babyrainbow

First of all what do you see as "successful"?

Yes. Non one has built an electric car. A rocket engine. and a payment gateway.

Paypal was not even built by Elon Musk...By the way.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confinity

A person can be interesting. I agree. But I don't agree that any mundane actions that this interesting person do is also automatically interesting.

Elon Musk is the Christopher Nolan of Tech.

Ok..What is interesting about this?

Eh? Two options for what? I was talking about how languages are different...

The syntactic-sugar form isn't there with the @..

But those things are differences, right? Certain languages makes certain things easy and idiomatic. The differences in languages are all about that...

For any line of python, there's a line or two of PHP to accomplish the same thing (same with javascript).

Python decorators? What is the counterpart of that in Php?

I am not sure. Do you read news for entertainment, or do you read it for truth?

Try to explain programs as a to do list for computers. This might be hard since her fist exposure to computers is HTML/CSS. kind of sad actually. How did that happen? Just curious...

Maybe show her that she can put dots of any colors on screen using html canvas and javascript. Show her how to draw lines. How to draw circles and color them. Show her how to move them....That should be enough to get her off from Html/Css and move to real computer programs...

May be just leave her alone..encourage her to spend less time with computers and go out and play with other kids..She is 10 year old, right?

such that societies should maximize liberty of the individual?

This is required only because the controlling mechanism (the ruler/government) can be selfish and clueless in regards to what rules the subjects should follow for the well being of everyone. and also they are so detached from the problems of individuals....

Imagine a system where a ruler experience every pain and discomfort of every one of their subjects, real time (like in the body of a living thing). In such a system, I think individual liberty can be completely removed, because no one would not want to do anything outside of the rules anyway...

Sorry. Couldn't make sense of most of your comment. Can you explain how these exotic particles is relevant at all?

The need to communicate with the people you love is not "manufactured"...

Again, the need is not manufactured. But the need for constantly in touch, is manufactured. No one before social network wanted that. There was normal mails, then we had telephones, emails etc etc..all of which have solved this pretty well, even across the globe.

But none of these are 24x7.

The need for 24x7 "networking" is manufactured.

No. Social interaction between human beings has been going on well before these social networks.

The manufactured requirement is the need to reach to every person we ever know and share every little detail of your life with them, possibly multiple times a day, in return for their some kind of acknowledgement...

That is the manufactured need and that is what people are hooked on.

social networking online...

Isn't this a manufactured problem/requirement?

EDIT: I mean, did people have this problem before social networks?

Tesla puts them all to shame.

Too bad they can't get their seat belts to work..

http://ca.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idCAKBN19R08Y-OCA...

https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/6ljmed/tesla_m...

No. It is not.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14709791

from the article: "In the test, the seat belt in Tesla's Model S was not effective and could lead to the driver's head striking the steering wheel hard through the air bag, according to the report."

That is hilarious!

I mean, seriously. I mean, if that is how their seat belt work, I am pretty sure their "autopilot" would be out of this world/s (or take you out of this world..)

I would have been rolling a tire down the road with a stick..

Not sure what you mean by "Pong", but are you saying that this is not a heck of a lot more fun?

Imagine the whole domain of physics to be P and our current knowledge to be a subset of it, P'.

Is there any reason for the operations of brain to be limited to those involving P' only?

by creating uninformed consumers making irrational choices; and driving them to consumerism...

I am not sure. Isn't this a well known and intended effect of the Ads and PR stunts?

A brain is part of our world, governed by physics...

Sure. But not necessary governed by current physics..

Yes. But cars produce unwanted mess in atmosphere that in almost impossible to clean..

Very interested to see some sources for these things you mention in first para. Do you have them handy?

I like it already, too bad it is not there for Firefox yet.

And fantastic naming by the way..

You expressed an ideal view of what teaching should be...

ideal? Try minimal. What according to you is the minimum requirement for teaching? Orating a textbook in front of a class and map questions to answers and make students learn the mapping?

If a teacher does not know how to refute a claim or answer a question, they should research it, understand it and explain to the student who is asking the question. I mean, not everyone has to be taught about everything...

Of course there are topics that are way above the heads of teachers. But these are exceptions rather than the rule, I think. Just because some topics are super hard does not mean that all such things should be taken on faith in science...

Discussion around something similar...

https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/6dj815/tesla_m...

If you're a luxury car maker, you're already feeling this..

I am not sure. If I want a luxury car, I am going to get a Porsche.

End of story.

I expect that you can provide examples of this

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-fda-drug...

So when an authority says that something is safe, and later turn out not to be so, isn't the original claim just bullshit? Or is it not bullshit because that is the best we could have done, but we still sold it as legit, without saying about the flaws in our process, which is why I mentioned selectively saying the truth...

I am pretty sure one can come up with other serious cases where "science" of today turned out to be bullshit later. The famous study that both ant and pro vaxxers tout are a very good example. Pretty sure that have been similar issues recently regarding diet, pesticide use, use of plastics and stuff like that...

EDIT: Ultimately, I think the majority of what we consider as "science" today (except maths/physics) is a somewhat grey area and is prone to various kinds of manipulation should not be really accepted without any sort of challenge. And just because something is peer reviewed does not make it the word of god...