4,732 karma · joined August 14, 2007
As far as I know, Dawkins' books give his version of evolution, that is somewhat non-standard and not yet proven. Gould used to write about evolution more as it was widely accepted by scientists on his time. I know they both have disagreements, but as far as I know Dawkins is faster in writing about not very accepted subjects as widely accepted science.
Touché. If your criteria for good programmers is ok, then you are right.
And how did you tell the difference? (when it wasn't obvious... or was it always obvious?)
Anyway, I don't like the hyperbrain word (sounds too powerful, as if being better than the other brains and I don't like it), though I really like your articles on the subject btw.
Edit: I agree that this way you can recognize good programmers, but are all good programmers supposed to be that way, or only hyperbrain/INTP/whatever?
What I do believe is that content can get better if people actively submit more articles (so spending a little more energy in the site), not only by voting the articles in the new queue.
Anyway I have the feeling that the quality of articles in the site isn't always getting worse... these days I'm quite happy about it.
Anyone working in computer vision can tell me if I'm right or wrong? I've been working in the area in some small projects, but they were extremely related to this eye-tracking stuff.