PandaRider

Thank you for the recommendations! The 2 books seem to be a little more detailed than the average general-audience book but not too intense and deep like a textbook.

Would definitely take a look!

For most folks, the incentive of learning at 100% speed [1] is getting better grades in school. It's a huge ego boost to walk in to an exam hall with zero handwritten cheat sheets while everyone others have font 6 cheat sheets.

As a working adult, we hardly get this kind of ego boost unless we somehow know our colleagues salary. Even so, there are many other factors outside of knowledge storage that determine one's salary (e.g. feedback from teammates, number of closed sales etc)

[1] Actually, it's not 100% speed but 1 step back and 2 steps forward. Because the initial time and motivation cost is non-trivial.

I ended up with like 2 or 3 out of 10 complete proofs and the rest half finished on the final exam because I had the right starting points, but not enough practice using what I knew in unexpected ways.

I feel ya. I memorised definitions for my algorithms course as well and also experienced diminishing rewards of using SRS flashcards (especially when the conceptual questions get more novel).

Like what you say, we have to practice using the factual knowledge enough by writing proofs.

The next generation of flashcards would probably use AI to generate concise questions on writing proofs.

[1] A Little Randomness May Not Be Enough - https://www.scotthyoung.com/blog/2014/11/07/srs-for-concepts...

Thank you for sharing your experiences!

From this perspective, fields that require deep understanding, like math, require memory just as fields with a breadth of shallow knowledge do, though in different ways.

I'm interested in understanding how others use Anki for conceptual subjects like pure math or physics. I believe many fundamental rules in Spaced Repetition (e.g. like keeping cards concise) are thrown out the window for conceptual subjects.

I have taken algorithms courses.

This video explains in detail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YX40hbAHx3s

In short, P means Polynomial time (i.e. markets can solve computation problems efficiently) and NP means Non-Deterministic Polynomial time (i.e. markets can verify solutions of computation problems efficiently but solutions are found by luck).

If P != NP, it means luck CANNOT be engineered and markets are competitive.

... Costco has a variety of "bad governance" provisions, such as a super-majority (of all shares, not just votes) provision threshold for shareholder votes

Do you believe there's a fundamental tradeoff between structural constraints (i.e. the 'democratic' model, where dispersed shareholders and markets have a voice) vs. insulated leadership (i.e. the 'benevolent dictator' model, where competent leaders are shielded from short-term shareholder pressure)?

Also, thank you for your quick replies.

Somewhat related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictatorship

The goat. Probably a required reading for all academics.

However, I wonder if this workshop is still relevant in the age of LLMs...?

Is the title editorialized?

I wouldn't say it's baseless... Instead, I would say it's flawed base making very sweeping statements that make it sound like good science [1].

Moreover, there exist fathers who are non-committal (e.g. cheat) and thus, disproving this.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Blaffer_Hrdy#Mothers_and...

What would you mean "more like this"?

The headline is borderline clickbaity. Specifically the word "Ruthless" made me think of something unethical like Delve's business.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47634690

Hmmmmm

“These bears have become synonymous with gentrification in San Francisco,” he told fnnch, “and the displacement of the artists that come from here.”

I have mixed feelings (i.e. I understand your boredom) of his honeybear art from a pure aesthetic pov. However, (as any modern viral influencer knows), any successful artist will invite haters. This article reinforces the notion that fnnch is very successful...

I concur with you (that this is an excellent introduction)!

Imo, your suggestions are more for intermediate/advanced active listeners that need to interact with folks in their job (e.g. bartenders, reporters, middle managers...).

Still, I feel being repetitive (e.g. 'It sounds like XYZ...is that right?') is better than nothing. Sometimes, training wheels aren't bad when learning how to ride a bike.

I think the problem statement is: How do you know when to Let Go of the current boulder?

The poem suggested many many many possible when. Here's one: "unless it comes out of / your soul like a rocket,".

Unfortunately (or fortunately), in life, there is no methodology to prove that a given search problem is futile (e.g. NP-complete)... so we have to take our chances and choose. I believe that's the beauty of life: choice.

This is correct. To delve into a topic about cognitive load without talking about germane overhead disqualifies this article (i.e. similar to extraneous overhead in terms of effort but germane overhead is beneficial. Because it helps the coder's reading ability.)

The examples are good but every reader must not have the takeaway that every effortful code is bad (e.g. haskell is extremely hard to read at first but every developer swears it has very high intrinsic cognitive load)

It's not bad. Maybe 7/10.

I read the page https://www.succeedsocially.com/morefun. Here's my initial impressions. Pros: it identified several important painpoints and give several decent examples. Cons: Being a truly fun person is all about reaction reaction reaction. Fun people react authentically (while censoring their ahole side because you don't want to be fun but unlikable), ridiculously (while reading the room), and intelligently (playing to the top of the crowd's intelligence).

TLDR: which is better? it depends

RedHat's style guide is far more detailed and closer to a reference/explanation (i.e. going by Diátaxis definition).

Google's technical writing is shorter and closer to tutorial/how-to guide.

I recommend the Google's technical writing if you're a coder or a beginner. RedHat is for folks who already know they need this on first look.

Hmmm what is a simple "hello world" project in chip design?

In computer science courses, that's as simple as a println().

In machine learning courses, that's training on mnist dataset to do character recognition.

In electrical engineering, that's buying a raspberry pi to blink led.

In chip design ... Chatgpt says to design a 1-bit full adder using verilog?

...

I understand why the article thinks the market is looking for graduate education. To design a simple chip requires an *initial investment* (as with all hardware startups really). This is different from software where one can simply launch a web app with a container hosted on your preferred cloud provider...

... That said, with the rise of LLMs lowering the barrier of entry of software even lower (e.g. vibe coding), may we see more rise of hardware startups/innovations?

Few of Twitter's most vocal posters spend time reading contemporary poetry collections, attending readings, or tracing the evolution of forms.

I recently got hooked into contemporary (i.e. modern) poetry. I fully understand why modern poetry seems hard to understand.

I believe most people innately love simple and deep modern poems. If you like poetry related to nature (sorry major typo!), check out Ada Limon (1) If you like poetry related to medicine and life, check out ACP poetry prize (2)

1. https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poets/ada-limon

2. https://www.acpjournals.org/journal/aim/poetry-prize

Initial impressions: Looks great.

As a cloud security analyst that is thinking of going back to coding or DevSecOps, if I'm honest with myself, there is nothing new here that I have not seen before... (This is not a criticism or anything. If anything the problem is myself: if I can allocate time to learn this or use Anki to retain this).

I appreciated the article for emphasising memorising definitions and statement of theorems... But not for proofs. For proofs, a general outline would be sufficient.

For him, sitting down for twenty minutes is a much more consistent tool for maximizing energy - even compared to sleep or coffee.

Firstly, I'm glad JS (and OP) see very positive effects of meditation but I'm highly skeptical meditation is more powerful than coffee (assuming sleep has diminishing returns). I doubt this is generalisable to most of us.

Even within my new sessions, I can already feel a difference: after ten minutes, I reach a flow state that just feels great.

Whereas before I’d be prone to fall into vicious spirals of self-consciousness and unease, a streak of meditation would allow me to calmly, warmly, and directly engage with people. If an awkward moment arose, I wouldn’t feed my internal fire with negative self-talk, but rather look outwards with an internal smile, wait for the moment to pass, and find a clever prosocial solution. But again, that explanation understates the magic.

Secondly, again, I'm happy OP found the answer to the greatest wall for new meditation practitioners: "how do I know if meditation is working???". I haven't found it. Brain states stuffs are more art than science, I believe.

I'm curious what you would think is "good modern journalism". Could you give examples?

The discussion's article writes more like The Atlantic or NYMag interview style than AP News or Reuters. Both styles are suitable in my opinion.

Not a guitarist (take my comments with a pinch of salt).

Your teachers are both right: Either advices (1) or (2) works as long as the practice is hard.

That said, while (2) may sound easier because the approach pursues "comfort in the mind" over perfection... this is still hard because because by definition: you still need to get from uncomfortable to comfortable!

A similar example in bodybuilding: muscle confusion [1]. To build better squats, one requires both compound(2) and isolation (1) exercises

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/08/well/move/muscle-confusio...

(Huge Caveat: this only applies to physical deliberate practice!)

I have mixed feelings. I loathe instapoetry as much as any modern poetry reader... However, I also hate that every modern poetry demands readers to read "good" poetry first to understand why instapoetry is bad (spoiler: instapoetry lacks depth).

What's the alternative of long-term bond investments? Republican-style tax cuts? If I understand the article correctly, Carmel's Republican mayor Jim Brainard broke off from his party's motto.

The prevailing model of austerity, low taxes, and limited government in many Republican-led states and cities has often failed to improve the quality of life. Meanwhile, Democratic-led cities struggle to effectively address issues like homelessness, housing affordability, and public safety despite greater willingness to invest, just not in actual services and infrastructure.

As a long-time Anki user (and memory enthusiast), I would like to offer some caveats for those transferring actors' memorization techniques to study techniques (programming languages, chemistry, math etc...)

This deep understanding of a script is achieved by actors asking goal-directed questions, such as “Am I angry with her when I say this?”

1. Do embed emotions. For example: Go's CamelCase for exporting variables implies capital letters want to be loud.

2. Do invoke experience. Don't merely read and write code, teach it and activate multiple sensory inputs and multiple contexts!

Deep, elaborative processing enhances understanding by relating something you are trying to learn to things you already known

3. Do chunk it. Instead of creating new standalone memories, chunk it with other programming languages' syntax.

In summary, while engaging with the material is important, it is not sufficient for passive tasks (how many times have you read a book and forgotten the main points?).

There are doubts that industrialization can create the game-changing benefits it did in the past. Factories today tend to rely more on automated technology and less on cheapworkers who have little training.

Multinationals like Goldman Sachs, Victoria’s Secret and the Economist magazine have flocked to the city and set up hundreds of operational hubs — known as global capability centers — to handle accounting, design products, develop cybersecurity systems and artificial intelligence, and more.

https://archive.is/JdB26

What I wanted (from Freakonomics) was to peer through "the hidden side of everything"... What I needed was the serenity to accept that causality is too damn hard.

I appreciated the attempts by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner to communicate with layman non-economists like me. I think The Economist article was, as always, too harsh and nitpicky. I think Freakonomics holds a special place in the "intellectual" and "rationalists" community. I cannot verify the flaws in techniques and conclusion as stated in this article but I would still recommend reading Freakonomics first over the dry economics textbooks or MIT OCW courseware.

No.6 Communicate clearly and concisely

I have mixed feelings about this quote because I do not like when life writers write high-level statements such as this.

Personally, I prefer very very specific suggestions on preventing very very specific problems. For example: How to prevent broken-telephone problem when communicating technical topics to an un-initiated audience?

1. Recognize ambiguous pronouns [1]

2. Distinguish active voice from passive voice

3. Create helpful lists.

Maybe this is a one-off incident of lack of proof-reading? I noticed this SamAltman article didn't have the usual proof reading rigor

[1] https://developers.google.com/tech-writing/one