began to see any improvement and I actually got worse in the beginning for weeks.
How does one get into golf? How do you start? Buy a beginner set (?) of clubs from online reviews? Is there a way to find a good coach (accreditations?)?
Planning to play your 25th percentile shot, instead of trying to execute a 90th percentile shot saves like 10 strokes a round easy. Golf skill is narrowing the distribution, not improving the max.
Agree with your prediction in many cases but not bookkeeping. The whole point of bookkeeping is to balance the ledger to the penny so people would toss bookkeeping altogether before accepting a 'probabilistic' output. Agents will be used to accelerate the recon process though, or maybe they will become advanced enough to provide a (correct) deterministic result.
So the worst outcome? We will still demand deterministic bookkeeping, but everyone will attempt to "optimize" using non-deterministic tools and assitance? Kind of feels like the US/Canada tax codes of today...
As opposed to their current business plan of making a burrito that is half the size and twice the price?
A decade ago going to Chipotle was a treat. You'd get a fresh and honestly gigantic burrito for a pretty reasonable price. Sometimes I would stop after work and pick up burritos/bowls for the entire family.
I went a couple of years ago and it was just sad. They didn't shrink the tortilla so I ended up with a burrito that was practically double wrapped after they skimped on all of the fillings and it cost something in the double digits. I have not been back. The only good thing was in the old days the line would be pretty long and it would be a wait, but last time I went I was able to walk right up and order.
It's not like Chipotle doesn't have plenty of competition. There's a Qdoba right down the streets from mine and a Califorina Tortilla in the other. Across town there is a Cafe Rio. It feels like some middle management dweeb thought we wouldn't notice when they tried to maximize profits.
The funny thing about Chipotle is that in Denver, you have Illegal Pete’s which is kind of like Chipotle if they never went national. Somehow, with the economies of scale, Chipotle is still more expensive, has smaller portions, fewer toppings and menu options and overall an objective worse experience when it comes to food and the dining experience. I am always amazed and confused how that’s possible at all.
"Big business is better for consumers because economy of scale" has just always been a lie.
No business will pass on a cost decrease if it doesn't have to. A big business will always have more pricing power than a small business. A big business will therefore pass on fewer cost savings to consumers.
Also, making food the way Chipotle does just does not have any economy of scale. The workers making burritos don't get cheaper if you hire 100k of them.
"Economy of scale" is not some magic spell that you get when you pass 10k employees. Economy of scale is a lie that covers up that if you make huge investments, you can do enough engineering and machine work to replace humans in some parts of some processes. It is not intrinsic.
It is the norm that a business will spend a lot of money on cost reduction or process improvement and then just.... happily absorb that improved profit margin.
Meanwhile, I saw someone using their windshield mounted phone to watch videos while sitting in traffic yesterday (and driving erratically as a result which led me to notice). The self-driving cars can't come soon enough.
>That data could be fed to GCP sales team though customers might riot if that happens
Large enterprises don't sign the stock terms and conditions that would enable this, most do or should have legal teams redlining contracts around how cloud data is accessed and used by vendors. Maybe Wiz is so good they would agree to it, but it would get challenged and negotiated during the sales cycle.
Clients can have their lawyers jump up and down but the data is there, you just KNOW the mothership gonna use it. All they need is some obfuscation and plausible denyability. It's just too good to not use it.
One thing the two sports have in common is that good decision-making has much more leverage than in short distance sports like swimming and shorter road races (and presumably rowing, I wouldn't know). Most of my score improvement in golf so far has been due to making better shot decisions on the course rather than improved shot execution. Feels like a life metaphor in there somewhere but im sensitive about becoming one of those ppl who compare everything in life to golf.