a_p
Joined 13 years ago
Karma
532
Submissions
109
Member since
Jan 27
Recent submissions
Comment · 9 years ago
His username here is rtm: https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=rtm
Comment · 9 years ago
I don't think the original got enough attention for this one to merit a flag. Also, the guidelines here say that "when you flag something, please don't also comment that you did."
Comment · 13 years ago
There are methods of handwriting that allow you to avoid hand cramps. The Palmer method of handwriting, which was popular in America at the turn of the 20th century, emphasized using the whole arm and shoulder to make marks on the page. In order for this method to be effective your wrists must be limp in order for your arms to slide quickly across the page. Instead of consciously "drawing" letters, you build up and use muscle memory to create letters, in the same way you naturally build and use muscle memory when you throw a ball. If you master this method of handwriting, you can write at 60 words per minute, for hours at a time without your hand cramping. Unfortunately, the Palmer Method was abandoned when education reformers in the U.S found it too "difficult", because it requires months of training and practice to become proficient. It also required left-handed students to write with their right hand, because English runs from right to left and this method requires your other hand to manipulate the paper. As a result, generations of Americans have grown up using an inefficient, painful method of writing.
Of course, the manuscript writers needed to draw the letters in a calligraphic style, which necessitated precise wrist motions. So a writing method designed for brisk mark making wouldn't have helped them.
EDIT: I'm not saying that I support forcing left-handed people to write with their right hands. It may be true that the Palmer method (or any right-hand only method) has a history of teachers using corporal punishment to punish mistakes, but corporal punishment is of course not necessary to become proficient.
Eksith, you're right that "drawing" the letters doesn't have anything to do with the speed at which letters are made. The "drawing" comment was made about why many people's cursive handwriting is so poor. When students learn cursive now, too often they are simply copying letters from a book or blackboard ("drawing the letters"), instead of practicing the physical motion. So when students need to write cursive script quickly, they don't have enough time to render each letter correctly and consequently they develop their own methods muscle movements, which usually leads to sloppy handwriting. The same kind of thing can happen when you are taught to type. Correct touch typing teaches you to let your finger return to the home row after pressing a key before you reach for another key. If you aren't taught to do this, you will develop your own muscle movements that are suitable for typing some words, but lead to mistakes in others.
A common error is letting your finger hover near the letter you typed when the same letter is repeated in the word that you are typing. This seems like an "optimization", but it isn't, and causes lots of spelling errors because it can easily mess up your key press timing. Using your own "optimizations" might be able to type as quickly as a touch typist in short stretches, but it is far more likely that you will make more errors.
Comment · 13 years ago
The real scandal here happened in 1959. When Congress passed created 501(c)(4)s, the law said that (emphasis is mine): "Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare".
In other words, 501(c)(4)s were intended to be allowed to spend NO MONEY on politics. However, a 1959 IRS regulation decided that "exclusively" (0%) really meant "primarily"(up to 49%), and in doing so they completely changed the spirit of law, which was not only illegal, but made the new law a nightmare difficult to enforce. Every single 501(c)(4) that has spent money on politics since 1959 has been in violation of the law passed by Congress — which means that the real law is almost guaranteed not to be enforced.
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/06/17/the-real-ir...
Comment · 13 years ago
> We were once great at innovating in the physical world...But recently, software (and mostly Internet software) has been the focus of innovation, and its importance is probably still underestimated—there are compounding effects to how it’s changing the world that we’re only now beginning to see...But innovation in the physical world (besides phones and computers) over the same time period has been less impressive.
Actually, I would argue that the opposite is true. Software hasn't really had any important innovations (using David Wheeler's definition, which is from a CS/EE perspective, and which is linked to every couple of months on HN[1]). The software required to run a smartphone isn't significantly different than the software needed to run a similar application on a desktop. On the other hand, the hardware on a smartphone now and a desktop from the 90s is different. We take hardware advances like reliable capacitive touchscreens and maybe this storage advance linked to on HN today [2], and Moore's "Law" for granted, but "putting more transistors in a circuit" and increased hardware capabilities were the bottleneck to producing today's technology, not new software techniques.
The reason that people associate software with innovation is because it has become the latest tech buzzword. When a word is overused in this manner, it is hard to have a conversation about it because the definition has been degraded to include pretty much anything. The granting of patents to trivial software ideas gives companies a claim to innovation that they do not deserve.
Rayiner's comment on this thread:
> The long-hanging fruit is gone, and all that's left is hard engineering.
will soon be true for computer hardware, and eventually "Moore's Law" will be broken. When software does not become significantly faster each release cycle, it will be more apparent that hardware is responsible for today's advances as opposed to software.