qzxt

no they weren't making sexual jokes. (a) the man has said that his statement about forking was taken out of context, which I'll grant your sensibilities the benefit of the doubt and say maybe he's not telling the truth on that, but then again we shouldn't assume andria is telling the truth, either. so we'll make that one a toss-up then.

Now (b) noting that the word dongle sounds like dong is not a sexual joke. it is a joke, many would say in poor taste, but it isn't sexual in anyway unless your understanding of sexuality didn't evolve beyond age 12 and you still laugh every time the guy at the hot dog stand says wiener.

neither of them should have lost their jobs and this issue has evolved into something else completely. However, there is no denying that what she did was a gross abuse of whatever influence she had and was little more than playground pettiness on her part. They said something that was not in her taste and rather than be an adult and point out to them or to pycon that she was uncomfortable, she decided to publicly shame him. that's just the truth of the matter.

I'm not sure how one could possibly interpret any of my statements as being condescending towards art, so perhaps the problem is your inability to understand the topic at hand rather than my "condescending attitude". Like I've pointed out numerous times, I like things beyond the sciences, like every other human being on this planet. Lawyers don't just do law, they listen to music, they play sports. People don't do just one thing.

You mentioned that I didn't read poetry in college. You're right. As a matter of fact, I didn't complete college. I got out after a year. So if you wouldn't mind keeping your presumptions to yourself, that would be great.

Like I have said before, economics is king. You have acknowledged that your narrow idea of "art" is not economically viable. In the normal definition of art, which encompasses music, dance, film, orchestral performance, design, etc, I'm sorry but you have to be living under a rock to imply that people don't pursue these fields. So after reading your post I'm convinced your gripe is not math, it's not science, it's not history, and it's not literature. It's that people aren't paying tens of thousands of dollars to go to college to study what is really just an interest. Where the author's post reflected some one-dimensional, condescending view of people who don't just draw all day - essentially the artsy equivalent of "you haven't read Ulysses? well poo-poo you my illiterate friend" - your posts reflect a condescending view towards people who don't share your singular world view of "art". The fundamental argument, to put it as simply as I can, has been that the cornerstone of our education system has rested in the classics, literature, and art. That is what you need to be considered cultured and creative and educated. Knowledge of the liberal arts (which by the definition of the word should include the maths and sciences) has been restricted to those fields. One doesn't tell people one can't read and feel proud of oneself. When one finds out you haven't read the Iliad, or you even deign to ask what "post-structuralism" is to our "intelligentsia" you are looked down on like an uneducated bonehead who has been living under a rock. To proclaim a lack of understanding of basic algebra, OTOH is almost a badge of honor. So again, you seem to be conflating economic viability with societal cachet. So really, the only thing I've gotten out of your posts is "my singular vision of art is not necessarily economically sustainable, and I'm angry that people don't pursue it as a career".

Furthermore, I did not "stigmat[ize] the creation of art as "doodling", I was calling into question your premise that because math is made compulsory for basic education in schools and art isn't, it reflects some general societal respect for sciences. Before the 1930's and 40's if an American wanted to do real research, they usually had to go to Europe. Even our highest of institutions looked down on research as being inappropriate for universities. Today, this disdain for the theoretical still lies in our culture. So why the giant about face vis-a-vis research? It became economically viable after the war, but especially during the space race. I became a programmer because that was a skill I had that I could make money with. I provided value because someone wanted to buy what I made. People become lawyers, doctors, engineers, historians, designers, etc because those are skills they have that they can assuredly provide value to other people with. Now if someone thought my piano playing was so beautiful that she would pay my rent just for me to play all day long, I'd become a pianist. It doesn't mean I love programming less, neither does me being a programmer mean I love piano and poetry less. So I feel you have to come to terms with the fact that what one does as a career is not an all-encompassing definition of who one is. In any case, the argument is not about careers, it's about a backwards, self-serving definition of creativity being purported by people who are upset that their privileged cachet to the use of that word, without question is being threatened by the "analytical baby killers".

a science center is different from a science museum. i didn't say this difference was dependent on the formality of presentation.

my bad man. been up too late, I meant theater and performance. From the link http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/11/col...

"In 2009 the U.S. graduated 89,140 students in the visual and performing arts, more than in computer science, math and chemical engineering combined and more than double the number of visual and performing arts graduates in 1985."

As for the museums, unfortunately kid science centers, imaginariums, and aquariums aren't science museums.

"RISD is a very small school. Only 2,282 students total. According to [1], they had 835 admissions, with a 34% acceptance rate. If my math is right, that makes for 2,455 applicants."

I'm afraid you're missing the point. The point is that those who want to study art will study art. In addition many don't just study "art" in the traditional sense of making paintings. They study some applicability of art whether it's design, architecture, etc. Why? Well the same reason more people become programmers and not computer scientists, or engineers and not theoretical physicists. Theory only appeals to some people

"But how much math did they take by the time they make it through high school math? Maybe 9, 10, or even 12 years of math. Which is probably an order of magnitude more than they have years of art"

Again, I'm going to have to ask you to be specific with your definition of the "creative arts" because it seems your gripe is that we are teaching kids math instead of drawing in school; to which of course the appropriate response is school is for learning, not for doodling. Just like you should have a certain level of reading capacity, you should also have a certain level of reasoning capacity. This is the bare minimum one should have. So if your gripe is about the amount of math taught, well, I hope you take that same gripe with history, literature, geography, and even PE. Furthermore, art classes are offered as electives and are free to be utilized by students who want to take them.

"Of those, I'd say Nursing and the more sciencey fields like Biology, Computer science, Psychology, and maybe some Political science need math. The others not so much. Of course, out of these, Computer science is the most math-heavy. Incidentally, according to this[5], Stanford's most popular major now is Computer Science"

Seriously, what point are you trying to make? It seems more like you're disgruntled that math is relevant to more spheres of life than art - however it is that you are defining that. Furthermore, noting the dearth of CS grads at Stanford is like noting the dearth of engineers at MIT (or blackjack players ;) ). What do you think the school is famous for? In any case, the author of the essay's point has nothing to do with who is studying what because if it were he'd be complaining about social science, humanities, and business majors. His essay is about the demise of creativity - however he defines that. Furthermore, as a relation to my first post, noting that one should learn science before one has an opinion about it, it seems it would be beneficial if you followed that. Just because one reads a "science" subject does not mean they will learn math, especially not Biology and Psychology. As a matter of fact, many CS grads get away with only calc 1. And to be clear, until you get past calc 4, you're not really doing "math", just numeric manipulation - which itself isn't trivial.

To be clear: it's not about how many areas of life find math beneficial. As a matter of fact, that is the point. Despite the overwhelming potential for analytics to transform the world, despite the new knowledge to be gained STEM has not been culturally relevant till now. Now is when it is most painfully obvious that he who understands the world holds the power. It used to be he who holds the purse strings, but thanks to the litany of these technologies that we're talking about, it's becoming less so (though not fast enough). The important questions in the world are/have been/ are being asked, and not many of them involve "self-expression". Knowledge of Science and Math add a whole new dimension to our exploration of the world and people are just taking notice. That is the point. The journey that STEM has made from esoterica to becoming a full participant in the cultural discussion. The idea that we can even consider STEM a cultural activity. Smashing that barrier that keeps people assuming that STEM people are these little weird people with their irrelevant subjects and threats to human existence and starting to see it as a part of the human experience like any other. That's what I'm talking about. That's what the author of the essay doesn't get. That's why I keep volunteering to teach kids math and physics on my own dime. So of course, arrogantly determining, from an old world view of the subject, that STEM is a mechanistic chore best left for uncreative robots is not only very annoying but very unproductive. I'm sure you're very passionate about art, and in a perfect world, we would all have the things we love be recognized both culturally and economically. But antagonizing an entire field just because one's field isn't getting the limelight is not a productive way to go.

"Far, far fewer want to be an art major and try to survive as an artist (or even an art teacher)"

Are you discounting the multitudes that study fashion design and graphic design? The ones that pile on at RISD and New School? Julliard? At this point I feel you should specify what you consider an artistic pursuit

"As far as math goes, maybe not all that many kids want to be mathematicians, but plenty do take a fair bit of math on their way to becoming engineers, programmers, doctors, and scientists. They all certainly take far more math courses than art courses."

No, actually beyond basic high school math many people never touch math again. Not even calculus. You talk about the ones on their way to becoming engineers and such. That's like complaining that people at chef school take more cooking classes than astrophysics classes. You talk about engineers, programmers, and scientists like everyone's just lining up at the door to become one.

"few artists take many math courses, but there are far fewer art students than there are students of professions that rely on math and need a decent education in math to graduate."

See the chefs and astrophysics above. A further counterpoint is that there are more students who graduate college who take a cultural "creative" course than there are students who take math. And like you've alluded to, many who even bother to touch calculus are the ones who are required to.

Thanks, I'll definitely check it out. I signed up for lessons at the local YMCA, but this could be a nice supplement. Thanks again!

If you're talking about the economic prognosis of art, I'd like to direct you to the world of high-end sports cars. There are many people who can afford to buy and maintain them in this world. Not all of them do. Just like many people can afford to buy works of art, but not all of them do. Why? Because one doesn't really need a sports car, just like one doesn't really need an art piece. The author's essay isn't one of the lament of the hard times of an artist. It is a lament of the diminishing of creativity because his definition of creativity is rooted in a traditionalist idea of creativity as resting solely in the lap of artists. Before the PC revolution no one would want their kids to be programmers. "Programmers were smelly fat white kids". Now it's a hot commodity. Welcome to the markets. Mathematicians were "useless theorists" till a couple of decades ago (as a matter of fact many people still think this). Until industrialization, scientists were a bunch of "rich white guys, not in tune to the needs of the common man". And more importantly, up until recently, engineers were little math nerds, easy bait for the MBA alpha dudes.

You're confusing economic safety with societal respect. If you're talking about the economic aspect, as far as being a professional artist, well guess what; when I was a kid I wanted to be a poet. Poems wouldn't keep a roof over my head and hell, at the time, neither would code. Hasn't stopped me from writing poems in my spare time and engaging in my other pursuits. If ever a time comes when one could sustainably make money selling art, then I'm sure many artists and even non artists will flood the market. But economics isn't the author's thesis.

Why thank you. As a mechanistic science robot, I find that flattering. I meant no hemispheric dominance with regards to how people think, not in terms of physical/motor skill. My bad

This talk of "right-brain" revolution has become so popular that no one even realizes the fundamental irony of it all. The fallacy that the "creative" arts have been under appreciated in society is the largest piece of bollocks I've ever heard. I voluntarily teach math at a school here in MN, so i get some insight into what's going on at the schools and the fact is, while the politicians and corporations are sounding off about STEM, at schools people are still talking more about funding "the arts". Before the rise of the "geek billionaires" guess the largest form of cultural philanthropy: "the arts" (probably still is). We have more people who graduate with degrees in dance than we do people who graduate with degrees in mathematics. Hollywood probably has more failed actors than the valley has failed entrepreneurs. We have more art and history museums than we have science and engineering museums. Unless you've made a lot of money and you've been on the cover of Forbes, or you put an autonomous vehicle on Mars while wearing a Mohawk, telling people you're a programmer/mathematician/scientist is more likely to get them to presumptuously assume you're some mechanistic robot than for them to say "wow, interesting stuff". This new wave of complaining about the lack of attention to "the creative arts" reminds me of that good old cultural phenomenon known as mansplaining. But these are "the arts" so I guess they're artsplaining (badum-bam)

That "left brain/right brain" business is the stupidest, most egregious display of a lack of understanding of basic neuroscience. It is a metaphor. You know, that thing the "creatives" love so much. it is a metaphor used to explain different psychological states. There is no physical hemispheric dominance (edit: with regard to how one thinks about things, not with regard to physical processes.), there are just ways of thinking. Those who examine things more deeply are said to be "left brained" and those who make connections at the high-level are said to be "right brained". It is not an excuse for why people suck at math or programming. It is not some genetic gift/curse only placed on a few people. As a matter of fact nobody is ever always right-brained/left-brained. People go with the mode of thinking they feel is appropriate for the situation. Besides STEM, analytical thinking is necessary in philosophy, literature, economics, sociology, and all other forms of the humanities, because they're not just a bunch of people sitting down, looking for the best way to jerk off their egos by saying the "deepest" thing (at least they're not supposed to be).

Second, this resurgence of math envy is merely a reflection of the fact that the importance of science and math are finally being recognized in society. So the author shouldn't get his panties in a bunch; no one is dragging the humanities down from it's privileged societal prestige. We simply don't have to scramble for answers to give to kids when they ask why all this algebra stuff is important. In reality, it's important in the same way history, literature, and civics is important: it's not. None of them are. Are you telling me high school history and civics left you with the propensity to be a more informed voter? Are you telling me you really genuinely explored the theme of revenge in Hamlet? Or did you just read the spark notes? Henry Ford couldn't read well and famously didn't know the date of the American Revolution, he still rose from a farm boy to becoming one of the richest men in this country (he was also a good engineer). STEM is important to know in the same way humanities and "creative arts" are important in that they are ways to help you understand the world. Simple as. The only difference is it's a lot harder to convince them that "physics is what powers your car" than it is to BS them about how history makes us a more informed society (seriously, have to taken a look out there? it's a freakin' jungle!)

Third, and most important. He's right. Don't learn to code, learn to draw. Fuck it, learn to ride a bicycle. Next week, I'm going to start swimming lessons - in my twenties! Our senseless push to get kids to learn to code is like this senseless hyper-aggrandizing of the "creatives". We should be teaching kids to learn to think. It's easy to do stuff. It's easy to train kids to learn some task for some as-at-yet determined future purpose. It's easy to code. It's easy to draw. What's hard is thinking, and that's where the creativity is. As a matter of fact, not only is the cultural perception of coding and math as more mechanistic in contrast with humanities and the "creative arts" wrong, the opposite is , in fact, the case. Anyone who has every learned a musical instrument and doesn't look back on it with rose-colored glasses can attest to the mechanistic heartlessness of the piano or the guitar. Drawing is merely the act of building a motor skill. So is dancing. But guess what, once you're done with the hours of torture to get good, then you realize the fun. When you come back from school and drop your bags and you bang out a perfect rendition of Chopin's Prelude No 4, then you truly understand the magnificence of the piano. Much in the same way, when you've crammed the ifs and elses, the fors and whiles, the variables and constants, the pointers and pointers to pointers, and pointers to functions, and pointers to pointers to pointers to functions, and then you go on to build that thingamabob or model that gene sequence or understand that earthquake, then you realize the true power of what you've been working with. So this false dichotomy of "creatives" and mechanistic science robots propped up by people who simply don't want to learn math and are mad that not knowing math and science is less of a badge of honor in society anymore misses the point. And while it reads nice (hey, it has nice fonts, man) and could be a nice rallying cry for people like him, what he should understand is that he is not defending creativity, he is defending ignorance. He is defending a one-seided traditional view of creativity - which is where the irony of his essay lies. And at the end of the day, the only true creativity is the one that comes out of understanding. That is a creativity a series of pretty pictures can never embody, only the artist, geneticist, programmer, linguist, or even the swimmer (did I mention I'm learning to swim? :) ) So to anyone else who feels a divide between their "creative arts" and "cold logical science" my advice: learn some science, then you can have an opinion of science. But hopefully after actually peeking in to see what it's about rather than making flawed generalizations based on traditional views of an emerging way of seeing the world, you would have learned a new way of looking at the world.

for what i's worth, i think this is not a problem at all, speaking from the point of view of a parent. as a society we have put school at the level of a deity; something we don't question, just do. back in the day, a good, god-fearing man went to church on sunday. do you live a virtuous life? yes. do you pray everyday? morning and night. do you practice the teachings of the bible? without failure. but all of this didn't matter if you didn't go to church on sundays with everyone else. why? is church not about communicating with your lord? is it not about hearing the word of god and assimilating it? is it not about praising his holy name? yes to all of this. but somehow, the act of going to church overshadowed the point of going to church. much in the same way, the point of school - to be educated - has been overshadowed by the act of going to school. we just dump our kids there because we're expected to. we are somehow convinced that the only way for them to get a good education is to sit in a building and read books so they can come back with a good grade and "make us proud." we don't question it. we don't ask what exactly this "education" is and why is school the best place to get it?

personally speaking i think this is a kid who has found something he would like to do and is rather good at it. without being too long winded, i think it would be best you spoke to his parents about instilling the virtue of being educated in him rather than coercing him to go to school for the sake of it. the reality is, people graduate from school and forget almost everything. but just because they have the credentials, we are somehow supposed to say they're educated. this has been true in my professional life, and not to demean anyone i know, but also in my personal life. education follows you your entire life. it never stops. school ends after four years, and college after another four. at the end of it you would have been no more enlightened about the world around you as you scramble through the transition to "adulthood" - read: getting a job and abandoning the principles that plato and cicero should have taught you, in the interest of moving on up - and if for nothing else, in most cases all that enlightenment is not enlightenment that can only be received via the blessing of the high priest of harvard. i think that should be the important thing to teach any kid, but especially this kid, and when that is learned, school becomes a mere option, rather than the necessity we all portray it to be.

for a personal background, i'm 26, now, and i actually graduated high school when i was about his age, so i understand his perspective. it was dull. i earned the best grades, but i won't deceive myself into saying i actually <i>learned</i> anything. in fact i saw school like everyone else saw school, a collection of classes that were nothing more than classes. i was so terrible and disdainful of maths and sciences that i consoled myself with the idea that they weren't important. after all, i was learning government, economics, sociology; stuff about the "real world." i could quote marx, engels, keynes, and friedman, word for word. i could tell you the difference between totalitarianism and authoritarianism. i could write long essays about the historical context of pride and prejudice. but i never understood any of it. i simply knew them, so i could pass classes very easily because tests were basically "tell me what you read in the book." it wasn't until i graduated that i came across the local public library. i picked up a random book on math and it hit me in the face like a truck. all of a sudden it all had meaning. it wasn't just a bunch of numbers that magically produce other numbers. history wasn't just a bunch of white guys killing themselves. jefferson wasn't just a hypocritical bastard who owned slaves. gradually i stopped seeing education as this prescribed list of books i should read and things i should say. it was all around me all this time. and once you know one thing, you simply want to know more. i'm sorry if it sounds a bit fruity, but it's true. and i thank my mother for not only being supportive in not forcing me to go to college to do the whole child prodigy thing, but also in reconsidering her former idea of education, which was in line with the mainstream view, and coming along with me in the educational journey. it made the world of difference being able to discuss philosophy, in earnest with someone else, rather than have it conferred down to me by some high priest. so you would imagine, it's a bit irritating to hear people talk as if school was this holy arbiter of education. with regards to this kid's parents, my personal opinion would be to engage them in discussion of what exactly education is and focus more on instilling the virtue of education and knowledge in him. present things as they are, life, rather than a series of facts that they have to learn in a building and it won't matter whether or not he was educated in a building, called school, or if he was educated in his fracking car. especially as he's 15 now, support and guidance are the best things his parents can give him. support through his business endeavors and educational endeavors and guidance for when he may seem to be going astray - which, statistically, he will :). and they can't effectively do that if they aren't clear on what exactly their son should get from an education, or even what it is. of course it will be tough, straying away from the traditional route. there is no manual, there are no prescribed books. probably everyone they know went to school and has kids who are going to school. but sometimes the road less travelled is the one that makes all the difference. i wish all parties involved good luck regardless of which road they choose

So is your point that he was incorrect in stating that a lot of people post their age in order to get to the front page or that calling that action manipulative is wrong? The thesis of the post seemed to me to be if you make a product, focus on making the product better and everything else falls into place. Very fair bit of advice if you ask me. Furthermore, it states another related thing which is, how are you going to get any actual feedback when all the comments are either calling you an asshole or rallying around you, singing war cries. Now with regard to posting age, that's actually very variable why people do that, and from an objective standpoint I don't find anything wrong with that. However if what you're after is guidance then it's pretty obvious posting your age isn't going to get you much of that.

If this is in relation to http://vishnumenon.com/2013/01/21/im-35-months-old-and-i-mad... then I think you miss the point. I agree with the author of that and it is the most common sense post I've read, so far, regarding this issue. The reality is people posting their age doesn't simply mean "I am new at this. I know you guys aren't. I want you to check it out and give me encouragement and guidance." Simultaneously the people throwing out the "age is irrelevant" argument simply miss the point, also. I'm 19 and I've been programming for as long as I can remember starting with my shitty commodore64 hand-me-down. Along the years I have received much criticism and help and am immensely grateful to the people who took the time out to answer every question I had, trivial and otherwise - and believe me, there were plenty of them. However the idea of constructive criticism on HN, and sadly, in the hacker community at large is ironically more political than logical. "Criticism" seems to be code for "I'm smarter than you and I'll be damned if I don't make sure you know it." The hostility towards, not just kids, but people's projects in general borders on the pathological and that's what needs to be addressed. I wholeheartedly agree that kids who are building fun projects do need that nudge and that encouragement to go deeper down the rabbit hole, however we should indeed distinguish between encouragement and patting on the back. The problem is the risk of creating a Hollywoood mentality (Hollywood may be the bastion of acting but really most people are more attracted to the prospects of fame than actual acting). We need to give them encouragement that lets them enjoy the process, not just massaging their egos, and moreover we need to get them to enjoy constructive criticism and see it not as "boo-hoo they didn't like my stuff" but as "hmm I never thought about that." The reality is, the poisonous, know-it-all, thinly veiled political nature of our culture doesn't provide this.