tadhgds
Joined 8 years ago
Karma
11
Submissions
6
Member since
Jun 30
Recent submissions
Comment · 6 years ago
Comment · 6 years ago
+1 exact same experience. I even had to google ideation just to verify that it meant what I thought it did, because this tool had confused me.
Anyway, good job OP for building something but for sure it needs more info.
Comment · 6 years ago
I can't say whether or not it is the standard approach but I do know that it is very common in many countries to teach a linear algebra course that is heavy on matrix operations, that you can come away believing that linear algebra is somehow _about_ matrices and their operations. I know many in my university class seemed to believe that.
A book I enjoyed is Axler's Linear Algebra Done Right[0], in which, if I remember correctly, doesn't contain a single matrix.
[0]https://zhangyk8.github.io/teaching/file_spring2018/linear_a...
Comment · 6 years ago
You might ask yourself if the luxury brands you buy are actually as high quality as you think. Do you survey the items for signs of superior quality? It's not a very easy thing to do if your not educated in the matter.
I'm not suggesting you are wrong in your thoughts or beliefs, but you might discover that some products are not evidently higher quality and that the assumption of quality came about as a result of its association with the idea of of luxury and aspiration.
for example, clothing construction at the higher levels is not exactly easy to judge. I don't know anything about stitching patterns or common fail points, but if Ralph Lauren advertise in a way that suggests that the people who wear their clothes are also the people who wear Rolex and drive Mercedes, people will make that connection.
Even if you think immune to this stuff, you aren't. If you think you could be classified into any particular social group, you are probably riddled with these kind of beliefs. I think it takes a prolonged and deliberate effort to avoid the tricks of advertising
Comment · 6 years ago
Can you elaborate on why this was transformative?
The dropping of standards is always going to make things a bit easier on yourself but if there isn't really much more to it than that, is proclaiming "It's okay to be messy" really a good thing?
I don't think(I might be wrong) other engineering fields can get away so lightly with such attitudes, why do you think we can? Particularly in light of so many security disasters unfolding around us. How can you justify an attitude that seems to move in the opposite direction of where many believe we should be heading, i.e. tighter control, more strongly enforced standards and a distancing from the 'move fast, break stuff' ethos
Comment · 8 years ago
That's how I would interpret it, yes
The logic goes like this: It would be utterly stupid for terrorist groups to rely on digital communications simply because of how well locked down the various government agencies have made it. We assume that they are not utterly stupid.
I don't think it's a crazy statement or needing further justification. I doubt terrorist groups are that sophisticated but I would assume they have plugged the simplest holes.