tappio

Learning takes a lot of effort. There are no shortcuts. To put effort into learning something, you need discipline and/or motivation. Biggest problem with learning for me has always been finding the motivation. When I'm motivated I'm switching between all the mentioned "learning methods". Also, the best suitable method depends on the topic too. And finally... I've always hated lectures, and have had a bad tendency to fall asleep... expect when I'm motivated and the topic is interesting!

The author is looking at the topic from a quite narrow perspective. The reasoning 'why' what he observed is happening could be due many other reasons. I think he also misunderstood some fundamental reasons why school exists in the first place, such as functioning as a "day care" for bigger kids allowing parents to work.

The article is based on an assumption of why something was done. It is positioned in a way that it immediately invokes a reaction "how can they be this stupid". But... What if that is not what those who made these decisions actually think? If he just assumes that is the case?

I'm no expert, but maybe it would help here to do a thought experiment of "what I might be missing from the puzzle?".

Lack of resources is one thing that was mentioned here. It is not that they drop the class and do nothing else. So what was the alternative? Where are the resources put now?

I'm quite sure there are other things we are missing too. I'd like to step into those people's shoes who are making the decisions to understand better why they chose what they chose, instead of assuming what they think.

Of course, if the goal is to actually improve equality, it is really stupid. Somehow I just doubt people are that dumb. There must be something more to it that I'm missing.

Ideally, it could also be great source of tax income, which could be further used to help people get rid of drugs.

I think your last sentence hits the nail.

We have to remember that "we" have selected the best of bad options. This system is not good and will get worse by time. People have to remember that we must not let power accumulate to specific groups, be it private or public sector. Unfortunately the tendency seems to be towards the opposite of what is "good" for average individuals. If government has too much power it cannot be held accountable, and the interests have disaligned.

This may be true in theory, but we are seeing rather different development in the West. 1) power seems to have a tendency to concentrate, which ultimately leads to corporate oligarchy. 2) most markets have high barrier to entry which breaks the alignment of market and interests 3) the concept of rational markets is not as clear cut as it is often perceived, and most studies have failed to incorporate findings from related to bounded rationality

However, the government's incentive is to stay in power and not let that happen. The tool that government has is regulation.

Try Facebook, I've spent some time trying to make it work but figured out I can do what I need by using Bing API instead and get structured data...

You are right, but I feel you misunderstood op.

I understood that op meant increase number of samples, not variables.

This is quite funny. We have a group of friends really obsessed with making great food. We cook together menus with top notch ingredients retrieved from local sources, spending days studying recipes and planning menus and practicing each step. I love to make great foods for any friends who visit, if I can make time into my calendar. At the same time, we also share all possible hacks for making fast and efficient foods, sharing information which ready made canned things taste good and which not. Never discarding something because it's not "pure". Some processed goods and premade meals are amazing! Everything has their time and place. Being food snob 24/7 must be super exhausting. It has its time and place, sure, but most of the time I want something tasty with minimal effort.

I agree. I actually pointed out in another comment that the term social media does not make any sense. Everyone has a different definition of social media. We can't really generalize findings on all platforms. The studies focusing on social media are often missing that it does not really make any sense to use that word. Are Twitter and Facebook the same? Can we generalize findings on one to another? No we can't. Talking about "social media" this way does not make much sense. It also hides out the fact that in the end everything is about the internet and digital content, together forming the new mass medium which is actually the relevant unifying factor. I'm glad you picked that up!

The studies focusing on social media are a bit dummy. I'm doing a PhD on the topic and I too feel like a dummy. Everyone has a different definition of social media, but we can't really generalize findings on all platforms. The studies should focus on services with their names, but then they would be less interesting. Are Twitter and Facebook the same? Can we generalize findings on one to another? No we can't. Besides, is HN a social media platform? Or Reddit? Talking about social media does not make much sense. It also hides out the fact that in the end everything is about the internet and digital content, together forming the new mass medium which is taking the world by storm.

Sorry, it's only available for 0.0001% of population and unfortunately you are not one of the lucky ones.

Fortunately, empathy and epistemological pluralism can make your life bearable.

I feel content with my life and I'm genuinely happy when my friends accomplish something. I can't remember when I was seriously envious last time. Sometimes, there may be a moment when I feel slight envy, but then I realize that they decided to put effort into that, and I put my effort into something else. Time is limited. Everyone has problems; ups and downs.

I've mostly quit social media because the majority of active people are not interesting, it's full of ad-garbage and heated up debates about dis-interesting topics.

I guess I'm also in the 0.0001%. Though, I do think it's much higher than that. The dissatisfied people are just the most vocal.

Screwdriver (cryptos) and drill driver (fiat schema) both can be used to screw. The proponents of screwdrivers are constantly complaining how drill drivers are clumsy, how you can't safely run around with them, etc. But do you really want back the society where you build houses with screwdrivers? Current fiat schema is just so much more than what you think. I assume you didn't study finance or economics, so it might be hard to understand just how many things have been possible because of fiat currencies. Yes, many crisis too, but it put the rate of innovation and growth into steroids. Thanks to it, we now have time to argue in internet about this kind of worthless matters.

You completely forget why money exists in the first place. Those problems you state are outcomes of resolving problems that de-centralized and finite money supply can't resolve. You can't have the cake and and eat it too.

You don't seem to understand what ultimately causes inflation. Not a surprise, as you don't understand money either.

Inflation happens because central banks have been trying to fix structural problems by printing more money, and this time it didn't work out. Sometimes it has worked. If they didn't do that, the problems would still be there. If we didn't have the possibility to print more money, we couldn't even try out if that helps. Ultimately, the structural problems would be worse if financial system was ran on cryptos.

Your comment arrogant so I expect you will get badly down voted. It is also fundamentally wrong, so I will comment nevertheless. Maybe I can save some poor soul from this naive ideology.

The question is not really about what are the downsides of FIAT money. All solutions have problems. Even if cryptos could solve all problems that FIAT has, that does not mean it is a better solution to the problem that FIAT solves.

The question is really about what problem money solves in the first place. The foremost purpose of is to distribute resources. Money is a completely social construct that does not have any value itself, all value is derived from the promises of those who have resources make. Real world resources, like oil, are what ultimately matters. As a side note, this is also why the Russian sanctions don't really work as well as some people hope for, and they are ultimately a bad idea.

Anyways, I think it's fair to say say that the current financial system has been extremely successful compared to any earlier financial system, such as the gold standard. Everyone who understands finance even a tiny bit knows that a system with finite money supply like gold does not solve the actual problem the current financial system is solving. It may solve some issues that money has, such as efficiency, transparency, and transfer costs, but as a tool for distributing resources it's useless.

So the comparison you are making is meaningless. Even if those problems would be solved, it won't solve the problem money is actually solving.

On top of that, the problems you mention are not problems of money. They are problems of people, of human nature. New money will not fix them.

By society I meant civilizations, such as ancient Greece. I think I articulated it poorly.

I believe that good faith communication dominates in ingroup discussion. Trust matters when you discuss with peers whose approval matters to you. Bad faith communication dominates in outgroup discussion. Trust is not important as you really don't care about the "others".

Can someone point me to an example of a society where good faith communication has dominated? This article paints a picture that the issue is something new, but I don't know any human society where bad faith communication was not a norm. Differences are mainly related to power structures and who holds the Power to communicate. Besides, this is really a dualist perspective to communication. What if most communication is neither good faith or bad faith, but something in between?

It is also that the public is rather happy with the status quo. Working against public opinion is not something that happens easily in democracy. It takes generations to change opinions.

Alright, I have limited experience and I don't know the scene. I believe my colleague does primarily indoor bouldering, and rarely outdoor bouldering.

So take this tip then with a very much salt!

Maybe the ultimate point is that there are many good hobbies that involve physical exercise!

If you don't like 'solo' sports and you having hard time finding joy in things like lifting, running, hiking, cycling and swimming, I would suggest some different style of physical activities.

Brazilian jiu-jitsu, climbing, orienteering, to name a few. There are probably other too, but those are the ones I'm aware of. I don't have first hand experience of active climbing, but my colleagues in tech praise it. For me bjj and orienteering are perfect fit. I love that I get to test my skills against other people. Being somewhat competitive in nature, I can put my competitive spirit into the sports field instead of work.

Another good thing for me has been that there is a defined time. I have to go. Others are going too. I need to drop the work and go do something else. This forces me to stop banging my head on a problem, which usually solves itself overnight anyways.

As a side effect, you get fit. Fit in a way that you really can't get by lifting. But you never need to think about it. Or if you think, it is something specific because you need it for something (like improved grip strength or something).

It is one of the hypotheses. It seems very likely that there were multiple factors at play in the late pleistoscene extinction. A quick search with that topic will provide you with materials. Hunting is a common hypothesis, but it is impossible to prove the causality, and world is usually not that simple. Also, prehistoric human consumption of plant food has most likely been underestimated, as the plant remain fossils have not been able to remain in such climate. Recent dental calculus has shown that humans and their fellow neanderthals ate more plants than it has been originally estimated.

I don't claim to be an expert, but Harari is an excellent story teller. That narrative fits really well with his story.

These books are fun, but should be taken with some skepticism.

This particular story with large mammals is a good example. The assumed causality does not hold closer scrutiny. Climate was also changing into something that works better for humans, and into worse for large mammals. There were many things at play. Humans may had or may not have had a role. However, it is very unlikely that humans had a defining role.

Good read nevertheless! Changed my mind how I view humans as mammals, and made me dig deeper into the topic.

Why do cryptocurrencies invoke strong emotional response? Why would one care if someone calls bitcoin ponzi? Or why would someone put so much effort into proving that it is one? Does not seem too rational. Maybe someone can explain? My observations may be biased, but the comment section here and on the earlier time the same post was here support my observation?

Edit: probably just a biased opinion because because the minority who care are most vocal. It would seem that general public does not really care.

I like your optimism. I just don't see how we can produce and transport food, electronics, and specifically windturbines, solar panels and batteries on a global scale without using massive amounts of fossil fuels.

Actually, I would love to see a the real "energy footprint" of a solar panel. Like, how much mining, transporting, manufacturing and installing the panels consumed energy, and how many days it takes for a panel to produce more energy than the entire operation used. If anyone has such a breakdown I would be really happy to see it. If the numbers are good, maybe the future is still bright.

We are so dependent on fossil fuels that I'm slightly more sceptical. Over 90% of global energy is created with fossil fuels. We often get fooled about the electricity sector which is something like 1/3 renewables. But electricity is only 30% of fossil fuel consumption. Even if the share of electricity increases to 40% because of ev's and we produce 80% with renewables, we still have ~70% that requires fossil fuel production. That 70% is not that easy to replace -- we are talking about manufacturing, logistics, agriculture, mining, etc. Getting rid of coal only increases oil and gas demand.

I'm not sure what is the percentage of consumer sales for any if those companies mentioned, but I suspect that even if it was 0 it would not drastically affect anything but profits. Oil will be less profitable -- yes, but it will be widely used as long as energy required to mine it is less than what is produced. It is unfortunate, but these companies are on a very good long term business (hard to say really because I don't know what are the global untapped oil reserves).

Manufacturing components to produce renewables require a lot of fossil fuels as well. We are not yet at the point where we can create new renewables without using fossil fuels.

I'm not saying the floor will not fall, but I'm afraid that if the floor falls we are in quite big trouble, and it is not because if the EV market.

To me your response reads like the perfect high school text book answer. But I'll take your response as if it came from someone who really knows his work, and assume that what you said is true. Let's not question this meme any further.

I didn't really mean to judge Einstein. When a story sounds "too good to be true" it most often tends to lean towards fiction. My 'judgement' was towards people who blindly believe everything about memes.

In reality, there really was no point and it does not really matter if this particular story is true or not. I just like to question things that people assume obvious.

I didn't judge Einstein, and my question was not about Einstein. I'm not in the position to judge his works in physics. I really know nothing about him, all I know is what they teach in school and what you occasionally read online. Like most of us.

It is interesting that one might get defensive when they think that someone questions Einsteins intelligence. Why is this meme so important? It's almost as if he was some sort of a God.

Have you read his work? There are many things which are memes without real background, such as people believing in the past that earth was flat. No. They didn't. Medieval people didn't believe earth was flat. This is something invented by 1800s historians. Einstein is the same kind if meme. Everyone keeps repeating how smart he was, but not many people have first hand information and know other researchers of his time. I don't know if he was smart or not. I've read some of his texts on politics which were not very good, but I guess he was better at physics. Or maybe those texts I've read even weren't Einsteins, but written by someone who just wanted to use his name to push an agenda. Who knows? Why does it matter? I'm wondering why people are so obsessed with this kind of things, because I've never been and it is hard for me to understand. Maybe you can provide some insight?

Was Einstein really that smart? What if Einstein is just a meme, and there were dozens of other people who made similar findings but we're not published? What is with this obsession on trying to explain in hindsight why someone was successful?