5,415 karma · joined March 12, 2018
I went to gifted and talented programs, and even there I felt like the pace was slow and easy for the top kids. If you put those kids into classes with even less academically apt, less focused children, those top kids are going to be bored out of their mind and wasting their time.
Do we truly want to waste the time of our most bright young minds? Do we want to squander their potential when they pick up 1+1=2 in 10 seconds, but it takes other kids 10 minutes? Do we have to force our teachers to make 4-5 different lesson plans, 1 for the lowest, 1 for the highest, and a couple others for the mid-tiers? We're already asking too much of teachers, give them smaller classes with less of a range of aptitude.
One thing with the speed of AI turns, you may be able to go into the advanced settings and turn on "quick combat" and "quick movement" settings. These take away the combat movement animations and help speed up the game a little bit (sorry, I didn't run the benchmarks, haha).
Enjoy your naval victories, admiral!
Furthermore, they can glance at 10 patches of weeds, 10 junior engineers, and find the couple that need more guidance than the others. They can leverage their knowledge through others, assessing their strengths/weaknesses as coders in ways juniors never could.
For Homo Sapiens with Neanderthals, we suspect they both inter-mingled, shared genetics via sex, as well as brutally attacked Neanderthals. Is it surprising that, along with mega-fauna and easily killed prey, Homo Sapiens seems to have killed many Neaderthal groups as well?
Is this that surprising, then, when Homo Sapiens attacks other groups of Homo Sapiens? When humans have seen those evil "others", it usually leads to violence and domination by one party. Look at colonization of the Americas, enslavement, genocide, justified by religion, profits, "self defense," manifest destiny -- any excuse will do if it's just "the others."
So, from a historical and biological lens, I'd say current echo chambers are not surprising, they're an extension or outgrowth from very ingrained biological reactions.
One of my all-time favorite starts was as Poland with 4 salt resources next to Warsaw. Salt is such a baller resource because it's a luxury good, but it also allows the creation of a mine which boosts production, and production is super key in Civ. I could blast out wonders and the cutting-edge buildings in 5-10 turns, and my tech lead meant almost none of the wonders were unavailable. Don't you just love having 20 wonders in your capital by the end?
The old Internet, the way it used to be, will survive in its niche, but we can't kid ourselves that 99% of people want to read technical blogs.
And even so, while I'm in that 1%, I find blogs overly simplistic, too focused on self-help, DIY, end your procrastination, here's why my chosen tool/kit/library is the best -- these are profoundly uninteresting. Every time a Paul Graham post rockets to the top of HN, I roll my eyes. Out of all the writing and profundity of the history of civilization, this is what we worship?
What's the right solution? It's case by case, down to a mixture of morality and expertise to decide.
Seems these tech algorithms often generate a lot of false-positives wrongfully, or that's what's posted online afterwards. It'd be interesting to dig into the numbers for various platforms, see if they're falsely negative for spam accounts and bad actors. We wouldn't hear posts on HN about spam bots that cut into FB's bottom line, would we?
Yeah, we're in pretty huge trouble. I'm definitely cynical in the short-term and medium-term, but I see potential for all these nascent technologies to work over the decades to save our bacon by 2100. Technology got us into this mess, but we're enslaved to our technology now, so we're going to just have to make better and better technology while being slightly more efficient and green-minded as well.
I'd say immigration would be a huge boon to many of these small businesses, but when I spoke to one restaurant owner, he bemoaned the labor shortage and a $15 minimum wage. It'd kill his prices, he'd lose customers. Then, in other rants, he's using all the Fox News lines about stealing our jobs, keep them out of our country, caravans, ugh.
He doesn't connect the dots and see how pivotal immigration is to the economy. Either you have more babies, increase productivity, increase efficiency, or you allow immigrants in to make up the gap in the babies we're not having anymore. But no, the color of their skin, the difference of their culture, is enough to make economics less important than identity to the right wing in the USA.
For example, take some 13 year old girl, probably a poor farmer, from Ireland in 1800. She will have seen almost no examples of the female body except her own, her peers rarely, and her familial elders. Then plop her down into today's world, and she'll definitely be barraged by all the most ridiculous images of flat stomachs, huge anatomical parts and tiny anatomical parts, immaculately photoshopped forms: she'll be made to feel less than them.
Long term, we're going to need lab or plant-based meats, since I doubt we'll ever convince people to give up their cherished food items unless economics makes it incredibly expensive.
If you account for the hundreds of gallons of fuel inserted and burned by the ICE vehicle over time, much of which is then wasted as excess heat energy, the "weight" of an EV's battery starts to look pretty good.
To me, this all says: naivete, a lack of learning. If the cops want to escalate it and infringe on his rights, he can then lawyer up and fight it.
Next, they have to go through interviews. Are they expected to fully research the company and its methods before the initial round? Or how about coding questions: Would you take someone who spent 3X the time on leetcode but only got 50% as many coding answers as the qualified person? Do you purposefully choose those who you deemed "worked harder" or "wanted it more"? Are things like follow-up emails, thank you's, further reflections, are these things how you determine dedication? Or do you purposefully over-look those you think are well qualified, ruling them out in favor of those "trying harder"?
"So when the officer asked him about carrying cash, Stephen said “yes.” When the officer asked to search his car, he said “yes.” And when the officer asked about the source of the cash, Stephen showed him over two years’ worth of bank receipts. Stephen did everything he was told, and answered every question he was asked."