Hacker News Reader

musernameon Why Germany Is Better at Training Its Workers

In practice though, aprentices are often seen as cheap labour and are not at all trained well, if the madter to the aprentice lacks time or is a drunkard or what have you.

Especially in the simpler of proffesions, I fail to grasp the difference to the british system. Surely you need and will receive training of some form as well if you start a job. Do the school hours make the difference here? I am not convinved, given a butcher with already 10 years of school experience will be taught and tested for cheap stuff like percentage calculation. OTH you can become sysadmin apprentice and won't need a uni-degree, which is nice i suppose, as you get certified to know the essentials.

musernameon Why Germany Is Better at Training Its Workers

> 80+ million people, fourth largest economy in the world. Based on what, GDP? Than it'd better be called efficient or sumsuch.

musernameon Why Germany Is Better at Training Its Workers

daimler is a multinational conglomerate, not simply a german company. globalisation yadda yadda yadda

musernameon Why Germany Is Better at Training Its Workers

the point with apprenticeship is, it asures a high level of quality as not everyone can get in. It's a form of secondary eduation and the selection process by employers simply ensures a high level of reliability (i'm idealizing, here) also, it's not uncommon for a 40 years old to take a new, shortened apprenticeship, before changing jobs. the effects you see reversed are in fact not hierarchical but in a feedback-loop, education is but a factor.

musernameon V.I. Arnold, On teaching mathematics (1997)

you shouldn't think the issue here is with an overbearing attitude in physics, the problem is just the categorisation of maths. I'd put it vice versa. since mathematics means the art of learning, literally, physics is a subfield of applied mathematics. Numbers aren't just represantations, unlike numerals. numbers are only of any value, if they have context, even if that is a fictive for the purpose of learning. but teachers frequently use examples from applied mathematics, too.

Math's called a structural science for a good reason, it can be used to find or build structures in physics, as well as any other natural science. A strict distinction in it's root seems unnessacary, since logic and all is based in philosophy and engineering, back in a time when polymaths didn't plow just one field. Even nowadays subfields in sciences require vastly different knowledge, so if these subfields count as part of physics, it's fair to say physics is maths and maths is physics.

musernameon The Limits of Friendship

No kidding, with all the jokes about the extroverted $scientist being the one looking at your shoes during a conversation. Then again, one can simply be friendly to everyone, without becoming close friends or assuming any liabilities. Friendship is a rather abstract, not to say imprecise, word.

musernameon Object Oriented Programming is an expensive disaster which must end

I see no reason pure modularization wouldn't achieve the same thing. In fact, that's what I took OOP to mean for a long time. But it doesn't need to be bound to the data, or mutable as in not functional. If member functions return objects and data, they can be used in a functional approach and to construct polymorphism or inheritance through currying.

Are the OOP language features the essence of OOP? 'Everything is an object'? Multiple inheritance?

if an object can be reduced to a symbol like a void-pointer to data or a function that returns data and this object can be related to others on a graph, then that's still general enough.

Imperative Programms as well as Object models can be well organized in graphs. The CPU or bytecode doesn't know about objects anyway. So it's an abstraction and you need to applay that in a moderate fashion, depending on the complexity of the problem, so for simple or efficient procedures imperative style is not to be replaced by OOP. fopen, fread etc. all are abstractions of underying system calls, but depend on speed, so light OOP is a good fit there,

musernameon Object Oriented Programming is an expensive disaster which must end

looks good on 4.3" indeed

musernameon Object Oriented Programming is an expensive disaster which must end

> this is my experience whenever I argue against Object Oriented Programming (OOP): no matter what evidence I bring up for consideration, it is dismissed as irrelevant.

This, I thought before even reading the article. I know that frustration myself too well, but have to admit I am often in the wrong, asking the wrong questions, having false preconception.

Lloking at different impleme tations it's clear, experts aren't all that sure, either, even though most implementation specifics aren't detrimental to OOP, so language critizism in lieu of OOP concepts is clearly a strawman. then I stopped reading.

musernameon Looking at Productivity as a State of Mind

interesting read but not really substantial, given that the theories are inconclusive. the observer effect is something i'd be more willing to believe, e.g. the relay assembly women might just increase productivity to be sufficient enough for all the changes to stop already, to be polite or being reminded of productivity being actually important.

musernameon Looking at Productivity as a State of Mind

it's state of the art in society. that is, because someone long ago discovered it working and society isn't pushed to try out better means, because the bad effects aren't overall noticably punishing enough for the pusher, ironically, and because negative feedback is a cheap basic part of the constant learning process. It's pretty productive, because it's focused on the product.