I can see how you can think of me that way based on this discussion.
I studied physics in undergrad and in classical dynamics we covered “rocket science” in these terms. The term is more or less a misnomer as science implies trying to understand how the universe works. Building rockets is engineering but studying their motion does rely on both the equation I gave above and also on fluid dynamics. From the point of view of “science” it is pretty simple. From the point of view I’d actually building a rocket the engineering is very hard. Since that time I’ve always had a bit of a chip on my shoulder about the “it’s not rocket science”. It also doesn’t help that both my parents studied aerospace engineering in undergrad and grad school and tried to impart a decent chunk of it on my as a kid (which I resisted very hard).
You simplified to an absurd level that does not reflect reality in the slightest.
You did that to sound smart, and refused to concede when actual domain experts showed up to slap you down.
I worked on a ballistic missile tracking software that would calculate areas of uncertainty given coverage of various defense mechanisms.
It very much involved rocket scientists from JPL.
You are wrong in every measurable sense of the word.
HN has a vast amount of random talent. If you’re going to speak with authority, you’d better know you’re right!
And if somebody comes in and upgrades your knowledge, be cool about it. They just did you a favor.
Thank you so much and I am so sorry for what I did. I didn’t realize there were domain experts on HN. That’s amazing and I can’t believe I spoke on this subject without first checking if I was the smartest person in the room. What you added to the discussion is invaluable. You are a saint.
