Uber agreements don't have an employment agreement, either. You can walk from Uber and come back. Unlimited vacation time, work on your terms.
The IRS defines employment as when a corporation has control over how the work gets done, rather than the result of the work. This is strange because clients can engage in planning with contractors to integrate their work and make sure they're not planning things which are not allowed. Nevertheless, the terms with Uber are simple: You drive customers from point A to point B. How you do that is immaterial, as long as the customer is satisfied and corporate ethical standards are maintained (banging dudes in your cab as a part-time prostitute cabbie will probably get you fired).
How do they verify you're not hijacking a Web site? What if you block HTTPS (there's no https server!) and submit CSR, and it tries to verify a cookie on the associated HTTP site, which you're MITM and so replace by inserting your cookie?
In both World Wars, the Europeans resisted entering a war on the hope that Germany would subjugate a few neighboring countries and then settle down. This is why Mao killed 170 million Chinese and nobody cares--he was taking over China--but Hitler killed 8 million Jews and everyone cries genocide--he was marching across Europe trying to take away the power of powerful people, so they made him a vicious demon in history. They hardly mention the repeated chastising of Germany, telling them they've gone far enough and should now cease expanding, rather than forcing them back into the German state and returning conquered Poland and Austria to their rightful peoples; nobody wants to admit we'd all have been just fine with Hitler microwaving all the Jews and Gypsies, so long as he kept to borders well outside our comfort zones.
Net Revenue is what we usually term "Profit" or "Income". We usually reserve the term "Revenue" to mean Gross Revenue.
It's very contextual. Net Revenue and Gross Revenue are valid terms. In financial accounting, "Income" is your revenue, less your "Expenses"; in transactional accounting, it's "Credit" and "Debit". The IRS calls your net income "Adjusted Gross Income", which is what we call business "Profits".
When I was a contractor, my hours were fixed. I worked for one client. The price was negotiated, but I negotiate my salary the same way. Project management may require and review your work breakdown structure, adjusting how you'll schedule the work, to maximize stakeholder engagement and minimize expensive mistakes and rework. Contracts may be Fixed Fee, Cost plus Fixed Fee, Time and Materials, or Fixed Fee Plus Awards: a Time and Materials reimburses your costs and pays for your time, while a Cost plus Fixed Fee reimburses your costs and pays for your estimated time.
People have funny ideas what a contractor is. It's just a legal agreement. The real question is do you pay them by W2 or 1099?
When I worked as a contractor, I worked exclusively for one organization. I had to use their systems to track my time--Deltek only, controlled by them--and their computer equipment. They retained the option to fire me if I violated the terms of my contract, failing to deliver as agreed.
I've seen contractors fire clients, too. A client hired a second contractor to work on the same work for comparison? That's your work. If he finishes, they may terminate your contract early. Contractor fires client, finds other contract work that isn't a waste of his fucking time.
"The risk posed by NEOs is not zero, but it is small relative to the risk posed by nuclear weapons." Even so, Baum writes, since the consequences of an NEO hitting the earth would be catastrophic
Wrong. The risk posed by NEOs is small in probability and extremely high in magnitude; the risk posed by nuclear weapons is larger in probability and smaller in magnitude. Space rock impacts cause mass extinctions; nuclear weapons detonations cause international incidents and poorly-defined human responses.
We have a fantasy that one nation launching a nuke will result in all nations nuking each other until the earth is a ball of slag; a more rational mind recognizes MAD as suggesting one nation launching a nuke will result in all nations reducing that nation to a ginormous glass parking lot. In reality, we haven't seen that situation, and our assessment of human psychology suggests it's more likely that a single strike (rather than constant, ongoing bombing) would result in shock, hesitation, and a lot of talking; ongoing nuclear bombing of a single nation would probably result in all other nations shaking like water-laden chihuahuas while trying to talk down the offenders (see Germany. Twice. With all of Europe wetting itself both times).
Nuclear war has a low but significant probability, itself spanning a wide berth of probable outcomes with impacts ranging from nothing notable to devastation. The human race would survive even in the worst projections, just bombed back into the stone age. NEO impacts have an insignificant but real probability, when limiting our view to those objects which would destroy the earth. Limiting nukes to "slag the human race back into the stone age" produces a similarly insignificant but real probability, more attainable by joint intent of all world leaders but hardly more likely; expanding NEO impacts to "a range of possible outcomes from smashing buildings to vaporizing all life off the planet" and scaling each magnitude of impact against the various magnitudes of impact of nuclear war immediately demonstrates that we take meteor impacts pretty frequently, most hitting uninhabited areas or blowing up in the sky with no damage, so nuclear war seems vaguely more likely in all scenarios.
The absolute outcome of a planet-killer tells you it's easier to hide from nuclear war. A few nukes are an acceptable trade-off, since disarmament is impossible and creates its own risks (i.e. secret nuclear stockpiles--if you really disarm, how do you know the other guy isn't lying, and ready to nuke you when it's clear you really have no nukes?)
Monster made a huge mistake here anyway. Apple acquires Beats, so now a rich-as-fuck company owns a dirt-cheap company. Monster loads up a fraud suit in search of a quick settlement, since Apple has too much money to bother with that shit. Apple goes, "U SRS BRO?" Throws Monster out of all its shit, relegating them to the bargain bin away from the Apple iAccessories aisle where all the cool kids bring their money to buy expensive crap.
$12 million. Apple has $120,000 million cash on hand, and you think they care about retaining your licensing fees? They had $28 billion in profit last year.
I'll bestow upon you some economic theory. This is newer stuff--it's not in any current texts--but let me know if you've seen this anywhere.
Wealth is not money. Money is a representation of wealth, but wealth isn't money. I'll attempt here to explain wealth.
Imagine you employ 1,000 laborers in an economy to produce chairs. These laborers cost $10/hr. They use an artisan manufacture method: a single laborer uses hand tools to cut wood and fit together a finished chair. This takes roughly 8 hours, meaning one laborer produces one chair per day, 1,000 chairs output per day, 260,000 chairs per year, at a cost of $80 per each.
Everyone in this economy buys chairs. Chairs last approximately one year, so everyone in the economy buys 4 chairs per year, at $320. This is on top of their expenses for houses, food, entertainment, and so forth.
You implement the assembly line. The assembly line lines up 250 artisans to each contribute their part in rapid serial fashion: rather than requiring 8 hours to produce 1 chair, 250 artisans produce 1,000 chairs per day--approximately 2 hours per chair at $10/hr, $20 per each.
Now everyone in this economy spends approximately $80 per year on chairs. That leaves $240 per year in their pockets. Of course, this also leaves 750 chair artisans unemployed.
That's wealth transfer: the wealth of the displaced chair makers transfers to everyone else who buys chairs. You'll notice money doesn't transfer; the labor required to make a product transfers. Labor is the true cost of all goods: energy is the cost of humans building machines, humans raising oil out of the ground, humans transporting, humans running refineries, and humans running power plants; mark-up is added at each stage, but can be slimmed down (especially for bulk purchases) exactly to the human labor costs and no further.
With this labor cost eliminated and chairs now cheaper, people have $240/year in their pockets that they didn't before. Someone gets the bright idea to make chair cushions. Each chair cushion requires an artisan 6 hours of labor; 260,000 cushions per year requires, coincidentally, 3/4 as many workers, or 750. In real life, the total human cost must be less than the market ($240/year). As we can see here, cushions cost $60 per each.
Persons buying 4 chairs per year at a cost of $360 have now become persons buying 4 chairs per year at a cost of $80, plus 4 cushions per year at a cost of $240, a total of $360. Everyone is employed again (rather, the original level of employment is met), and more stuff is made and purchased and owned.
Wealth increases by a bloody cycle of unemployment and underemployment: people must be made unemployed in favor of cheaper laborers or more efficient human labor utilization. This concentrates their wealth into the hands of other people, who then can buy more stuff, which creates new markets and expands existing ones, creating a renewed demand for labor. The cycle repeats again and again, each time coming out with a wealthier society; the few at the bottom are repeatedly chewed up, spat out, then picked up and put back to work. Without this cycle, our economy would stagnate, and then collapse as all seized machinery does.
This is why welfare is important. We rely heavily on our bottom-end labor, and need to care for these people; if they become useless, our economy suffers. Providing strong guarantees without disincentivizing work strengthens the economy, shortening these turn-over times and maximizing our wealth growth: such behavior directly makes me, you, and everyone else richer.
It's no secret I prefer a Citizen's Dividend. Our welfare system was 1.5% of the total adjusted gross income (AGI)--including business and individual income--in 1950; it's now over 17%. That includes state and Federal resources. A 17% Citizen's Dividend which dumps most welfare services in favor of flatly distributed money because it's incredibly stable (the economy collapses if we lose enoug
Then they're behaving inefficiently, or they have other concerns--such as no longer having anywhere to launch from, or not having reliable US launch services.
Is it cheaper to launch by Russia? Will we tax the US economy, weaken ourselves, to hoard our activities here, to hoard the illusion of physical dollars staying in the economy?
People are so simplistic in their views. "Shop locally! Locally-produced will strengthen your local economy!" Not if your local economy expends twice as many resources as it would to import; then it only makes you twice as poor.
It's arguably harmful to introduce small children to advanced computer technology. The skills they need are in the mind: social skills, reading skills, learning skills. Yes, you can teach people to learn; the brain is a huge collection of tools, like a wood-and-metal-working shop, and not knowing how any of them works will leave you churning out uselessly-rudimentary objects instead of furniture and machines. With those tools, you could learn everything about computers; with a rote-learned understanding of computers, you will stumble much when approaching any problem you can solve using the computer.
Load everything into an affinity diagram. Scan all your e-mails for salient information, separate it by category, and put those bits under headings. Use that to expand into brief documentation. It'll be organized and easily approached: your first scan will give you an orderly set of data to work from, rather than a mound of abstract e-mails.
The truth is the whole machine of "give everyone the individual ability to get a degree" is a hand-out to businesses by way of reliably creating huge oversupply of in-demand skilled laborers. This raises unemployment and suppresses salaries, versus a laissez-faire method in which the government supplies no support for universal college education.
The laissez-faire method is most painful to businesses, who are more capable of adapting: they would train and incrementally shift work onto entrants, because the wars of sniping professionals from each other cause $250k salaries for banal laborers who could be hired for $40k and trained for $20k per annum while lifting time-wasting grunt work off $80k per annum senior skilled laborers. This contrasts sharply with the individual responsibility method, in which students must attempt market speculation without coordination: giving universal access to college creates the Prisoner's Dilemma, in which it is always advantageous for any individual to pursue an education, and to pursue an education in the most in-demand career, thus creating the harmful oversupply in the market but allowing the individual to avoid exclusion from that market--the best result in the worst outcome.
This laissez-faire approach with college is a carefully-constructed feedback loop in a capitalist system. It is similar to my Citizen's Dividend plan, which makes it profitable to supply homes and food to the poor, thus ensuring that a business entity which refuses to do so on simple principle will only forfeit the profit opportunity to some other business entity which gets a priapic hard-on for the billions of dollars of profits per year they can beat out of the broke and unemployed. A complete laissez-faire approach to welfare--supplying no services at all--fails; a tax system to construct such a capitalist feedback loop works extremely well, but needs rules to prevent abuse (no dividends to immigrants, foreign resident citizens, or children), and thus needs retention of the current system in legacy (i.e. food stamps and EBT for families with children, housing vouchers for naturalized immigrants).
I always look at the pain inflicted by each system, the responses to that pain, and the capability to abuse and manipulate the system. I prefer constructed laissez-faire systems in which we place policy to create automatic pain when society tries to abuse and manipulate the system--as I said above, without universal access to college, businesses would suffer greatly if they did not supply for the development of the workforce, and would profit greatly by supplying such development, and so can do nothing but serve the needs of society. I have no care to stand over anyone with the whip in hand.
the physical manifestation of consciousness is an elaborate trick your brain plays on itself. At every moment, you are a different person than the one who inhabited your body a moment before.
That's an old myth. BNF and BDNF support neuroplasticity by allowing the growth of new neurons; your cerebral cortex continuously creates, destroys, activates, and atrophies nerves throughout your life. That's precisely how you learn.
I happen to recognize and model physics quite well, up to and including real-world newtonian physics. From time to time, I'll spend nearly an hour examining things in my head that didn't work the way I expected, because my brain is better at emulating physics than I am at understanding it.
I do recognize that others aren't quite as good at video games like Sonic and Metroid, though. I pick up on everything from AI behavior to dynamic movement pretty damn fast.
Slashdot Mirror
The group who watched learned responses.
The group who played developed responses.
If you're running man-in-the-middle, you can intercept IP connections to the correct IP address and respond as if that server were running the daemon.
Uber agreements don't have an employment agreement, either. You can walk from Uber and come back. Unlimited vacation time, work on your terms.
The IRS defines employment as when a corporation has control over how the work gets done, rather than the result of the work. This is strange because clients can engage in planning with contractors to integrate their work and make sure they're not planning things which are not allowed. Nevertheless, the terms with Uber are simple: You drive customers from point A to point B. How you do that is immaterial, as long as the customer is satisfied and corporate ethical standards are maintained (banging dudes in your cab as a part-time prostitute cabbie will probably get you fired).
How do they verify you're not hijacking a Web site? What if you block HTTPS (there's no https server!) and submit CSR, and it tries to verify a cookie on the associated HTTP site, which you're MITM and so replace by inserting your cookie?
In both World Wars, the Europeans resisted entering a war on the hope that Germany would subjugate a few neighboring countries and then settle down. This is why Mao killed 170 million Chinese and nobody cares--he was taking over China--but Hitler killed 8 million Jews and everyone cries genocide--he was marching across Europe trying to take away the power of powerful people, so they made him a vicious demon in history. They hardly mention the repeated chastising of Germany, telling them they've gone far enough and should now cease expanding, rather than forcing them back into the German state and returning conquered Poland and Austria to their rightful peoples; nobody wants to admit we'd all have been just fine with Hitler microwaving all the Jews and Gypsies, so long as he kept to borders well outside our comfort zones.
Net Revenue is what we usually term "Profit" or "Income". We usually reserve the term "Revenue" to mean Gross Revenue.
It's very contextual. Net Revenue and Gross Revenue are valid terms. In financial accounting, "Income" is your revenue, less your "Expenses"; in transactional accounting, it's "Credit" and "Debit". The IRS calls your net income "Adjusted Gross Income", which is what we call business "Profits".
Mess.
All stocks are complete fantasy. You trade based on perceived value.
When I was a contractor, my hours were fixed. I worked for one client. The price was negotiated, but I negotiate my salary the same way. Project management may require and review your work breakdown structure, adjusting how you'll schedule the work, to maximize stakeholder engagement and minimize expensive mistakes and rework. Contracts may be Fixed Fee, Cost plus Fixed Fee, Time and Materials, or Fixed Fee Plus Awards: a Time and Materials reimburses your costs and pays for your time, while a Cost plus Fixed Fee reimburses your costs and pays for your estimated time.
People have funny ideas what a contractor is. It's just a legal agreement. The real question is do you pay them by W2 or 1099?
Shop employees use the shop's tools.
When I worked as a contractor, I worked exclusively for one organization. I had to use their systems to track my time--Deltek only, controlled by them--and their computer equipment. They retained the option to fire me if I violated the terms of my contract, failing to deliver as agreed.
I've seen contractors fire clients, too. A client hired a second contractor to work on the same work for comparison? That's your work. If he finishes, they may terminate your contract early. Contractor fires client, finds other contract work that isn't a waste of his fucking time.
"The risk posed by NEOs is not zero, but it is small relative to the risk posed by nuclear weapons." Even so, Baum writes, since the consequences of an NEO hitting the earth would be catastrophic
Wrong. The risk posed by NEOs is small in probability and extremely high in magnitude; the risk posed by nuclear weapons is larger in probability and smaller in magnitude. Space rock impacts cause mass extinctions; nuclear weapons detonations cause international incidents and poorly-defined human responses.
We have a fantasy that one nation launching a nuke will result in all nations nuking each other until the earth is a ball of slag; a more rational mind recognizes MAD as suggesting one nation launching a nuke will result in all nations reducing that nation to a ginormous glass parking lot. In reality, we haven't seen that situation, and our assessment of human psychology suggests it's more likely that a single strike (rather than constant, ongoing bombing) would result in shock, hesitation, and a lot of talking; ongoing nuclear bombing of a single nation would probably result in all other nations shaking like water-laden chihuahuas while trying to talk down the offenders (see Germany. Twice. With all of Europe wetting itself both times).
Nuclear war has a low but significant probability, itself spanning a wide berth of probable outcomes with impacts ranging from nothing notable to devastation. The human race would survive even in the worst projections, just bombed back into the stone age. NEO impacts have an insignificant but real probability, when limiting our view to those objects which would destroy the earth. Limiting nukes to "slag the human race back into the stone age" produces a similarly insignificant but real probability, more attainable by joint intent of all world leaders but hardly more likely; expanding NEO impacts to "a range of possible outcomes from smashing buildings to vaporizing all life off the planet" and scaling each magnitude of impact against the various magnitudes of impact of nuclear war immediately demonstrates that we take meteor impacts pretty frequently, most hitting uninhabited areas or blowing up in the sky with no damage, so nuclear war seems vaguely more likely in all scenarios.
The absolute outcome of a planet-killer tells you it's easier to hide from nuclear war. A few nukes are an acceptable trade-off, since disarmament is impossible and creates its own risks (i.e. secret nuclear stockpiles--if you really disarm, how do you know the other guy isn't lying, and ready to nuke you when it's clear you really have no nukes?)
Monster made a huge mistake here anyway. Apple acquires Beats, so now a rich-as-fuck company owns a dirt-cheap company. Monster loads up a fraud suit in search of a quick settlement, since Apple has too much money to bother with that shit. Apple goes, "U SRS BRO?" Throws Monster out of all its shit, relegating them to the bargain bin away from the Apple iAccessories aisle where all the cool kids bring their money to buy expensive crap.
$12 million. Apple has $120,000 million cash on hand, and you think they care about retaining your licensing fees? They had $28 billion in profit last year.
Gold electroplating doesn't flake off. It's supposed to be micrometers thick.
It's even worse: he uses "reduce" instead of "minimize". Reduces compared to what?
I'll bestow upon you some economic theory. This is newer stuff--it's not in any current texts--but let me know if you've seen this anywhere.
Wealth is not money. Money is a representation of wealth, but wealth isn't money. I'll attempt here to explain wealth.
Imagine you employ 1,000 laborers in an economy to produce chairs. These laborers cost $10/hr. They use an artisan manufacture method: a single laborer uses hand tools to cut wood and fit together a finished chair. This takes roughly 8 hours, meaning one laborer produces one chair per day, 1,000 chairs output per day, 260,000 chairs per year, at a cost of $80 per each.
Everyone in this economy buys chairs. Chairs last approximately one year, so everyone in the economy buys 4 chairs per year, at $320. This is on top of their expenses for houses, food, entertainment, and so forth.
You implement the assembly line. The assembly line lines up 250 artisans to each contribute their part in rapid serial fashion: rather than requiring 8 hours to produce 1 chair, 250 artisans produce 1,000 chairs per day--approximately 2 hours per chair at $10/hr, $20 per each.
Now everyone in this economy spends approximately $80 per year on chairs. That leaves $240 per year in their pockets. Of course, this also leaves 750 chair artisans unemployed.
That's wealth transfer: the wealth of the displaced chair makers transfers to everyone else who buys chairs. You'll notice money doesn't transfer; the labor required to make a product transfers. Labor is the true cost of all goods: energy is the cost of humans building machines, humans raising oil out of the ground, humans transporting, humans running refineries, and humans running power plants; mark-up is added at each stage, but can be slimmed down (especially for bulk purchases) exactly to the human labor costs and no further.
With this labor cost eliminated and chairs now cheaper, people have $240/year in their pockets that they didn't before. Someone gets the bright idea to make chair cushions. Each chair cushion requires an artisan 6 hours of labor; 260,000 cushions per year requires, coincidentally, 3/4 as many workers, or 750. In real life, the total human cost must be less than the market ($240/year). As we can see here, cushions cost $60 per each.
Persons buying 4 chairs per year at a cost of $360 have now become persons buying 4 chairs per year at a cost of $80, plus 4 cushions per year at a cost of $240, a total of $360. Everyone is employed again (rather, the original level of employment is met), and more stuff is made and purchased and owned.
Wealth increases by a bloody cycle of unemployment and underemployment: people must be made unemployed in favor of cheaper laborers or more efficient human labor utilization. This concentrates their wealth into the hands of other people, who then can buy more stuff, which creates new markets and expands existing ones, creating a renewed demand for labor. The cycle repeats again and again, each time coming out with a wealthier society; the few at the bottom are repeatedly chewed up, spat out, then picked up and put back to work. Without this cycle, our economy would stagnate, and then collapse as all seized machinery does.
This is why welfare is important. We rely heavily on our bottom-end labor, and need to care for these people; if they become useless, our economy suffers. Providing strong guarantees without disincentivizing work strengthens the economy, shortening these turn-over times and maximizing our wealth growth: such behavior directly makes me, you, and everyone else richer.
It's no secret I prefer a Citizen's Dividend. Our welfare system was 1.5% of the total adjusted gross income (AGI)--including business and individual income--in 1950; it's now over 17%. That includes state and Federal resources. A 17% Citizen's Dividend which dumps most welfare services in favor of flatly distributed money because it's incredibly stable (the economy collapses if we lose enoug
Then they're behaving inefficiently, or they have other concerns--such as no longer having anywhere to launch from, or not having reliable US launch services.
Is it cheaper to launch by Russia? Will we tax the US economy, weaken ourselves, to hoard our activities here, to hoard the illusion of physical dollars staying in the economy?
People are so simplistic in their views. "Shop locally! Locally-produced will strengthen your local economy!" Not if your local economy expends twice as many resources as it would to import; then it only makes you twice as poor.
Some of us are heteroromantic, biromantic, homoromantic, panromantic, demiromantic, or even aromantic.
It's arguably harmful to introduce small children to advanced computer technology. The skills they need are in the mind: social skills, reading skills, learning skills. Yes, you can teach people to learn; the brain is a huge collection of tools, like a wood-and-metal-working shop, and not knowing how any of them works will leave you churning out uselessly-rudimentary objects instead of furniture and machines. With those tools, you could learn everything about computers; with a rote-learned understanding of computers, you will stumble much when approaching any problem you can solve using the computer.
Load everything into an affinity diagram. Scan all your e-mails for salient information, separate it by category, and put those bits under headings. Use that to expand into brief documentation. It'll be organized and easily approached: your first scan will give you an orderly set of data to work from, rather than a mound of abstract e-mails.
The truth is the whole machine of "give everyone the individual ability to get a degree" is a hand-out to businesses by way of reliably creating huge oversupply of in-demand skilled laborers. This raises unemployment and suppresses salaries, versus a laissez-faire method in which the government supplies no support for universal college education.
The laissez-faire method is most painful to businesses, who are more capable of adapting: they would train and incrementally shift work onto entrants, because the wars of sniping professionals from each other cause $250k salaries for banal laborers who could be hired for $40k and trained for $20k per annum while lifting time-wasting grunt work off $80k per annum senior skilled laborers. This contrasts sharply with the individual responsibility method, in which students must attempt market speculation without coordination: giving universal access to college creates the Prisoner's Dilemma, in which it is always advantageous for any individual to pursue an education, and to pursue an education in the most in-demand career, thus creating the harmful oversupply in the market but allowing the individual to avoid exclusion from that market--the best result in the worst outcome.
This laissez-faire approach with college is a carefully-constructed feedback loop in a capitalist system. It is similar to my Citizen's Dividend plan, which makes it profitable to supply homes and food to the poor, thus ensuring that a business entity which refuses to do so on simple principle will only forfeit the profit opportunity to some other business entity which gets a priapic hard-on for the billions of dollars of profits per year they can beat out of the broke and unemployed. A complete laissez-faire approach to welfare--supplying no services at all--fails; a tax system to construct such a capitalist feedback loop works extremely well, but needs rules to prevent abuse (no dividends to immigrants, foreign resident citizens, or children), and thus needs retention of the current system in legacy (i.e. food stamps and EBT for families with children, housing vouchers for naturalized immigrants).
I always look at the pain inflicted by each system, the responses to that pain, and the capability to abuse and manipulate the system. I prefer constructed laissez-faire systems in which we place policy to create automatic pain when society tries to abuse and manipulate the system--as I said above, without universal access to college, businesses would suffer greatly if they did not supply for the development of the workforce, and would profit greatly by supplying such development, and so can do nothing but serve the needs of society. I have no care to stand over anyone with the whip in hand.
the physical manifestation of consciousness is an elaborate trick your brain plays on itself. At every moment, you are a different person than the one who inhabited your body a moment before.
That's an old myth. BNF and BDNF support neuroplasticity by allowing the growth of new neurons; your cerebral cortex continuously creates, destroys, activates, and atrophies nerves throughout your life. That's precisely how you learn.
If it's generally unpopular, then it'll solve itself.
I happen to recognize and model physics quite well, up to and including real-world newtonian physics. From time to time, I'll spend nearly an hour examining things in my head that didn't work the way I expected, because my brain is better at emulating physics than I am at understanding it.
I do recognize that others aren't quite as good at video games like Sonic and Metroid, though. I pick up on everything from AI behavior to dynamic movement pretty damn fast.