mnl

I'm very adaptable nowadays. It's just that I think I know which things should work, but I'm not fighting society, particularly not on this.

The thing with giving the public what they want and being too much of a pragmatist is that we've seen it before.

Consider Western universities in the 17th century, they were still there churning out degrees, but modern science, mathematics and technology developed elsewhere.

I mentioned peer learning, collaboration is that.

I think everyone should be capable of working alone as well, and that has been the general assumption around as far as I've noticed. Of course collaboration is usually way more productive and also unavoidable.

But we were talking about education. Theses are individual for a reason.

A textbook should be provided for reference. Copying its contents on a blackboard isn't teaching. You still have to design your course. There's goals to meet, you have to evaluate where your students come from and your job is getting them there.

Besides pedagogy, in college you have to respect your students as studying adults and give them a proper bibliography, emphasizing references for independent study if they don't like your lecture notes, nor your approach, nor whatever.

I understand what a university is, I also understand and am qualified in secondary education and it would be incredibly depressing turning colleges into extended high schools because of business models. That would be exploiting students, I never agree with that.

The idea is becoming intellectually independent, arriving in the stage of self-pedagogy if you like. Peer learning when there's the chance.

You can't realistically expect that there will always be someone up the ladder to explain things to you. I mean, who explains stuff to the professors if it worked like that?

I learnt a lot of physics from Marion's 2nd edition (not SR there though). An older and completely forgotten fine textbook is W. Hauser's Introduction to the Principles of Mechanics. Then you jump into Goldstein (the 1980 one, again not SR there). It's a good idea to buy any Schaum book from Spiegel about this too, also for vector analysis if you can't take a course on that.

I almost wrote above that, to my knowledge and IMVHO, no one has succeeded at writing a book on Thermodynamics yet. I self-censored because that would be too flippant, wouldn't it? Lmao

There are excellent textbooks on Classical Mechanics, probably because it's a crystal clear subject and you can give a detailed account of the essentials in a single volume without handwaving. Of course everything can be improved, but it also can be muddled. If it works think twice before fixing it. Kind of what happens with Rudin and introductory Real Analysis.

On the other hand, there's for instance Optics where you basically have to condense an encyclopaedia and there's always prettier pictures. Or Thermodynamics, Fluid Mechanics etc that can be taught in different ways depending on the curriculum.

There definitely should be pedagogical considerations in higher education, that's lacking because it's usually an afterthought. And it also should be very clear to people getting into higher education that at some later point pedagogy must end and you have to be capable of working your way through the material.

What's the problem with a good book, age? Baby Rudin's first edition is 70 and the latest one is from 1976. It's still widely used and will be for a while.

Honestly your problem was that you didn't know any Classical Mechanics yet and you were assuming that the volume of recent developments made old books obsolete. Maybe in Biology, in Physics getting to recent developments would mean that you're familiar with Goldstein, Landau's Vol. I... Abraham-Marsden? Arnold? Those are old.

Often newer editions actually worsen textbooks and then only a few contemporary books become references in the long run. It's always been like this, there's tons of great books from the 70s that aren't used today and could definitely do. At least they're not ~1,000 pp. of waffle, which is what you usually get for your first textbook on anything nowadays.

You can absolutely delude yourself with the wrong design and materials that have going for them that they're what you can afford and call it innovation and whatnot. It still is wrong design and materials.

I didn't pay attention to this until the day they were supposedly running out of oxygen. I searched for pictures to find a hollow long cylinder made of carbon fibre with end plates. That and reading their Wikipedia entry made me angry. It was obvious that the reason for losing contact days before was that it had imploded killing them instantly. My background is physics.

Yes, I own fields. No, the ROI isn't there so parishioners keep them for sentimental value mostly. It isn't worth it, it was but it's been decades that it's not.

Of course there's a "we". We depend on supply chains and working societies to even be writing anything here now. No one is willing to support anyone but we're a social species with division of roles, that's the "we".

Yes, but the thing is we have increased productivity tremendously because that's what our species does. So first we didn't need everyone working in the fields, after that we didn't need everyone working in the factories, and we're at this point in which we have to make up more and more absurd necessities and regulations so people have jobs, but we aren't going to need everyone doing that either. The clear socioethical paradigm that made sense after we realized that growing food was easier than hunting and foraging is heading a wall.

They used these things: https://125px.com/docs/unsorted/kodak/tg2044_1_02mar99.pdf

It was an automatic process and colours were consistent. I find that reading theories about what might have happened 20 years ago is becoming pretty annoying. I shot some kind of Fujifilm mostly and if it was under/overexposed that was like your problem.

This is obvious, but for some reason some people want to believe that magically a conceptual framework emerges because animal intelligence has to be something like that anyway.

I don't know how animal intelligence works, I just notice when it understands, and these programs don't. Why should they? They're paraphrasing machines, they have no problem contradicting themselves, they can't define adjectives really, they'll give you synonyms. Again, it's all they have, why should they produce anything else?

It's very impressive, but when I read claims of it being akin to human intelligence that's kind of sad to be honest.

Look at the binding energy curve: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/NucEne/nucbin.htm...

There's excellent rubber domes and people have been typing properly on them for 30 years. You don't need mechanical switches, you just like them.

I keep a few nice 90s' ones from HP and IBM. Sun's sucked yet people typed a lot on those. There's been decent ones from Dell and you can still get older IBM/Lenovo Preferred Pros. They're fine. I don't think switching to rubber domes back then was a cost cutting measure, that's peanuts for the prices of those systems. Noise was considered distracting, maybe stressful, actually sustained noise is. If you shared a lab with 30 people banging on Model Ms you'd agree. Mechanicals are great for gaming, I give you that.

Yep, we're getting too impatient and that's not helpful when it comes to think deeply about what we've been taught. Yet that's the most important part of any job IMO. I'll check it out, maybe you're right and he's rambling. That would be surprising to me, which is the reason I replied to your post.

So that's the best appraisal you can give of David Deutsch: "Just an old man seeking attention"?

Well, leaving aside the usual embarrassment I feel when it comes to the impromptu nonsense a fair share of HN commentators think it's worthwhile to contribute here when there's a piece of news involving physics or physicists, that's an ageist take without any content whatsoever.

There's more old people who know what they're talking about than young people. That's just the obvious consequence of having been around reading and thinking about stuff more time. You'll notice it eventually because as the song goes, time waits for no one.

I think you have opinions, on the other hand judgements need argumentation. You've simply stated that you object "to people who freely talk about negative experiences" because some other people you like a lot don't do that. That's not a judgement, it's just you expressing your personal preferences. It's not very interesting per se to be completely honest with you.

[Deleted this as it was obviously unnecessary]

I honestly can't remember about such details, but with IDE drives and 95A you were limited to PIO. You could enable DMA in 95B, it wasn't by default. It was in W98. That should make a drastic difference.

May I suggest joining Ubuntu Advantage and getting ESM? That's free for personal use and you'd get support until April 2024. I'm keeping a 16.04 box like that simply because I'm too lazy to redo stuff that works and with that I don't have to worry about it until 2026.

I don't know, I've mentioned tenure though. I know that Peter Higgs has published IIRC 11? papers and that he's talked about his former status at his departament and not being productive enough for the modern academic system.

Well, it's not that. Output is quantifiable and expected, try to survive doing your thing before tenure (at least and don't). Alas, the Republic of Letters is long gone. Kind of an ought-is problem.

We tend to romanticise it, but in the end it's just another job. It shouldn't, because selling you doing science is not the same as doing science, but on the other hand social expectations are that you must have a job, so what kind of exemption were we hoping for exactly? Once you realise it's ordinary people looking for whatever ordinary people look for anywhere else everything falls into place. Some science gets done regardless, we're talking about professionals here.

I always have to look up the switches, there's quite a few. If you paste an URL it does one thing, it can do many others.

In Spain's Spanish we ended up with "new" feminine forms for professionals. Now it's commonplace but some of them sounded pretty strange back then.

For instance you talked about female doctors using "la médico". It's perfectly natural to change that to "la médica", yet you referred to the guard as "el/la guardia" and we still do, we don't talk about a masculine "el guardio".

Here's the funny thing: we had/have "juez" for judge, and albeit is was ordinarily masculine it's not an obvious masculine form according to phonological conventions, so "el/la juez" was common and sounded very right. Then female judges started to prefer the new form "jueza" that sounded awful (it still does), but we ended up adopting it because it's their prerogative anyway, who can argue about that?

It's interesting to compare this with the deprecation in English of the term actress. Well, in Spanish the non-sexist attitude is to preserve the feminine forms (actriz for actress) and to come up with new explicit ones, exactly the opposite that is. So nope, there isn't a universal sociolinguistics that you can extract from the use of contemporary English and I don't understand how come anybody might expect such a thing.

You can look up such details before buying in https://psref.lenovo.com. Then usually the hardware maintenance manual is available in support, that's the main reason why I end up getting their laptops, although their obnoxious wireless card whitelists (don't trust "compatible" FRUs BTW) make me always look elsewhere in the first place.

Exactly, it could have happened anywhere but this is Jobs in 2008. If he's bought you already, leaving the details to Eddy, and you basically announce that Eddy won't cut it you're asking for a reality check right there. Then it's this if in a hole, stop digging.

I find it striking that a decent modern laptop would have been a supercomputer 20 years ago, when people used Office 97 that was feature complete already IMO. I can't help this constant cognitive dissonance with modern software; do we really need supercomputers to move Windows out of the box?

No, it's actually more expensive because you don't get anything done. Precision equipment either works or it doesn't.

Commercial software development practices might be relevant where you can fix things overnight, but this is hard science instrumentation made of atoms, you ship things that must work as expected because the whole point of all this is making better measurements as the field evolves and there's a scientific case for doing it. It is not about selling production versions of the experiment to potential customers.