jokellum

I don't know your specifics, so I'm going to reply with what I've learned about learning:

I found reading a textbook, and typing notes into a dumb markdown file with the textbooks name is good enough. Typically: definitions, quotes, and personal thoughts while reading. Did this for stats/comp sci/etc. Obsidian + markdown worked for that, even without plugins. Being able to text search is useful, which is why I don't hand write.

Anything beyond that you have to be cautious about paralyzing yourself from trying XYZ PKM.

Theres a quote from stephen king that goes somewhere along the lines of "during first draft don't try referencing or fixing grammar because it breaks your train of thought". I think similarly, when learning something, choose the thing thats most out of the way (usually the simplest) that is least likely to break your train of thought.

In terms of tracking how much you're learning, I'd be very very slow and incremental in what tooling/methods you pick. For me, I just trust myself after reading/notetaking a textbook. Usually homeworks get very easy which is a good sign. Being able to explain what I learned to someone else is a good sign.

> Places with a lot of background noise are bad and have a research-supported negative impact on learning. Libraries and Reading rooms work best.

This was horrible advice for me and caused my a lot of grief for many years wondering why I still couldn't focus.

Nothing against Andrej, part of the reason I hate this advice is that this is very common advice for what your environment should look like. This was advice given by study workshops at my college. I'm sure this works for a decent chunk of the student population.

Quiet places cause me to mentally drift into outer space and I just zone out.

You know what is a great environment? Semi-busy coffee shops + headphones + instrumental music. I'm able to consistently lock in for 4-5 hours. When I go back to my "nice quiet home environment" I get distracted immediately and refocusing is super hard.

Like I said, this is standard advice that works for a portion of the population, but I think this makes a ton of other people in the same boat as me feel lazy/discouraged/unfocused/stupid losers when in reality "nice quiet places" might not work for them.

I'm sorry, like the other comment said you're still both-sides-ing.

States / cities (democrat or republican) sent riot police, which is something they have always done. How they handled protests is worth criticism e.g. I don't like that they use curfews to suddenly make protesters breaking the law. I don't like the use of tear gas on otherwise peaceful protestors. As a note, these are state / city officials not federal guidance typically.

However,

The current administration, Donald Trump, the president of the united states, and the top most members of his cabinet, as a federal, top-down policy will:

- Automatically identify protesters

- Arrest them for simply saying things the admin doesn't like.

- Bypass due-process.

- Will ship them to a gulag outside of the united states.

- Are on track to be found in contempt of court for refusing to bring back a lawful resident.

Both sides are not the same here. Name me a democrat president who has done equal or worse what the trump admin has done.

The article doesn't demonstrate Obama stealing Congress's power of the purse. Can you show me an example?

I'm quibbling with implications of "there's nothing new, they're both the same".

In the article he can sign an executive order to make college more affordable, but this is using Congress's budget allocation, and powers provided for the department of education though is it not?

Trump is literally dismantling departments approved by Congress, and using the budget in completely different areas as far as I can tell. He's not simply redirecting what X department should be doing, as compared to Obama.

Can you expand on this?

This is something that confused me also. I feel like this is a reasonable argument.

My only criticism I guess would be that this is unfalsifiable, so for the time being it's more productive to see if there's any possibility to explain that within the observable universe.

Similar boat. Started pretty successfully in AI/programming since I've always wanted to do that. But romance is pretty bad. I also agree about the solitary hobbies vs social ones.

Started doing sports / gym this year, and will probably continue that next year. I've thought about taking a drawing art course or cooking course.

I work as a remote software dev. Joining a volleyball league + run club definitely helped massively for me.

> Again, making connections and friends is easy. Being around the same people regularly is difficult.

Agreed, 90% of the difficulty making new friends is showing at the same place/event regularly. Remaining 10% is actually being someone people want to be friends with.

> Until such questions are answered, a God is still quite reasonable.

I'm sorry, what is the monkey typewriter supposed to prove or disprove about God?

The original post isn't even about evolution, its related to textual and historical analysis, so I don't see how this is related.

Even worse, even if evolution disappeared as a theory, that wouldn't change the truthiness of specifically the claims / myths in the bible, and wouldn't in anyway make the existence of the Christian god any more likely.

If you use their product, per their tos, my understanding is they can train on their customer data at any time. In other words, if you use their product, they automatically have license to train on your art.

I think the only statements saying that they don't train on their customer data is from their CEO, but unless they encode it in their tos, that doesn't really matter.

Fair point, meant to specify "anti biden, pro trump".

I didn't think he was fit for office either (first point), but I'm glad he's being replaced.

Agreed.

Hasn't the number one thing anti-biden people have been saying is that he isn't fit for office due to his mental state?

Its bizarre seeing them flip to calling this a coup as if biden stepping down is suddenly an illegal/unconstitutional thing.

I consider this "concern trolling".

They said for 4 years how he's barely mentally there / can barely speak / not fit for office, and then when the Democratic party pressures him to step down, they go all surprised_pikachu_face.png.

In this case, the existence of earth is an even number, so I don't see how this is a fallacy.