alexvr

I wanted to be an aerospace engineer until the day I discovered programming.

I propose that we refer to Ubuntu as Voldemort from now on.

I think this is just a poor, exclusive, and incomplete way of saying, "I like passionate coders." Or maybe not, since you seem to imply that the second type just takes up coding because that's what successful people do in the tech world. Am I worthless and not passionate because I started teaching myself to code when I was 15? You probably have a case for people who have been coding nonstop since their early adolescence. But frankly, this article is vapid nonsense. Stop generalizing; sometimes you have to accept that the world is complex and not black and white. Try thinking outside of binary.

Dancing Zuckerberg is the new trollface

I came across this the other day: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence

Yeah. I don't see how this managed to hit the front page.

Let's just write our web apps in C or Haskell since everyone likes those.

I'm a first-year computer science student, and I've been programming for about 3 years (self-taught). I find the field to be overwhelmingly expansive, and while that's partly what I find so alluring about it, I sometimes feel like exploring a bunch of subfields is taking away from the time I should be using to specialize.

I really enjoy making games and simulations, but I have trouble picturing myself working in the industry, as I really want to work on technology that solves problems. And if I were to "specialize" as a game programmer, I would probably be a generalist in that subfield.

One area that I find extremely interesting is the realm of real-time, embedded software. My dream job would be at Tesla Motors, writing software for autonomous cars. Unfortunately, it's not as easy to get experience with embedded systems as it is to get game programming or web development experience. And, for the same reason, it's not as easy (or cheap) to amass a portfolio of, erm... UAVs, robots, elevators -- what have you.

I also enjoy making web applications, doing system administration, and everything in between. And I can't deny that I've had my "start x website in dorm room like Zuck and be rich" entrepreneurial fantasies.

Does anyone have advice or words of wisdom? If I had to choose one area to specialize in, it would be embedded software, but I feel like I could get a ton of great experience as a game programmer on my own, for free, while getting a cursory glimpse at embedded systems would require more than just time as an investment.

How might I pursue a career in embedded software? I think the real-time nature of game programming would be a nice complement to real-time embedded software development. Should I pursue both?

Sorry about the essay, but this dilemma has been bugging me incessantly lately.

I've been using this for ever. I think I deserve hipster brownie points.

Like nearly everyone else, I despise going through the registration process on every site I try. But certain applications simply don't work without registration. Actually, lots of applications don't. I recently started working on a tiny web app (http://alexreidy.me/apps/WhereIsMyComputer) that lets you find your computer if it's lost or stolen, and by its very nature it's quite useless if you can't log in to see your device's location (and it's absurdly revealing if you alternatively display a page with thousands of names and corresponding coordinates). Since many sites simply wouldn't work without registration, I propose that we make registration more painless (maybe get rid of the whole email requirement and instead delete accounts that don't verify with email if they are clearly spammers or inactive) or, when a registration-free trial is not viable due to the nature of the application, we could design sites with a demo feature or demo video.

Your opinion on politics reveals how you think, which is why people tend to be defensive of their opinions: They don't know any better -- anything that directly challenges how they perceive the world is too threatening to be the subject of a rational conversation. If you talk to someone on a similar wavelength who has similar experiences, you can probably have a meaningful conversation. In this case, politics is like music: Not everyone has the same taste or understands/appreciates the same things, so it's hard to explain the virtues of Radiohead to someone who only gets a buzz from the best classical or, forgive my elitism, someone who can't see past Lil Wayne. It's hard for polar opposites to hold meaningful conversations for the same reason it's hard for a super smart person to hold a stimulating conversation with an idiot, or for an old person to do the same with a young person (they're effectively from different worlds). People on significantly different areas of the spectrum perceive the world very differently and have dramatically different experiences to draw on.

Click "talk" on the Senate revision if you want to read more about the incident and see the IP information.

I love the idea, but I don't know why your poll didn't include a $0 option. Personally, I would prefer to simply "be interested" in an ad or two on your site every once in a while if I enjoy the service. I think you need to show people that your digested articles are worth >= $3 per month before you start charging. Get some dedicated readers who really value the service by doing it for free/with ads at first, then change to a subscription-based service. Maybe even offer a short "early adopter" program where those who sign up early can read for free after you start charging. Just my opinion.

Forget about the business for a while and do your absolute best escape to a free country.

I find that this is my natural strategy; I only test functions explicitly when they fail.

I think this is a really pathetic reason to be depressed. And these "gifted" people have it all wrong. No, the laws of physics don't directly dictate that all governments be democratic, or that people drive on the right side of the road. But if they thought about the world on a deeper level, they would realize that there is structure, and that it's breathtakingly-beautiful (albeit subtle and not always easy to pick up on when you don't explicitly seek it). No, you don't get to be a teacher's pet for your whole life, and you don't get paid for doing well on IQ tests. But one person can have an impact on the world: sometimes, a very pervasive, meaningful one. I fail to see why some gifted children can't appreciate the world and their existence enough to at least have a good time and explore it a bit. You only get to do it once, and you won't get the chance to do everything the world has to offer, but you should consider yourself lucky to be conscious in the first place. My theory is that kids labeled "gifted" end up dwelling on their "ability" to the point where they actually think they are entitled to something outside educational institutions. Or maybe they fail to realize, to their chagrin, that IQ grossly belies proportional intelligence, especially after a certain point, and that IQ tests don't measure what it takes to make a meaningful difference in the world. People like Elon Musk, Steve Jobs, and Bill Gates are unequivocally gifted, but they don't dwell on it; they don't statistically determine the probability that they will make a difference; they don't spend their time researching IQ tests or bragging about their intellect; they go out and do their best to change the world. And they do.

I wonder if they have evolved differently. Is 65,000 years enough time for any significant change given their circumstances?

I learned a lot from the Seattle Longitudinal Study. This diagram basically sums up their findings: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1474018/figure/F... Also, they mentioned that if you correct for the loss in perceptual speed that comes with age, the drop is not as significant. I interpret this as, "If we give elderly people as much time as they need to take an IQ test, their performance will be relatively close to that of 20-somethings taking the same test under the same conditions." (I may be wrong, but that's what I would like to think.) I also found a study by UVA that is looking for participants, in case anyone is interested: http://faculty.virginia.edu/cogage/

I did some research after asking this, and the studies' results seem to contradict each other. Apparently, our brains are largest at the age of 14, and we're smartest at about 15, especially in terms of new concept absorption. While that may be true, I once read that a fatty substance called myelin, which apparently facilitates rapid and efficient processing, is most ubiquitous in the brain in your early twenties, and a gradual decrease in this substance is probably responsible for mental decline. But a major longitudinal study on the topic found that mental abilities are largely constant from 20 to 60, and that through training, elderly brains can be significantly revitalized. I theorize that a major confounding factor is the tendency to retire around 60.

Go for it :)

I stumbled upon Feross Aboukhadijeh, and I think he mentioned HN on Twitter or something. It was in a negative context, as in, "Stop constantly checking Hacker News and actually do stuff," and I now understand why. Glad I found it, though!

At what age would you say you were smartest, if you have noticed any fluctuation? I hear you mental power peaks at about 22 and begins to decline after 26, but that's pretty depressing, and I don't want to believe it, so if you have experience to counter or confirm this, please share. If you have noticed any decline in "fluid intelligence," is it negligible? Does your wisdom and experience outweigh any mental decline in real-life situations? How does age affect creativity? Thank you, wise elders.

I disagree. While the majority of smart kids at school do follow the traditional route, doing their work, conforming to the system (sometimes because it's easy for them, and they may as well take advantage of their brains to get a decent job, and sometimes because they're simply blind), there are always a number of exceptions. You have exceptionally-bright kids who don't know what to do with their lives and slack in school because they're bored and lazy, but you also have exceptionally bright, almost enlightened kids who are extremely passionate about learning, but find themselves disgusted by the mindless conformism required to excel in such an institution. Not every person who can excel wants to excel at something so pointless.

What does this mean for In Rainbows on Rdio? It's basically the reason I subscribed.

It is classy and awesome, but don't forget that he can afford to be classy and awesome. (Everyone knows he's the inventor, and he's got the people and capital to make it happen before anyone else... not that that is necessarily his goal.)

Can't wait to see it.

No, I'm suggesting that the government should offer only the bare minimum with very little freedom of choice if anything at all.

Maybe instead of giving everyone cash, the government could provide people with a default shelter, food plan, etc.

I'm aware.

What a sad truth, especially the last part

In order to stay safe from the government,

1. Don't buy sparkling water if you're a college student

2. Don't bet with friends because an arbitrary threshold of about $2k warrants your execution

3. Don't tell American citizens that their government abuses its power, or you'll be charged with espionage

4. It's probably a bad idea to bear arms these days, because saying "Officer, I have a weapon in the trunk of my car" might give him reason to shoot you in self defense

5. You don't actually have free speech anymore, so be careful about that. If you threaten to shoot up a school, even jokingly and totally within your rights, you will be incarcerated for half a year before your trial. And who knows if the judge will let you off? You just have to pray for one who knows and abides by the constitution.