hanleybrand

A friend told me recently that they liked Python because it was an easy language to start a project with, but they loved OCaml because it was an easy language to finish a project with.

My point? The best language to learn first is the one you are most likely to be able to finish a project with, and the best approach to figure out which is which is to start learning whichever one seems like the right one. If you're wrong, the good news is it's much easier to learn a second language, and a third, forth, etc.

I started with pascal, and it was the incorrect choice. I'm still not sure what the correct choice would have been, but from here it looks like lisp/small talk, neither of which I have bothered to learn yet. Go figure!

A part of me likes this, and a part of me ❤s this. The rest of me wants to hear what a lawter like Lessig (or someone with a silar amount of experience and stake in the legalese of sharing) would say about it.

My guess is this has as much legal meaning as putting "this is in the public domain" in a readme. (I.e. none)

Hopefully there's a twist in the article, but I'm not going to be able to find out.

I'm going to point out that any good university has a wide range of factors they consider for accepting applicants - there's no reason you should be able to expect that just because you hit the standard high marks (all a's, high sats, college prep -- yawn, step into line with the other 30,000 of those please, we have 200 spots).

And frankly, if the author is blaming external factors like they didn't have better parents and/or were not willing to commit fraud to get accepted, there may be another factor the author is blind to, but that others can see.

Just saying.

It's kind of a shame that two people got fired - but I did think it was weird when the person having a private convo was fired but not the person who used their corporate position to launch a public attack on the former was not.

But for the record I'd have preferred that no one lose their job.

On the other hand - I'm not sure which problem AZ is solving here. Maybe enough women weren't calling the police saying "there's a man in the bathroom!"

I can't help but think gender-less bathrooms are a better solution.

Word.

For the record, not all women insist on a diamond, except reflexively... I actually know few couples that have bought diamond rings (for many reasons - some financial planning (a young couple should be worried about a house, insurance and retirement before a shiny ring) and some ethical (if you buy a new diamond, there is absolutely metaphorical blood on it - terrible juju to kick off a lifetime commitment of love))

Self-interest/selfish alert: if you're rolling in it and get that $30k ring for your spouse-to-be, don't give it to them on their birthday, Christmas or any other gifting occasion, because they don't have to give it back if they decide to ditch you Pre-nuptuals.

In my mind if a marriage isn't a lifetime commitment, then forget any of the other traditions.

Are we sure that Microsoft/Google/Samsung/Etc project managers aren't telling themselves that they're "doing it like Apple does it?"

I also believe that apple has/had a design critique culture that most people in technology and business wouldn't be able to recognize for what it is/was -- including most apple employees. Although there is supposedly an uptick in MFAs getting jobs in tech, so maybe some folks do see it.

The assertion/snow clone "[x] makes you dumber just for hearing it" can sometimes be more accurately formulated "I do not have an adequately developed set of reasoning tools to grapple with and understand [x]."

Usually it's paired with that "doesn't know enough to recognize inadequacy" problem.

I'm curious if home garden farming is big among the "preppers" - but then I think that planning a more self-sufficient food supply is only valuable to non-nuclear/chemical warfare doomsday thinking (such as the author's economic collapse bias).

That leads me to wonder if the kits the article goes over would reveal which scenario is presumed by the owner through deductive reasoning... Does anyone keep a personal seed bank? Or do most people assume the apocalypse will have a relatively brief duration and then the supermarket will have fresh produce again?

The first problem is in the second sentence of the report: "The study lasted for approximately eight weeks."

Based on my limited knowledge of outcomes assessment and the current scholarship of teaching and learning, eight weeks is not a long enough period of time to meaningfully measure the effectiveness if any learning method (at minimum, you want retention data past the learning phase, i.e. it matters less how you score on a final exam at the end of a class than how you score on the same exam 1/2, 1, 3, and 5 years later, etc.)

As someone who's suffered under at least one megalomaniac's attempt to be the next whatever, I would caution any future CEO reading this article and dreaming about following its advice to be careful that you're not building a fantasy brand that exists in your own mind. It's very easy to get blinded by your own bullshit - trust in yourself, but verify that others trust you as well.

I was surprised at how thorough the article was. I went in assuming the article would be an ideological argument, but after reading it seems fairly straightforward (spoiler alert: the basic argument is that people will pirate entertainment they want when it's unavailable for purchase (I.e., when recent movies are only available on DVD, fans will look for torrents), which seems like a fairly uncontroversial position)

'"Man," said the Ghost, "if man you be in heart, not adamant, forbear that wicked cant until you have discovered What the surplus is, and Where it is."' - Charles Dickens