580 karma · joined May 30, 2010
Being less busy doesn't cause you to become the creme de la creme. He has the causal relationship reversed. More than likely, they feel less busy and stressed because they are born geniuses.
Working less hard won't make you any more of a genius. In fact, for those of us born without exceptionally talented minds, working hard is the only way we can keep up.
I've made this point before, but people often conflate the two, and are unable to separate them in their minds.
What this person is saying is "these things do not train a person to perform these specific sets of tasks". That's vocational training, and there's nothing wrong with that. Academic education, on the other hand, is about learning to think, about history, rhetoric, science, and all sorts of things that aren't directly applicable to a particular job, but provide a necessary foundation for critical thinking and enlightenment, so to speak.
What our system really needs is two streams. An academic stream, for those who choose, and a vocational stream, which is what a large proportion of students and seemingly educators like this guy want.
This way, everyone gets what they want. Students truly interested in learning things not directly related to performing a job will have the benefit of a more supportive learning environment, and students who just want to get a job will also attain the required vocational training.
It's really win-win.
If I had an x-ray emitter gun of some sort, and I walked around blasting people with unhealthy doses of ionizing radiation without their knowledge (it would be silent and unnoticeable), how would I get caught and what would I be prosecuted with?
I feel like it's not too difficult for someone today to build something like that and walk around terrorizing people...
It seems like an instance of "Yet Another Photosharing app", which is getting tiresome. Sometimes reading mobile development news makes it seem like photo/status sharing, and todo lists are the only things people do on mobile phones.
Imagine a small, lightweight raspberryPI type device that can plug into your car, or boat, or into the back of your fridge, that has Wifi and Bluetooth and provides whatever functionality you need. As technology advances, all you need to do is upgrade the small plugin, and not the entire car.
Just a thought...
It seems like every single research institution in the past 10 years has announced some battery breakthrough, via metamaterials, carbon nano-tubes, super-capacitors, etc.
I've yet to see much follow through. It's getting tiresome to read about.
In this case, the assumption is that asian are a homogenous group, and that having a class full of asians in necessarily not diverse. That's in line with the "violin playing automatons" perception of asian students.
Why is it not possible to have diversity of experience without artificially restricting access by race. The assumption that people of a certain race are defined by the same experiences is exactly racism.
Phenotypically, I can easily identify a black person vs. an asian person, with nearly 100% accuracy. What I'm seeing are phenotypic differences in hair type, skin colour, facial structure, etc. that are all defined by genetics.
It's ludicrous to think that I can't sort people into groups based on these apparent differences(and I'm talking broad racial categories, not Ukranians vs. Russians or anything). Ignoring that might be PC, but it's definitely not realistic.
Just to be clear, I'm not insinuating anything about intelligence, ability, or whatever. I'm just saying that to deny that there are distinct categories that humans can be classified into is unrealistic. There may be edge cases, but nobody would mistake one of China's 1.6 billion people for an east African.
What I meant was why is that a problem? According to the article, that degree of over-representation (relative to population) is below what it would be, given a completely blind admissions process.
So why not have 25% asian population? What's the problem?
On the other hand, why isn't anyone saying there is a problem with ORM in football?
They don't reject high-performance black athletes for lower performing, asian athletes. I've never once heard anyone complain that their university's football team had a disproportionate number of non-asian people.
Serious double standard there.
I can't get rid of bloat-ware or even stop it from running without rooting my phone and voiding my warranty. I don't have root access to a device I own, which seems bizarre if you think of it as a mobile computer.
Imagine the uproar if all Windows PCs now came with un-stoppable and uninstallable bloatware, and without admin/root privileges.
I'm still trying to learn how investing and markets work, but isn't this stock manipulation? I mean, if I get a bunch of people to agree to short this stock, and others observe this happening, then the short will come through by virtue of a fall in share price because people saw that I was shorting.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around how markets work, when making observations on the system necessarily changes the system, rendering your original observation invalid.
The whole point of having political ideologies is that you believe yours is correct.
They asked politically polarizing questions to conservatives and liberals, and each answered according to their beliefs. It's not so much confirmation/myside bias, as it is confusion about truth.
This study required the authors to have objective truth measures for all the questions asked. How were those truths obtained?
It's completely irrational for people to believe in things that are known, objectively to be untrue. Basically all the author has done is shown that politics based on ideology is irrational, since ideologies lead people to disagree with known true facts.
I don't think it's unreasonable to think that China is manipulating its map data, particularly when other people here in the mapping industry have already said this is well known in their field.
You have N people, with up to N*(N-1)/2 different interactions/conversations, all serialized onto a single interleaved display. I can't imagine how people find it useful.
If he's worried about terminology, then redefine the word pixel as being 4/3 of a pt. Problem solved.
Also, either his last sentence is a mistake, or I must have misunderstood the entire article.
There's a reason why majority rules isn't always appropriate. It's because often the majority can be wrong. We won't redefine the answer to the Monty Hall problem just because 9/10 people get the wrong answer.
If we're constantly redefining words and meanings, then why have definitions at all?
Generally, I find the best things in life are those that don't spend enormous amounts of money trying to convince you they're the best. I mean, if they were really that good, you would think they wouldn't have to keep telling you they were.
100% of the time someone is trying to sell me something, I am suspicious.
"It was inadvertent, and we're working to fix the problem".
And by the time the problem is fixed, the damage has been done and the desired censorship in this case has been achieved.
There's no progress, only perceived progress, where the US gov't gave you the illusion of choice of news networks.
I don't think any research actually happens. Almost by definition, hacking and building things is just development.
Someone else made the comment that often "Low-Fat" advertised products are jammed with sweeteners or sodium to replace the lost flavor that fat provides.
I think it's funny that the American consumer has been indoctrinated into thinking "Low [Insert Nutrient of the Month]" == Healthy.
Doesn't that seem like a bizarre theory since the economy is in shambles and debt-financed spending seems to be getting higher and higher (consumer/credit card debt, etc.)
I thought people were supposed to be encouraged to save, pensions, 401k and Roth IRAs, etc. Is overall economic health inversely related to individual economic health?
Sometimes I wonder how some people's configurations get so wonky that they have all these issues. It's clearly an atypical case.