HN user

Jesin

98 karma
Posts1
Comments70
View on HN

I've actually been thinking about this a lot lately, and I was glad to see it posted here. This poll also seems to have initiated (in my opinion) some of the best discussions I've seen on this board in a while. Although some polls and "Ask HN"s can be a bit stupid, the good ones are really good.

So, yeah, I'm an INTP. I've lately been acting a bit more E than usual, but I'm still definitely I (am all I am).

(Why oh why didn't Common Lisp abbreviate integerp?)

No, that's absurd. It's about the level of abstraction, not how close it is to natural languages. Yes, most natural languages support high levels of abstraction, but that does not mean that languages that support high levels of abstraction are close to natural languages. They can still be quite far apart in other ways.

Basically, low levels of abstraction are closer to the underlying mechanics. Higher levels of abstraction allow you to think about what happens without having to worry about the fiddly little details. It's like the difference between neurology (comparatively low-level) and psychology (higher level).

No, it really depends on the teacher. My precalculus teacher (probably the best math teacher I've ever had) gives progressively harder tests/quizzes as we learn more about each topic. He ignores the textbook and writes the tests himself.

(Incidentally, we've recently been covering derivatives.)

In an essay published in the Salmon of Doubt, Douglas Adams said something about how every new medium starts out as porn, and the other genres move in afterwards.

This could be the wrong way of thinking about it.

Maybe radical changes can only start within a certain distance from the top, and as the company gets bigger, the bottom moves further away from the top and can no longer initiate those sorts of things. Just a thought.

Really? Do ads for transistors describe them as "smart" or "magic"?

The idea here is not that abstractions are bad, it's that those that are frequently described by the people who made them as "smart" or "magic" are often not very helpful, and tend to do more harm than good. There are some exceptions, but good abstractions, while they may be described as "smart", don't usually include that in their name, and are rarely if ever called "magic".

Either your sarcasm detector is broken for writing this response, or mine is for thinking you were serious.

Or perhaps I'm getting a false positive and both of the above posts were serious.