Mastering Tools

The folks at Sharp Sight Labs explain that future obsolescence of a tool does not mean you should not master it:

The heart of his critique is this: data science is changing very fast, and any tool that you learn will eventually become obsolete.

This is absolutely true.

Every tool has a shelf life.

Every. single. one.

Moreover, it’s possible that tools are going to become obsolete more rapidly than in the past, because the world has just entered a period of rapid technological change. We can’t be certain, but if we’re in a period of rapid technological change, it seems plausible that toolset-changes will become more frequent.

The thing I would tie it to is George Stigler’s paper on information theory.  There’s a cost of knowing—which the commenter notes—but there’s also a cost to search, given the assumption that you know where to look.  Being effective in any role, be it data scientist or anything else, involves understanding the marginal benefit of pieces of information.  This blog post gives you a concrete example of that in the realm of data science.

Related Posts

Defining TF-IDF

Bruno Stecanella explains the concept behind TF-IDF: TF-IDF was invented for document search and information retrieval. It works by increasing proportionally to the number of times a word appears in a document, but is offset by the number of documents that contain the word. So, words that are common in every document, such as this, what, and if, rank […]

Read More

Defining Tidy Data

John Mount shares thoughts about the concept of tidy data: A question is: is such a data set “tidy”? The paper itself claims the above definitions are “Codd’s 3rd normal form.” So, no the above table is not “tidy” under that paper’s definition. The the winner’s date of birth is a fact about the winner […]

Read More


December 2016
« Nov Jan »