HN2new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | infinitesimal's commentslogin

It's funny because the students at the competitive schools work their ass off for the entire semester/ quarter to learn this material. If you use the weakest possible definition for "learn," then you can claim you have learned anything you want. But that doesn't mean your skill will be comparable to someone who spent 3-5 months practicing non-stop.


Number of downloads? Price? Ads? No ads? iOS? Android?


Why do you say (3)?


For various reasons, iOS users are empirically more willing to pay for apps and services. There are more Android users than iOS users, but iOS apps still generate the lion's share of mobile revenue.

Some sources for this (based on a quick Google search, one could probably find better or more conclusive sources with a little legwork):

http://www.imore.com/ios-gamers-spend-times-android-players

http://gigaom.com/apple/ios-users-buy-more-apps-and-pay-more...

http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/new_report_shows_ios_...

http://www.theverge.com/2012/3/31/2916556/in-app-purchases-i...

http://functionalaesthetics.eu/why-apps-are-on-ios-first-and...


Functional programming is a leaky abstraction?


Great.


The question in philosophy is "how does consciousness arise from the physical?" While you can claim it's due to some complex interaction in our brains, and while we have significant evidence that this is the case, I don't think that answers the question. Philosophers want to know the mechanism which produces the experience. Arguing that consciousness (or experience) is physical is a tough thing to do from first principles because of our own intuitive sense of it.

For example, how is it that the electrical signals in our brains produce "us" while electrical signals in other things don't produce conscious things? How are they different? What would it take to make a circuit "conscious"?

I can't give you good definitions for consciousness or experience and I can't even say that the question(s) make(s) sense. I'm just trying to give you give you a picture of what some people think.


I've lost a significant amount of weight twice (> 80lbs) and, externally, I seem to have also changed my behavior in a substantial way. I am a much better student than I was before in part because of my own motivation and determination. As determined as I am though, I still run into academic problems. Is it because of my own work ethic? I don't think so.

I don't perceive losing weight to be a herculean feat, but that's because I have shown myself that it's something I can overcome. Changing how my mind works? Is that a herculean feat? I don't know, but I seem to have difficulties with it which I cannot immediately work around with a "little repetition."

Please give me a time in your life when you've been able to make a significant intellectual change from just "a little repetition" and "making sure that you're not repeating bad habits."


I would entertain your challenge without preamble if it were not based on a premise that I do not accept: specifically, that any of this has to do with changing how your mind works. I understand that many perceive it that way, but I do not.

Rather, I see it as leveraging how my mind works. Note how this is almost exactly the opposite world view. I accept that my mind includes within it a mechanism for habit automation. Of course that is only one of many tools in the metacognitive toolbox. Another powerful tool is the ability to be brutally honest with yourself about what your priorities are in practice, what you think they should be, and recognizing when your actions are working against the priorities you would like to have. There are more. Metacognition is a bottomless pit of bootstrapping power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metacognition

A year ago, after coming to grips with the fact that having a toddler and a relationship meant that I was no longer getting time for myself, I made myself a morning person. I went from a life-long habit of dragging myself out of bed just in time to rush to work to someone who routinely gets out of bed at 5am and does something productive for myself before my son wakes up. Brutal honesty about my priorities and about a month of consistent practice.


Why aren't we teaching our scientists and engineers in a similar fashion then?


Maybe we because we don't know better. Or we're happy to think that complexity makes us feel as if we're smart.

But these days, scientists and engineers are looking at mother nature for examples: http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-08/13-year-old...

While there's rebuttal about why the solution above won't work: http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/thinking-tech/why-13-year-ol...

It's still gives us some perspective and thought of how nature restructures things in a certain way. We could possibly build on that.

Ant traffic is handled by several simple rules. Maybe there's something we can learn from them too? We're already considering the removal of traffic lights - initially thought to help manage traffic flow. Do we necessarily need to manage them? Maybe.. maybe not.


"Getting an A is as easy as doing everything, it doesn't require any real intelligence or understanding. This is really what college is all about."

You don't have a representative experience. Try going to a top 5 school in science/ engineering/ math.


Isn't by definition going to a "top 5 school" not a representative experience.

Maybe his experience is the representative of most colleges and yours from a "top 5 school" the exception.


I'm not making generalizations about the college experience. His claim seemed all encompassing to me.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: