next weekend and also ordering the Dreamliner's Operating Manual for the weekend after
who said "in a weekend"???
I didn't...YOU did...you made that comparison, not me
Nowhere did I insinuate that learning to really code can be done in a week...it just doesn't have to be a soul-crushing Sysiphian Crucible of constant trial and error....
I said it doesn't have to be frustrating and stupid...not that anyone can do it in a weekend
Learning a complex task like brain surgery is obviously more than a weekend, but it's orders of magnitude more time depending on where you start...if you're already an accomplished Ear, Nose and Throat surgeon then you can learn to operate on the brain faster than if you just have a high school diploma
TFA is interesting, but more than that, this whole exercise will help us understand the problems of our industry:
from TFA:
First, you download these exercises using a special software client, and once you’ve completed one, you upload it back to the site, where other coders from around the world will give you feedback. Then you can take what you’ve learned and try the exercise again.
Then later:
"It's hard to tell what it is just by looking at it," she says. "It's remarkable to me that people have figured out how to use it."
now...those two statements do not compute...
how could something be so helpful for new programmers, yet the creators themselves marvel at how newbies are able to navigate around their totally abstract UI?
here's the problem: misconceptions about ***how people learn to actually code***...not learning "about" code...like how it works...no...I'm talking knowing how to make a functional program in real-world situation (not for hobby) to solve a need of users
TFA repeats common misconceptions...here are a few, from TFA:
1. Wanna be a programmer? That shouldn’t be too hard. You can sign-up for an iterative online tutorial at a site like Codecademy or Treehouse. You can check yourself into a “coding bootcamp” for a face-to-face crash course in the ways of programming.
2. But if want to be a serious programmer, that’s another matter. You’ll need hundreds of hours of practice.....You can’t really learn to craft code that’s both clear and efficient without some serious trial and error, not to mention an awful lot of feedback on what you’re doing right and what you’re doing wrong.
Maybe in a sense these statements are true in that they accurately reflect the *what people would say* if you asked many in the industry...and indeed these conditions may reflect many people's experience of learning to code, however,
*IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THIS WAY*
learning to code doesn't have to be any more or less difficult than learning **any** complex task
Here's the real problem: CODING IS TOO LUCRATIVE AND NEW
Real coding, coding that makes programs that people pay to use, is maybe one of the world's most specialized, complex and, importantly, *new* skills.
That's why *coding education* is so awful and amateurish...***WE CAN'T KEEP REAL CODERS IN EDUCATION LONG ENOUGH***
That's it...that's your answer to "why?"....Real coding education must be formulated by people who are *both* professional educators *and* possess the coding skills necessary...for any new enterprise this is how you write a training curriculum
this error isn't as common as "weed makes you lazy" or "weed gives you the munchies" but I've seen it
Indica and Sativa are two main species of Cannabis (the third, Ruderallis doesn't get you high but is good for hemp)
For many reasons, Indica is probably the first and/or only kind of weed most users in North America have smoked.
First I'll tell you *why* and then why it matters...
> Indica is easier and cheaper to grow...it flowers noticeably more densely and grows faster. Since weed is still illegal in most states, most low to mid level growers plant Indica (or Indica-dominant hybrid) because it is easier to grow surreptitiously and it yields a higher profit margin.
> It matters because Indica's effects on the body are relaxing and the mental effects cause long daydream-like thoughts...it's not a "stimulant/depressant" binary. Your mind is very active but your body is relaxed, as if you are in a sauna. These effects combined typically cause the user to sit or lay down for long periods of time...which may or may not involve video games, movies, or music.
Also, Indica lowers your blood sugar...which makes you hungry...
Sativa is virtually the opposite on all counts...it's like caffeine almost...
Most weed is a hybrid of course, but they usually have a noticable dominant characteristic...which also can help explain all the interesting names given to weed strains...
**the name of the weed strain is a clue to its effects**
maybe techies should name their creations in the same manner;)
I think SSRI's (& others pharmaceuticals like it) are extremely dangerous. I would rather them be prescribed Indica or Sativa depending on the need...
That said, I have to agree with this part in theory...I mean to say it sounds plausible:
identify, build and grow the coping mechanisms that helped me maintain clarity without the SSRI
Again...fsk pharma companies...but given what TFA has to say about its effect on brain structure it may very well do almost the same thing at the cellular level
1. I can imagine a scenario where, given a secure living situation and support system, the SSRI's function to help your mind heal itself more quickly
2. I need to see alot of studies before I credit this neurological behavior only to SSRI's...in other words, we have to by default investigate other drugs to see how they compare
It bolsters your positive case study.
Also, I have a friend who was stressing about how SSRI's change your brain chemistry. I suggested she tell the psychologist about her concerns and she already had done so. Her counselor showed her that her dosage was 1/6th of what they normally prescribe for one dose...and she was only taking half of one of those every few days...
So I'm happy to hear that big pharma doesn't destroy everyone's life who uses these drugs...I'm just saying let's get scientific and compare it with weed.
Your post seems fishy...your UID is in the 3.4 millions but you reference the 'old slashdot'...and your whole "hate machine" thing, it seems like you expected to get comments that disagreed so you pre-emptively call anyone who disagrees a troll. Also, you should know that people on/. do not like fake users who break out elaborate rhetoric with no substance other than to hype a product.
Slashdot old & new hates hype. Wild-eyed, fanboi hype is fine of course, but you can't call us trolls for disagreeing and making our opinion known.
Occulus never deserved its hype.
When people "ooh and ahh" about Occulus, they're really reacting to the *novelty* of the technology...technology Occulus cannot claim to originate in any way.
Google did a good job of subverting Occulus's hype machine with Cardboard
your problem is you inherently do not understand the scientific method
there is no logical reason to even conduct a test like M$ did in my example...the factors are not salient
i tried to give you an example, but it just went right over your head
i used to be a design researcher...daily doing user testing in a non-corporate environment...i know what i'm talking about as much as anyone in the universe on this topic
i want to continue this conversation because your interest is actually intersting to me
i love this stuff, and it seems you have strong thoughts about HCI as well
so, to continue, maybe you could tell me why you think M$'s controller testing that I linked to was a good test?
what, in your mind, are they testing, what 'problem' are the working a hypothesis for?
the Crown is regarded as a corporation, with the monarch being the centre of a construct in which the power of the whole is shared by multiple institutions of government[131]—the executive, legislative, and judicial[7]—acting under the sovereign's authority,[87][132] which is entrusted for exercise by the politicians (the elected and appointed parliamentarians and the ministers of the Crown generally drawn from amongst them) and the judges and justices of the peace
the facts are there...well sourced
you're trolling...you're misrepresenting my argument by taking it to the extreme:
the onus is on you to prove "Elizabeth controls everything."
no.
i never said she does that, and that is in no way a burden of proof for what I *actually* claimed...
here's what I actually said
they have soft power...influence...Royals are like the Koch brothers on steroids, because of their family history of despotism
howso?
let's start with BP...British Petroleum
formerly known as "Royal Iranian Petroleum"
so you're shown to be a troll, blatantly misrepresenting my claims
I claimed the royals function now like legal-mandated Koch Brothers...that's what the facts indicate
i can't stress enough that if you work in IT, signal processing, and t-com in general none of Snowden's revelations were surpising in the least...the only **actually surprising** info is that we were seeing it discussed on the nightly news
there has been a continual conversation about the issue since/. first began
"national conversation" in practice means mainstream media...nightly news...CNN...all making a *big honking deal* about something
you know how it works, it's happening right now with the NFL
media producers choose these stories...it's ***their choice***
Stallman, the EFF, most people on/. and many others (including Sen Wyden from Oregon) were **trying** to get mainstream discussion of these issues but no chance
it never needed to be this way...it's about idiot news people and an industry (ours) that doesn't know how to explain itself
if all Snowden has in his corner at this point is "he started a national conversation" then you've really just accepted defeat
we didn't need him **at all** to have a national conversation
in 2006 we knew this was happening...but it wasn't reported
why?
what *is* a "national conversation"...for better or worse, practically speaking "national converstation" is defined by mainstream media
mainstream media is made of people in roles that make decisions about what you see
producers **choose** what to cover, how to cover it, how in-depth to go, who to interview, how long the segment lasts, where it is placed on the web page and print paper....whether to do a follow up story...
that defines the "national conversation"...and we could have had it in 2001 with the Patriot Act or 2006 when this info came to light...
Snowden only gave operational specifics like the names of the programs...he himself was either a dupe or blackmailed or self-deluded...and he's probably not a free man in Russia
He does not get credit for "starting a national conversation"....because that conversation is dependent almost purely on how how mainstream news covers the event (we can scream until we are blue in the face here on/. but to influence non-techs you need mainstream news)
We could have had a "national conversation" about the Patriot Act or in 2006 when this info was first released.
you're making it out to be a binary when international politics is infinitely more complex
the fact is the legal mechanism exists, but in practice they prefer to not need to use it b/c there are obvious benefits (ex: this conversation) to staying behind the scenes
they have soft power...influence...Royals are like the Koch brothers on steroids, because of their family history of despotism
howso?
let's start with BP...British Petroleum
formerly known as "Royal Iranian Petroleum"
it was a deal with the English Crown, who, at the time the deal with Iran was made over 100 years ago, still ran BP outright
BP is a publicly held company now, but the ties are still there financially...the Royal Family still has controlling interest
that's one example...think of it this way, here in America we have no Royals, yet rich people still influence government...now, Royals are rich people *plus* a huge network of dependencies and relationships that go back for centuries
Elizabeth II has final say on all important decisions of the Canadian government, foreign and domestic via Royal Perogative...and Canadian Parliament must **ask her permission** to meet
he chose not to answer....whether the show truly makes geek culture mainstream....or if it just holds geeks up for ridicule to millions of ordinary Americans
right...I'm totally with you on your analysis of the show's relationship with 'science' and the culture of scientists and academics...100% agree
this guy is a science advisor...that's it...he would be acting very unprofessionally to speak officially and talk about the fact that the characters protrayal is a backhanded ridiculing of geeks
the truth is, YES...there are definitely major things wrong with BBT & science...but this guy is not part of those decisions
to go further, I *wanted* to ask a question like you suggest, but as I typed it, I just tried to picture a day on the set for this guy...he's not part of those decisions that we hate at all...
instead, I tried to get at it from another angle with my question (which he did answer!)....I asked him how much input about his daily life as a scientist the show makers ask him about...the answer confirms what we suspect
this is an insane world....and it's not nearly as free and democratic as we like to think it is...
Saudi Arabia isn't an 'ally' it is a despotic monarchy...basically ISIL with official sanction to a nation/state
Canada is a monarchy that's allowed to make some of it's own laws and have meetings but really its an oil emirate for the Brittish Royals
Iran is a modern country with pockets of progressivism that actually likes America and freedom, but oil interests (again with the Brittish Royals) prop up a psychotic religious extremist hierarchy
specifically in overall 'width' or 'thickness' if you will...it's just not a salient gradient
example problem: users with large hands report cramping and mistakes, want a bigger controller. so, M$ tests a larger option. this task is much more than just making it 1mm wider...first, make the controller 20% larger, and space out the buttons, maybe raise their height...and do an ergonomic analysis of the angles of joints for button pushing and consider fatigue...**THATS REAL DESIGN TESTING**
what M$ did in that video is just a waste and an example of very poor product design and testing
Slashdot Mirror
who said "in a weekend"???
I didn't...YOU did...you made that comparison, not me
Nowhere did I insinuate that learning to really code can be done in a week...it just doesn't have to be a soul-crushing Sysiphian Crucible of constant trial and error....
I said it doesn't have to be frustrating and stupid...not that anyone can do it in a weekend
Learning a complex task like brain surgery is obviously more than a weekend, but it's orders of magnitude more time depending on where you start...if you're already an accomplished Ear, Nose and Throat surgeon then you can learn to operate on the brain faster than if you just have a high school diploma
TFA is interesting, but more than that, this whole exercise will help us understand the problems of our industry:
from TFA:
Then later:
now...those two statements do not compute...
how could something be so helpful for new programmers, yet the creators themselves marvel at how newbies are able to navigate around their totally abstract UI?
here's the problem: misconceptions about ***how people learn to actually code***...not learning "about" code...like how it works...no...I'm talking knowing how to make a functional program in real-world situation (not for hobby) to solve a need of users
TFA repeats common misconceptions...here are a few, from TFA:
Maybe in a sense these statements are true in that they accurately reflect the *what people would say* if you asked many in the industry...and indeed these conditions may reflect many people's experience of learning to code, however,
*IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THIS WAY*
learning to code doesn't have to be any more or less difficult than learning **any** complex task
Here's the real problem: CODING IS TOO LUCRATIVE AND NEW
Real coding, coding that makes programs that people pay to use, is maybe one of the world's most specialized, complex and, importantly, *new* skills.
That's why *coding education* is so awful and amateurish...***WE CAN'T KEEP REAL CODERS IN EDUCATION LONG ENOUGH***
That's it...that's your answer to "why?"....Real coding education must be formulated by people who are *both* professional educators *and* possess the coding skills necessary...for any new enterprise this is how you write a training curriculum
most of the responses are "your employer" or "just pay it"...
i'm self-employed...or you could say i work for a company that's too small to afford conference trips
however, i had no idea i could *ask* for help attending a conference! people do this?
when i worked in Academia, the whole conference thing is all set out for you...it's almost a cottage industry
i'm ABD in Systems Science and I want to attend the Cybernetics conferences like the IEEE SMC and Weiner in the 21st Century but do not have the funds
just wanted to say 'ditto' on the St. John's Wort and "self medication not to be done lightly" adivce
this error isn't as common as "weed makes you lazy" or "weed gives you the munchies" but I've seen it
Indica and Sativa are two main species of Cannabis (the third, Ruderallis doesn't get you high but is good for hemp)
For many reasons, Indica is probably the first and/or only kind of weed most users in North America have smoked.
First I'll tell you *why* and then why it matters...
> Indica is easier and cheaper to grow...it flowers noticeably more densely and grows faster. Since weed is still illegal in most states, most low to mid level growers plant Indica (or Indica-dominant hybrid) because it is easier to grow surreptitiously and it yields a higher profit margin.
> It matters because Indica's effects on the body are relaxing and the mental effects cause long daydream-like thoughts...it's not a "stimulant/depressant" binary. Your mind is very active but your body is relaxed, as if you are in a sauna. These effects combined typically cause the user to sit or lay down for long periods of time...which may or may not involve video games, movies, or music.
Also, Indica lowers your blood sugar...which makes you hungry...
Sativa is virtually the opposite on all counts...it's like caffeine almost...
Most weed is a hybrid of course, but they usually have a noticable dominant characteristic...which also can help explain all the interesting names given to weed strains...
**the name of the weed strain is a clue to its effects**
maybe techies should name their creations in the same manner ;)
I think SSRI's (& others pharmaceuticals like it) are extremely dangerous. I would rather them be prescribed Indica or Sativa depending on the need...
That said, I have to agree with this part in theory...I mean to say it sounds plausible:
Again...fsk pharma companies...but given what TFA has to say about its effect on brain structure it may very well do almost the same thing at the cellular level
1. I can imagine a scenario where, given a secure living situation and support system, the SSRI's function to help your mind heal itself more quickly
2. I need to see alot of studies before I credit this neurological behavior only to SSRI's...in other words, we have to by default investigate other drugs to see how they compare
It bolsters your positive case study.
Also, I have a friend who was stressing about how SSRI's change your brain chemistry. I suggested she tell the psychologist about her concerns and she already had done so. Her counselor showed her that her dosage was 1/6th of what they normally prescribe for one dose...and she was only taking half of one of those every few days...
So I'm happy to hear that big pharma doesn't destroy everyone's life who uses these drugs...I'm just saying let's get scientific and compare it with weed.
Your post seems fishy...your UID is in the 3.4 millions but you reference the 'old slashdot'...and your whole "hate machine" thing, it seems like you expected to get comments that disagreed so you pre-emptively call anyone who disagrees a troll. Also, you should know that people on /. do not like fake users who break out elaborate rhetoric with no substance other than to hype a product.
Slashdot old & new hates hype. Wild-eyed, fanboi hype is fine of course, but you can't call us trolls for disagreeing and making our opinion known.
Occulus never deserved its hype.
When people "ooh and ahh" about Occulus, they're really reacting to the *novelty* of the technology...technology Occulus cannot claim to originate in any way.
Google did a good job of subverting Occulus's hype machine with Cardboard
https://cardboard.withgoogle.c...
It's a cheap cardboard version of Occulus...I wouldn't buy it but it's hilarious in how it critiques Occulus without actually saying a word.
your problem is you inherently do not understand the scientific method
there is no logical reason to even conduct a test like M$ did in my example...the factors are not salient
i tried to give you an example, but it just went right over your head
i used to be a design researcher...daily doing user testing in a non-corporate environment...i know what i'm talking about as much as anyone in the universe on this topic
i want to continue this conversation because your interest is actually intersting to me
i love this stuff, and it seems you have strong thoughts about HCI as well
so, to continue, maybe you could tell me why you think M$'s controller testing that I linked to was a good test?
what, in your mind, are they testing, what 'problem' are the working a hypothesis for?
slashdot readers will judge
this conversation is over
wiki, under Canadian Monarchy:
the facts are there...well sourced
you're trolling...you're misrepresenting my argument by taking it to the extreme:
the onus is on you to prove "Elizabeth controls everything."
no.
i never said she does that, and that is in no way a burden of proof for what I *actually* claimed...
here's what I actually said
they have soft power...influence...Royals are like the Koch brothers on steroids, because of their family history of despotism
howso?
let's start with BP...British Petroleum
formerly known as "Royal Iranian Petroleum"
so you're shown to be a troll, blatantly misrepresenting my claims
I claimed the royals function now like legal-mandated Koch Brothers...that's what the facts indicate
1000% this ^^^
i can't stress enough that if you work in IT, signal processing, and t-com in general none of Snowden's revelations were surpising in the least...the only **actually surprising** info is that we were seeing it discussed on the nightly news
there has been a continual conversation about the issue since /. first began
"national conversation" in practice means mainstream media...nightly news...CNN...all making a *big honking deal* about something
you know how it works, it's happening right now with the NFL
media producers choose these stories...it's ***their choice***
Stallman, the EFF, most people on /. and many others (including Sen Wyden from Oregon) were **trying** to get mainstream discussion of these issues but no chance
it never needed to be this way...it's about idiot news people and an industry (ours) that doesn't know how to explain itself
if all Snowden has in his corner at this point is "he started a national conversation" then you've really just accepted defeat
my above comment, modded "-1 Troll" was done so unfairly
agree or not with the content, I have a salient point and provide evidence....that's real discussion not trolling
i offer falsifiablity to my claims as well...not trolling...
whoever downmodded me is a dastardly evildoer
we didn't need him **at all** to have a national conversation
in 2006 we knew this was happening...but it wasn't reported
why?
what *is* a "national conversation"...for better or worse, practically speaking "national converstation" is defined by mainstream media
mainstream media is made of people in roles that make decisions about what you see
producers **choose** what to cover, how to cover it, how in-depth to go, who to interview, how long the segment lasts, where it is placed on the web page and print paper....whether to do a follow up story...
that defines the "national conversation"...and we could have had it in 2001 with the Patriot Act or 2006 when this info came to light...
it was reported in the link i posted, from government sources
and if you work in IT or t-com you already knew it was all technically possible
GP is right...if you're a router jockey, none of it was news
also, it was first reported publicly **in 2006** right here: "NSA Has Massive Database of American's Phone Calls"
Snowden only gave operational specifics like the names of the programs...he himself was either a dupe or blackmailed or self-deluded...and he's probably not a free man in Russia
He does not get credit for "starting a national conversation"....because that conversation is dependent almost purely on how how mainstream news covers the event (we can scream until we are blue in the face here on /. but to influence non-techs you need mainstream news)
We could have had a "national conversation" about the Patriot Act or in 2006 when this info was first released.
that's a false dichotomy
you're making it out to be a binary when international politics is infinitely more complex
the fact is the legal mechanism exists, but in practice they prefer to not need to use it b/c there are obvious benefits (ex: this conversation) to staying behind the scenes
they have soft power...influence...Royals are like the Koch brothers on steroids, because of their family history of despotism
howso?
let's start with BP...British Petroleum
formerly known as "Royal Iranian Petroleum"
it was a deal with the English Crown, who, at the time the deal with Iran was made over 100 years ago, still ran BP outright
BP is a publicly held company now, but the ties are still there financially...the Royal Family still has controlling interest
that's one example...think of it this way, here in America we have no Royals, yet rich people still influence government...now, Royals are rich people *plus* a huge network of dependencies and relationships that go back for centuries
the British Royals have veto power on every major decision Canada makes
you agree that Royal Assent is necessary yourself...and it's in that wiki *very well sourced*
so Royal Assent exists...your "what if" scenario about what would happen in a confrontation situation with the Canadian subjects is *Pure Speculation*
also, it is foolish to assume that the Royal Family wouldn't try to push policy in other ways that are not as confrontational
the whole point is to keep their involvement low profile
you are absolutely wrong my friend...you need to accept it...Canadians aren't 'citizens' they're 'subjects' just like the British
it's all right here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
Elizabeth II has final say on all important decisions of the Canadian government, foreign and domestic via Royal Perogative...and Canadian Parliament must **ask her permission** to meet
It's true...look at the sources in the wiki above
right...I'm totally with you on your analysis of the show's relationship with 'science' and the culture of scientists and academics...100% agree
this guy is a science advisor...that's it...he would be acting very unprofessionally to speak officially and talk about the fact that the characters protrayal is a backhanded ridiculing of geeks
the truth is, YES...there are definitely major things wrong with BBT & science...but this guy is not part of those decisions
to go further, I *wanted* to ask a question like you suggest, but as I typed it, I just tried to picture a day on the set for this guy...he's not part of those decisions that we hate at all...
instead, I tried to get at it from another angle with my question (which he did answer!)....I asked him how much input about his daily life as a scientist the show makers ask him about...the answer confirms what we suspect
love this about /.
it's almost like our secret 'AMA' only it's actually informative
thanks again to Dr. Saltzberg for taking my question!
100% agree
this is an insane world....and it's not nearly as free and democratic as we like to think it is...
Saudi Arabia isn't an 'ally' it is a despotic monarchy...basically ISIL with official sanction to a nation/state
Canada is a monarchy that's allowed to make some of it's own laws and have meetings but really its an oil emirate for the Brittish Royals
Iran is a modern country with pockets of progressivism that actually likes America and freedom, but oil interests (again with the Brittish Royals) prop up a psychotic religious extremist hierarchy
we need to have pity upon government workers tasked with these jobs, especially the military
some of them spend their entire working day on tasks that *help* us (of course others do other things too...ahem)
so..."criminal activity" or "act of war"
i understand the distinction...but beneath those options are huge icebergs of heirarchy and process
the way out is to take the technology out of the equation...
chinese government hacker uses the internet to steal nuclear plans
-now take the tech out-
chinese government spy uses social engineering to steal paper documents of nuclear plans
with the tech *out* is it an act of war?
what if it is a private contractor? take the tech out...would it then be "war" or "crime"?
video game controllers...
specifically in overall 'width' or 'thickness' if you will...it's just not a salient gradient
example problem: users with large hands report cramping and mistakes, want a bigger controller. so, M$ tests a larger option. this task is much more than just making it 1mm wider...first, make the controller 20% larger, and space out the buttons, maybe raise their height...and do an ergonomic analysis of the angles of joints for button pushing and consider fatigue...**THATS REAL DESIGN TESTING**
what M$ did in that video is just a waste and an example of very poor product design and testing