nmrm

Right, okay, so lisp is primarily a programming language for practical software development. That's really my whole point.

I'd argue that there are lots of other settings with ideas a powerful or more powerful than whatever it is each individual evangelist feels someone should get out a lisp. Yet none of these other things have enlightened evangelists pushing the product.

That's all I'm saying.

I mean, a really solid understanding of substitution is probably one of the major contributions of lambda calculus. For what's effectively an implementation to get that wrong is pretty pathological. And also, there's no reason to defend it. It's a bug. Period. Yet here we are.

And there's a whole hell of a lot more in the world than software development...

To the extent that lisp captures any of these other foundational ideas/theories/techniques, type theory does better (which is what I was pre-empting with my original reference, not the role of type systems in the world of practical software development).

Research is significantly different from private, for-profit business.

And those studies are always IRB-approved. The IRB takes into account the conflict of interest, and will sometimes protest if you don't pay the student subjects (e.g. if the study involves a significant time commitment).

Lisp's macros don't even get variable binding right. Treatment of bound variables was one of the explicit purposes for the development of lambda calculus in the first place. Imho if you get something as fundamental as this wrong, you don't get to play.

But Im not going to get into a language war.

Stepping back to the original point, there are other significantly important/powerful ideas in the world, and lisp users are somewhat over-the-top in their significance-to-hype ratio.

lol @ random downvotes for criticizing lisp. Set and match.

I worked through SICP years ago and used scheme as my primary language for a couple of years. I write in an ML dialect at my day job.

1. lisp got a lot of stuff wrong; there's really no reason not to use scheme.

2. lisp syntax is more something to overcome than something to become "enlightened" about. Language syntax no longer has to be motivated by ease of parsing.

3. Dynamic typing only gets so enlightening. At the end of the day, type theories are where the rubber hits the road.

4. Macros don't excite me much. I mean, they're cool, sure. Okay.

At the end of the day, there's a lot more exciting stuff out there (e.g. any math class beyond the calculus sequence or so) that people get way less worked up about.

It's possible to understand lisp, think that there are important ideas there, but not go around evangelizing. Most smart people who study something non-trivial don't evangelize.

I think the whole enlightenment thing w.r.t. lisp is overblown.

Wow. Most trade jobs require at least a high school diploma; many require some additional training (not necessarily an associates degree, but often a certificate of some sort, and enrollment in those courses requires a diploma).

Wow! I had exactly the opposite experience. Although by high school was very working class and my college very white.

It doesn't sound like you were actually arrested...

I think they were born in the 80's. Which means they were kids in the 90's and early 2000's, at the very peak of the US prison population boom.

I could be wrong.

Oh man, thank you for asking this question.

If so, it's a pretty intelligent way to test chat bots, assuming you interpret karma as "votes" the the bot is human.

I think the standard view is that this is exploitative, and I doubt you would find many students opting in.

The closest analogous scenario: there are pretty strict ethical rules against e.g. professors offering extra help to students in exchange for labor. Doing so would probably be grounds for inquiry and possible dismissal, even from a tenure position. I realize it's not exactly the same scenario, but it's probably as close as you can get where there are codified rules.

It's worth noting that at most colleges, the pay is quite low and most of the tutors are older students.

Also, it's less "I'm motivated to learn something on my own and quite intelligent, but don't know how to code" and a lot more "tell me how to do this project so I can drink this weekend."

Oh wow, after the first few screens you get an "if I repeat it enough maybe it will be true?!" feeling :-( Also, this: On July 22, we'll announce our earnings results for the past quarter and I'll say more then on what we are doing in FY15 to focus on our core. <screen after screen of corporatespeak>

I wish I cared enough to place a bet that those reports aren't positive...

> Parents are happy, society is happy.

Except the kid, who will now have to live with legally sanctioned sexual assault.

that 1/2 of recipients.... decided it was in their best interest to return to university.

This is consistent with the author's statement that "half of them admitting they plan to go back at a later date". Just because you're not currently in college doesn't mean they've not decided returning is in their best interest.

I just assumed the author of the article was reporting facts. there's no way to no either way, so I'm not sure there's much value in speculating.

Thanks for clarifying.

If 1/2 are planning to go back at a later date, that means they've decided attending college is in their best interest. Which was my claim; I didn't say they are currently attending.

I guess it ultimately boils down to whether you trust the author's reporting; I typically assume everyone takes the article's contents as granted unless they've explicitly stated otherwise.

But in any case, "keep your options open" is not exactly the message touted by the Thiel et al PR campaign surrounding the fellowship program.

Sure, there are problems with higher ed. Esp w.r.t. cost.

Popularizing a myth that skipping out on college is a rational self-interested choice for most actors is ethically dubious, especially when the people you're convincing are kids (who you aren't simultaneously handing 100k to). I think it's fair to say that the effect of rhetoric counts as much as intent.

Any deeper argument about the structure of US higher education is really beside the point.

edit: removed some thoughts about the matter that's beside the point.

I don't understand. What's wrong with my original sentence?

About 1/2 are returning to college: (However, the fact that 1/2 of recipients of a very prestigious award (and the associated money/opportunity)).

No one is forcing them: (decided)

Presumably they made the choice by deciding it would benefit them to do so (because it keeps their options open, maybe, and maybe other reasons as well): (it was in their best interest to return to university).

I don't see the flaw is reasoning here. Help?

> How do you know how you "learn best" as a 16-19 year old who has never even been to college?

I think I understood how I learn best by the time I was in middle school or so. Hasn't changed much since then.

Since all my other comments are quite negative, I'll take a moment to defend the OP here.

Notice their justification begins with "I find I learn best...". Sounds like perhaps the best way to justify a decision about one's education.

As for breadth, it's true. College makes accumulating these experiences very easily. Luckily, there are lots of smart people out there for anyone who might want to broaden their horizons while not attending college. In fact, part of the point of college is realizing this is true and figuring out how to benefit from these opportunities.

I didn't have to.

> seems to me you misunderstand Thiel's thesis

Frankly, I don't give a damn.

What matters to me is that kids make decisions about their lives for the right reasons and with all the available information. And I like to think that Thiel, on an individual basis, wants the exact same thing. Which is why, I imagine at least, he's perfectly okay with these fellows returning to university.

But I think Thiel's (and other's) "don't need college" PR is unproductive in this respect. The nuance of the actual positions is irrelevant when that's not what is (very intentionally) communicated.

Your original claim was sloppy and wrong.

The article to you link to is much more clear headed about the role of the model. It's a useful tool, not a glass ball.

There's a hell of a huge difference between a model predicting something, and people applying/adopting the model -- together with a LOT of other tools and insights -- to predict something.

It's as stark as the difference between executing a program and getting an exact output, and using a programming language, together with some bits of math, to write a program which computes a result for you.

Back to the point: since lots and lots others made similar predictions about the housing market (and beyond), I'm much more inclined to believe that it was a strong focus on data and observation -- not any particular model per say -- that allowed smart people to accurate predictions.

> I don't consider the CTO a scum for making a ridiculous offer

It's the pressure that bothered me.

The offer is also kind-of scummy even without pressure, though. High school kids are still kids, even the really smart ones. Role models matter a lot. Also, and this is pure conjecture, I imagine it's harder to walk away from the cash when you're coming out a low-income background, even if it's the completely rational self-interested thing to do.

Maybe I should have been more specific. Major and content agnostic standardized tests are useless at the college level.

This should be fairly obvious; I think you have to do some work to believe it's possible that it isn't true. How can you measure how well a university prepared a student if you don't even know what the student majored in?

On thing you can measure some fairly rudimentary stuff they should have had coming in (grammar, basic math, etc.). But this is answering the wrong question; universities shouldn't be responsible for catching students up. It's a disservice to people who actually wanted to take the course in which the review happens.

The other thing you can do is measure generic "critical thinking". But I think this sort of test is ripe for abuse. I don't trust college administrators to not abuse it. And besides, generic "critical thinking" isn't. See the link I posted in my other response here.

This matters because the Thiel Fellowship program has a political backdrop, and is motivated by/supports the "you don't need college" message.

That message, should an average American (not a Thiel fellow) take it to heart, is demonstrably and empirically not in their self interest. Period.

Thiel Fellows are some of the brightest of the bright; of course not attending college won't hurt them in the long run. And accepting a prestigious fellowship will certainly help, at the very least in the short run. So the fellowship makes a lot of sense, and no one claims fellows were hurt just because they return to academia.

However, the fact that 1/2 of recipients of a very prestigious award (and the associated money/opportunity) decided it was in their best interest to return to university is important. It's important because it cast a pretty serious shadow on Thiel's view of college as unnecessary (or over-rated or not in most people's interest... however you want to hedge his claim.)

So while Thiel fellows aren't hurt per se, anyone else listening to the "don't go to college" advice can consider this a rude wake-up call.

So. That's why it matters.

BTW: recently talked with a HS student who got into Harvard (low income, so full ride), but some startup guy was pressuring him to not go to college and instead take a dev job paying $40k. I consider these sort of people scum. I don't know if they are assuaging their insecurities or what, but I don't know how you can look a youth in the eye and tell them to get a day job making web apps (for someone else) instead of going to Harvard for free for four years. Especially when the free tuition alone costs more than the offered salary. Scum.

> There's an economic theory that predicted the crisis, and explains it. I.e. ABCT

No. People who like the theory saw real world events that kind of sort of looks like ABCT could explain them, and then made a post facto observation.

Unless Mises et al. made some sort of prediction based upon at the time non-existent financial instruments, ABCT did not predict the 2008 sub-prime financial collapse. Period.

To the extent that ABCT predicted anything, it was a "something bad will happen; not sure when!" with the preconditions in play since about 1980. Color me unimpressed; I bet some random fortune teller got more accurate than that on accident.

Now, maybe some economic philosophers who likes the model applied it, which provided the basis their prediction of actual real world events. I don't know.

But then, proponents of regulation predicted the collapse as well. In fact, a lot of people accurately predicted the (actual) collapse, and to various degrees the cascade effects.

> it's not as clear cut when there's 'crony capitalism' and other market distortions.

"Oh yes, if only the world met all of our Axioms. Then everything would be grand!" said every failed political economic project ever.

> Problems are always going to occur, but because humans are motivated to solve the problems, solutions are found.

And as it turns out, lots of times those people are working in government funded research labs and universities, or applying research funded in those labs and universities.

You'll excuse us mere mortals for drawing such wildly wrong conclusions from something as banal as observation! You see, it's just that we've lost our list Axioms and now our only reference point is reality... perhaps you could lend us your map to drill on?