roundsquare

I'm going to suggest indoor* wall climbing as a hobby. Lots of nerds like it because its actually very analytic. Doing a particular climb often requires analyzing where the hand/foot holds are and figuring out the best way to use them. If you've ever done any work in AI, you run into problems where you its hard to tell if you have a bug in your code or if your learning algorithm isn't very good. Its the same with climbing: is my method bad or am I just doing it wrong?

Edit: one other benefit, if you find a wall you can just go during its open hours and meet people after you get there. In my experience, people will see you struggle with something and swing by to give you a quick tip ("try putting your feet a bit higher", "try using your left hand over here", etc...)

*Indoor because its less intimidating and the walls often have custom made climbs for various skill levels.

I think its common for people to use a phrase like "lease valuable" incorrectly. What he's really saying is that "these other reasons are important but undervalued so you need to consciously emphasize them."

I believe all regulations have to be published as well.

I'm sure there is some bias in terms of picking the articles with predictions that, to some degree, panned out. But, if this author has a track record of accurate predictions, he is worth following.

It's worse in law school. > Some of the books are enormous A lot of people I know get their books cut into smaller pieces and rebound because the books are so heavy. > Annotating the books is a necessity for many people because there is a lot of difficult reading and you need to find ways to focus on the important bits.

I, for one, would welcome the digitization of as many law schools books as possible.

It was for a while with me. I was a more "mathy" CS major which meant that languages that exposed what the computer was doing were more opaque to me... but I'm not sure that I ever considered it "scary and evil."

I wonder if there is a good way to hook it up with this: http://www.ted.com/talks/tan_le_a_headset_that_reads_your_br...

I agree. I would venture that a huge percentage of people don't use more than once calendar. However, if that is true, they re-design didn't solve the problem because its not as if they used the space more efficiently.

"The same lesson is learned either way."

Not at all. Learning how to find the solutions to a problem is very different from learning the solution to your specific issue. I'm not saying its always worth your time, but there is a different lesson learned when you find the solution yourself.

It sounds like you value "getting things done" over "improving your skills." That's not a bad thing, but its not what the article was about.

Ah. Well, its not like your missing or unable to follow a fundamental concept, you just use different symbols. A bit of practice with reading things the "math way" and you'll be fine.

Sorry, what exactly does that mean? Can you give some examples?

"At 9 months, he had completed his goal, and a family member fell ill. He quite before the 1 year, but he had already completed his goals and was on his way to a good life."

Unexpected costs, such as medical costs, are one of the biggest hurdles to digging one's self out of poverty. Poor people don't access to insurance to help smooth out their costs. Of course, bad decisions play a part as well, but its not as easy as this guy's experiment made it seem to get out of poverty.

I disagree. These people are academics who want to help the poor. They go in and try to figure out what could help them and then write about it to help policy makers. It would be nice if policy makers could just figure out what works and do it, but that isn't working, so someone needs to run experiments. What would you prefer they did instead?

This isn't really a condemnation of science as much as its a condemnation of scientific journals and the human process surrounding the scientific method, both of which are well known problems to anyone who follows science at all. This seems like the kind of article that gets written and stashed away to use on a slow news day.

Interesting that the limited the law to highways (edit: the law limited the use of autonomous vehicles to highways) (section 2, paragraph 1). I suppose it makes sense since highway driving is more predictable but its also higher speed and thus accidents are more dangerous. Also, this limitation would require the presence of a human driver to get the car to the highway.

I'm not so confident in that. I don't know anything about Dutch/European law, but in the U.S. there are a lot of times that obscure clauses in long contracts/ToS's are disregarded by courts.

It might at some point, but not yet. This kind of thing would not be feasible enough to do except in extreme circumstances. In the future, as this gets easier to do, it might well become a problem.

Fair enough. "Animosity" might have been the wrong word. I didn't mean to imply that there hadn't been any progress on this front.

Is it really true that its not obvious to Americans? I think anyone even slightly tuned in to whats going on realizes that a lot of the problems now are based on a lack of proper information.

Someone I talked to once said that its time to get rid of rating agencies and replace them with open source rating systems. If we did this, companies could post their own rating and it could be verified by anyone who was interested in them. In addition, people with very specific requirements (for whom the regular ratings don't work) could tweak the systems as needed.

I'm skeptical about this working since rating agencies should, in addition to following formulaic rules, look for company specific pieces of information that would affect the rating, but its an interesting idea.

On top of that, there is still a fairly large amount of animosity between the regions (e.g. North Indians vs. South Indians).

I suppose the most useful part about it is that it lists out the most common things to look out for. Having this list in front of you (or in the front of you mind) can be useful even if all the elements on the list are obvious.

Also, it isn't necessary to deal with the edge cases to handle 99% of what most people encounter.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but seems like the idea of "time being converted into space" is itself pretty meaningless because it implies conversion happening over time.

I tend to expect that this sort of language is a bit of simplifying in the article, not necessarily an issue in the original study.

Random thought comes to mind: Does anyone think that Dan Brown novels might help get more women into Math/CS? They have a tendency to have female techies. I know at least one woman who was inspired by one of the novels to learn a bit about crypto.

The video seemed to start over when I watched it.

Otherwise, I think you need to show some examples that make my mouth water.

How do I apply this in my life? I want to get into shape... doesn't that already put me into the "I will" mode? How do I switch into the "Will I" mode?

Thanks for this. I went through @tptacek's comment, but I don't see any of the quotes in the article. Am I missing something?

I remember on flight sims when I used a joystick, I never thought of "down" and "up." I thought of "pulling towards me" and "pushing away form me." Since the nose of the plane is a bit lower than my head, it works.

For FPSs, I'd use "normal" since I think of the gun moving.