There are diminishing returns to preparation: focus less on preparation (to include going to prestigious institutions and working for prestigious companies) and more on launching, learning, and iterating. This is true in business and a variety of other fields. As an add on: learn one programming language really well, and resist the urge to spend time learning new ones!
Disclosure: I am a Nate Silver fan. Nate's expert opinion is only valuable if you accept the premise, which is that prediction science involves a range of possible outcomes. If you accept that premise, which I do, his opinion on the 2016 election, in which he stated several times that the odds of a Trump presidency were actually higher than most of the polls suggested, was arguably a more valuable opinion than either a coin toss, or most of the individual polls.
Intelligence is mostly a result of environment: access to 1-1 tutors, high quality nutrition, supportive peers. None of these things exist in poor areas in the US as far as I can tell.
This is a great explanation. I've long thought about these two conflicting effects, and I think as you pointed out it has something to do with what nowadays gets described as 'culture'. Dunning-Kruger seems to dominate in the 'everyone gets a trophy' culture in which I was raised; whereas in cultures that (at least in the way they speak about themselves) pride themselves on meritocracy, leaderboards, stack ranking, and the like, the impostor syndrome probably takes over.
Would be pretty useful to see Mr. Zuckerberg in a parliamentary style debate (the motion, arguments for, arguments against, counterarguments on both sides, and a vote). For examples of how to conduct this style of debate a great podcast that follows this format is "Intelligence Squared". "The Motion" could be "FB is good for society".
I'm not going to leave iOS because of bugs in macOS apps. That being said, I wish Apple would focus more on macOS, or finally unveil the plan for 'unification.'
I'd watch if someone created this for Go, only the format is 'the world vs the world'. Have a timeframe for voting on the next move, then make the next most upvoted move, then repeat.
I've often wondered, why are these considered mutually exclusive career paths? Someone with an undergraduate degree in some quantitative field with exposure to a 'blue collar' line of work is suddenly in a very interesting position IMO.
Yes, and leverage can also cause more rapid destruction of personal net worth too. I could make leveraged purchases of other assets too and the examples would be the same. The no recourse thing is interesting, but it doesn't solve the problem of having to move, in which you have to either find a renter or pay a mortgage on an empty house. This seems to be effectively the same consequence.
Agreed. To this I'd add that the switching cost is highly dependent on perception. Costs are almost always as much about perception as they are about reality.
The developer needs to make enough profit/free cash flow/etc to build the next version. So it's essentially a bet on the expected lifespan of the current version. Which is why if someone is offering something for free, forever, or very cheap, forever, you can bet that they are fairly certain they will never be displaced.
It's good for 'grinding it out' type learning tasks. Example: I sat for and passed all three ham radio exams in one shot mainly because of an android ham radio exam prep app that did SRS. No way I could have done that just by reading ham radio study guides.
I'm not talking about funding cancer research by transferring smart people out of cancer research. I was actually referring to encouraging cancer research and other more beneficial endeavors by discouraging very smart people from working in adtech. This discouragement may come in the form of regulation, or not. As an example, many folks had to go into some other field when the global financial crisis and subsequent regulation caused a bunch of finance jobs to go away.
I totally agree with this entire article, however the author may want to fix this awkward sentence: "Travis Kalanick started Uber was a hack to split a few private cars with his friends."
This is a great point. A common complaint about adtech is that since it prints money, the opportunity cost of the brain power being poured into it is other more important problems, like cancer research, for one. Where it gets tricky is when the adtech behemoths start funding cancer research. I don't have an answer to this one.
This whole conversation makes me wish Stanley Kubrick were still alive, he was famously interested in subliminal ads, which were the 'adtech' of his day.
Ankiapp in the browser. Also Anki for iOS (which is around 25 dollars but is the only way the developer is monetizing). This enables sync between iOS and browser.
Funny coincidence, I am also studying Korean and think the searchable repository of pre-built decks is a great feature. I also enjoy that the spaced repetition algorithm seems to make it exactly as difficult as it should be without becoming frustrating. Would be interested in Anki decks for studying programming languages.
Because of unnatural time constraints nobody was able to press on his defense of "you own your data because we made a download your data button" which is a dramatic oversimplification of how the adtech ecosystem actually works. In addition, I feel that the format and time constraints were carefully set up to avoid this more important discussion, because Congress needs FB, and FB needs Congress.
Why was there no discussion about the price discrimination which occurred in the last election, and to be fair, probably also happened in previous elections? No other media company is allowed to do this. Does the Honest Ads bill even address this?