joshrule

That said, philosophy is incredibly important. But, as PG has noted, we tend to do a poor job of it (http://paulgraham.com/philosophy.html). We need to spend more time focused on saying useful, testable things. In short, the best scientific results merge with philosophy. So, everyone should be a philosopher, but should do the majority of their philosophy as science.

Again, both philosophy and computer science are important, but after studying both pretty intensely for 3.5 years (I graduated with over 180 credit hours), you have to pick and choose the philosophy. It's mostly useful for setting the initial biases on which the rest of your science will depend and for continuing to think about things science can't speak to, yet.

Check it out here: http://barkai-serv.weizmann.ac.il/GroupPage/ http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6014/183.abstract

I've been a bit confused about the details of the loper-os project. For some reason, this sentence sparked a micro-epiphany and the whole thing came into focus. So, I thought the article, and the project at large, was worth sharing with HN.

Also, did anyone think of Superman when reading this story? I couldn't help but be reminded that he, too, is healed by "the power of the yellow sun".

The original press release from Berkeley: http://newscenter.lbl.gov/feature-stories/2011/01/18/nanosca...

I wonder how much of that a dog or similar animal picks up on regularly? Could it be that they actually pick up on the majority of our communicated meaning?

What's more, I wonder if we are we actually poorer communicators than animals, because they understand our messages better than we understand theirs?

I will say that, as I'm preparing for grad school, this sort of writing is incredibly helpful. If anyone else is considering writing a piece like this, I encourage you to do so.

Just because the solution isn't perfectly analytic doesn't mean it's wrong, though. In fact, it seems hard to argue that the solutions which work well in natural systems are wrong.

Really, we need a lot more research like this that takes well-working natural systems and distills the underlying model. It seems a bit arrogant to try and independently solve problems when existing solutions are sitting all around us.

Here's the supplemental materials: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6014/183/suppl/DC1

Does anyone have a link to the actual paper?

This prototype reminds me more of big dog: - http://www.bostondynamics.com/robot_bigdog.html

A quick google search didn't turn up anything at deere.com. But, the device was made by Plustech, now Timberjack. Anybody find anything more specific?

Or, do you think it's some other factor?

I've been running an experiment recently to take at least 15 minutes each day to think about my research (I do neuroscience research for a university in DC). The results have been great, and I'm starting to add in more reflective time throughout the day, even when I'm not 'working'. If you're interested, I have been, and will continue to be, writing about it here: http://joshrule.com/blog. Look for posts about trial 2.

If, though, we could whitelist sites, it seems that results would get cleaner faster. I don't care about how many bad sites are out there, as long as helpful sites make it to the top. Plus, I typically use just a few sites to access reliable information anyway (the number's about 7, right?), so if I can whitelist results from those sites, I'll probably find my desired content more quickly.

What about the case when there are 30 spam sites listed before 1 good site? That hasn't happened too often for me. Instead, the results I'm looking for are usually just 4 or 5 spots down the front page, and very occasionally on the second page.

White listing seems like it would still be faster and easier for now.

- Do as much as possible together. Try to play games on the same team. Eat meals together. Talk together. Get ready in the mornings together. Watch movies together. Do as much as you possibly can - together. If you think about the way we use the word 'marry' in other concepts (i.e. the perfect marriage of X and Y), it talks about a blending of two things that becomes a new, third thing. So, marriage isn't just two people living in the same place. It's two people becoming something new together. One of the best examples I've seen of this idea is the second chapter of the book A Severe Mercy. The togetherness the author writes about is ridiculously complete.

- The wedding, as much work as it takes to put together, is just the starting line. Don't make the mistake of thinking that you've won your wife and can move onto another project. It's an incredibly easy mistake to make, and a terribly dangerous one. Marriage, especially because of my first point, is hard work. It's breath-taking and awe-inspiring, but it's also hard work. I Love it!

Congratulations!

Instead, many of the better minimalists I've read cut back on most things so that they can dig in extremely deeply with a few things. They want to be extremely good at a few (2-5) things, and to do so, they sacrifice being moderately good at a large number of things.

The author talks about great achievers soaking themselves in things, building lots of connections, and building great ideas. This 'minimize to maximize' approach does the same thing. It just tries to build connections where they are most likely to be helpful. It understands that with our limited capacity, we should be devoting as much as possible to the most important things in our lives.

Corporations don't make decisions, though. People make decisions. We act as individuals. France doesn't attack Britain. Soldiers in one army attack soldiers in another army. We act as individuals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodological_individualism

I don't agree with everything it said, but The Corporation makes some good points about how corporations as legal entities allow people to abdicate responsibility. Watch it on Youtube here: http://bit.ly/hb0wuL.

Now though, for a 1000-1500 word piece, I spend at least an hour outlining it. Even the outline itself goes through a few drafts before I start trying to add complete paragraphs. I'd rather have a solid grasp on the ideas I want to communicate than on the specific turns of phrase I'll communicate them with. Turns of phrase are a dime-a-dozen. A clearly communicated idea is much harder to find.

A lot of that has come from practice, but I also owe a lot to PG's essays on rapid iteration from mush to presentable product.

The results have been great so far, and those 15 minutes are becoming the most productive part of my entire day. It seems like this time basically assigns problems to my brain, which it works on unconsciously while I'm walking home from the lab.

Because writing is thinking, writing is great. I wonder, though, are there other ways to think which are just as potent, or even more so?

By the way, if you haven't read Good to Great, I highly recommend it. Although based on large, slow-moving businesses, the general points Collins and his team extract are easily applicable to just about any significant project.