Proposal: Linear Algebra Study Group - <AUTHOR>

Inspired by http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2992963, let's start a group to (re-)learn linear algebra.
Who's in, and how shall we go about it? Something like a chapter every week or two, plus do the exercises?
Time to trade in a few hours of internet downtime and actually learn something.
Edit: here's what seems to be emerging. We'll read Strang's "Linear Algebra and its Applications" (ISBN 0030105676), one chapter every two weeks plus exercises. We'll stay here where the community is, unless proven otherwise. And... that's about it! I like systems with few rules.
The one sticking point is waiting for people to get the book. Anyone who, like me, just ordered a cheap copy on Abebooks (probably a re-import from India) is going to be blocked for a bit. I will post again when my copy arrives, and will email everyone who (a) has said on this page that they're in and (b) has an email address in their HN profile. Will that be suitable?
I'll check back this evening. <comment><USER2> It would be best to do this somewhere that supports MathJax (<http://www.mathjax.org/>). HN does not, which could make it awkward to discuss math in an HN thread.

There are three reasonable ways to add MathJax support to a site.

1\. Get the site owner to do it. The site owner simply has to toss in a script tag that loads MathJax from the MathJax CDN and sets some configuration options. Someone would need to convince PG that this is worthwhile. (I've done some timing tests, and MathJax doesn't seen to cause any noticeable performance problems when used on pages that contain no math. Any decent browser caches the script so load time of the script is not a problem).

2\. The user can use a Greasemonkey script to load it, for browses that support Greasemonkey scripts. Here's an example that loads MathJax on Reddit: <http://userscripts.org/scripts/review/108770>. This could trivially be modified to work on HN instead of Reddit.

3\. Safari doesn't support Greasemonkey scripts. There is a Safari plugin to add that functionality, but it does not work very well. I wrote a Safari extension to load MathJax (or Tex The World, discussed below) on Reddit: <https://github.com/tzs/Reddit-Math-Display-for-Safari>. This could easily be modified to work on HN instead of Reddit.

On Reddit, in /r/math, the convention is to use LaTeX delimited by [; and ;] to mark math, and to use a script called Tex The World to render it (<http://thewe.net/tex/>). That script finds the math, and sends it off to CodeCogs.com where it is rendered and an image is returned for display. This occasionally causes problems due to the load on CodeCogs.

To work around this, someone has a hacked version of the that script (link available in the sidebar on /r/math) that uses the Google Chart API to render small equations and does some kind of caching.

I'd recommend NOT using either of these. The author of TeX The World stopped work on it quite a while ago. There's no licensing information on the site so it is not clear if anyone else can take it over, and by using an external service to render the math it is fragile.

MathJax seems to be the best approach. That's what they are using at mathoverlow and math.stackexchange.com. Note that if MathJax is loaded by the page itself, rather than by an extension, then it works great on iOS and most other major mobile web devices, in addition to pretty much all major desktop browsers, without the need for the end user to do anything special.

<comment><USER3> Testing new HN version of script: [;A\boldsymbol{x}=\lambda\boldsymbol{x};]

Seems to be working, in Chrome at least. Can some other people try it out? <http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/112966>

Put latex code inside square bracket semicolon pairs: _[_ _;...code...;_ _]_

<comment><USER2> Note that /r/math on Reddit is using those delimiters because that's what Tex The World uses. I don't see any particular reason to use those over just sticking with the MathJax defaults, which are backslash-brackets and dollar dollar for display math, and backslash-parens for inline math.

For your script, this can be achieved simply by deleting the line in the configuration that sets the inline math delimiters.

I've tested, and the default delimiters seem to work fine on HN.

<comment><USER3> Cool, thanks. That would be better.

Testing new version: \\(\sum_{i=1}^n c_i \phi(\|\boldsymbol{x}-\boldsymbol{x}_i\|)\\)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Chapter ever two weeks plus exercises sounds simple, doable, reasonable. Let's do it that way.

Once we feel like we've picked our book, let's decide on a date to start; 2 weeks from that date, one of us will just post a "STUDY HN:" post for the first chapter.

We can figure out the formalities, like, what do those threads look like, once we get started. :)

<comment><USER5> I'm in. How do we coordinate? <http://convore.com> perhaps?

<comment><USER4> I seriously think we could just do it on HN threads...

There are feature-y-er places to do it, but this place actually works.

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree. I'm superstitious about origins. When something spontaneously happens at location X it's good to let it continue to evolve there. I say we stay where the party started. We can post occasionally and nobody who's uninterested need look at it. I also confess to tasting sweet irony in the idea of turning HN to more productive use. I feel like I've finally got my enemy in a corner. (The internet has never stopped me from working, but man has it stopped me from learning. But I digress.)

As for what book: "Linear Algebra and its Applications" by Strang does sound like a good fit for hackers. I was convinced by this review: [http://www.amazon.com/review/R289C7K1TN2RO2/ref=cm_cr_pr_per...](http://www.amazon.com/review/R289C7K1TN2RO2/ref=cm_cr_pr_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0030105676). Some cheaper copies are available on Abebooks.

There's a case to be made for the other Strang, but again - origins are magic, so unless there's a compelling negative I say we stick with tptacek's original inspiration.

<comment><USER6> How many times have I seen an ad hoc thread that people would just hit reply- all to converted into a mailing list. Instant community killer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think this is a great idea, although I don't know if I'm a good candidate for it, since I never officially got past a Pre-Calculus level.

I recently decided in the past couple weeks to go through Khan Academy from the very beginning (simple arithmetic! :), and run through every one of their exercises. I'm moving pretty fast through all the refresher courses, and I'm amazed at what I've retained (and disappointed at what I've lost).

I've completed 113 out of 171 exercises in my off hours in the past couple weeks, and once I've gotten through them all, I'm going to run through MIT 18.01 Single Variable Calculus, 18.02 Multi-Variable Calculus, and 18.03 Differential Equations.

From there, I was planning on doing MIT 18.06 Linear Algebra, so even though I don't think it would work out for me to jump in to a group like this without the proper background, I'll be following the progress of things closely.

In fact, the idea of HN being a platform for self-directed group education is a brilliant one. While there are already websites focused on that, I know we're all impressed enough by the HN readership that there is an obvious advantage of organizing it here. Hopefully this experiment can work for other areas of study as well.

<comment><USER8> For the most part, I don't even think you need 18.01. 02 or 03.

there may be a few applications in 18.06 that you miss out on but it wont' be a big deal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Interested; please include me. Once the book arrives I'll have to confirm I can make the time.

In terms of how: I was part of a terrific, useful "HN reads SICP" group a while back (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=428248>, couple of us made it through to the end). In that case the meeting place was simple (irc) and we generally linked to our answers on pastebin/github/personal site which supported whichever features we needed it to. An HN thread per "meeting" could work similarly as a hub.

It is probably useful for each person to chime in separately, e.g. "I agree that this is the right answer" or "I also have this confusion", despite this not being ordinary HN etiquette. That allows us to know how many people are participating and evaluating answers, which is difficult, especially given hidden comment points.

</comment><comment><USER10> How about OpenStudy studygroup for MIT linear algebra course? [http://openstudy.com/groups/mit+18.06+linear+algebra%2C+spri...](http://openstudy.com/groups/mit+18.06+linear+algebra%2C+spring+2010)

</comment><comment><USER11> > Time to trade in a few hours of internet > downtime and actually learn > something.

Amen!

Some tools I can recommend are dokuwiki with jsMath plugin and etherpad for live collaboration/note-taking

<http://piratepad.net/sj8l1FIUIK> \--> I started one pad for this project.

If someone is willing to setup a public dokuwiki on their server, I can provide examples of latex code for matrices and vectors.

</comment><comment><USER12> I'm interested, except I recently bought his _Introduction to Linear Algebra_ (to go with his opencourseware). I'll probably eavesdrop and do the exercises in that one instead.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, that's the argument in favor of the other Strang: it's more standard and would allow piggy-backing on the open course. Still, the material is mostly going to overlap.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm in!

By the way, some less applied materials include:

\- [http://www.amazon.com/Linear-Algebra-Right-Sheldon- Axler/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/Linear-Algebra-Right-Sheldon- Axler/dp/0387982582)

\- [http://www.math.mcgill.ca/goren/AlgebraII07-08/CourseNotesMa...](http://www.math.mcgill.ca/goren/AlgebraII07-08/CourseNotesMath251.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER14> Two collaboration suggestions:

Sage: <http://sagemath.org/>

<http://math.chapman.edu/~jipsen/tiddly/tiddlymath.html> (related example: <http://deferentialgeometry.org/>)

</comment><comment><USER15> Which textbook are we talking about? Timing isn't perfect for me, but I'm willing to at least try until everything catches up with me.

<comment><USER16> I'd also like to know which book. I just bought Strang's _Introduction to Linear Algebra_ to study along with his video lectures.

If it's based on this book I'd love to join.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Count me in. I already have Strang's textbook and have watched some of his lectures.

However, I was quite impressed with a few minutes of Khan Academy I watched the other day. I don't know what the dependency chain is for their L.A. modules but that site seems to have some good metadata and group organization tools.

<comment><USER4> I've been liking Khan's linear algebra stuff too, but feel like its time to level up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'd like to be involved (email in profile).

Are there significant differences between editions? For those not employed by Thomas, the 4th edition is a expensive book even when used. The 3rd, by contrast, has many affordable used copies available. And are the international versions identical?

<comment><USER19> Same thinking. $90 used is just too much, so I picked up the 3.ed. Hopefully it's good enough. Yes, please count me in too!

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> It seems one can get the International Edition of the 4th edition from Abe Books at a greatly reduced price:

[http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?isbn=003010567...](http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?isbn=0030105676&sts=t&x=0&y=0)

</comment><comment><USER20> I'm in. Does it matter which edition we use?

As for notation and sharing images, this is a great tool... provided you know LaTeX (which is worth learning anyway):

<http://www.codecogs.com/latex/eqneditor.php>

</comment><comment><USER21> Would definitely be interested in this. Use it everyday for stats, but would like to get better at the fundamentals.

I think for it to be most efficient, we should use the book that coincides w/ the MIT lectures.

</comment><comment><USER22> I'm in for this. A chapter every 2 weeks sounds like a good pace without any unnecessary pressure. How do we coordinate? @gruseom, would you like to take the lead?

</comment><comment><USER23> I'm in; I have the book; Is the next checkpoint on Sep 27 (Chapter 1)?

With 8 chapters, this will stretch past Dec, is this correct?

</comment><comment><USER24> I am in! I live very far from Amazon.com and I don't have Kindle. Is there a place to source the book's pdf version?

</comment><comment><USER25> That sounds good to me. Here in Chicago? If we need a location, my office and apartment building are options...

<comment><USER4> Daniel's in Canadia. We can just do it on HN, with a post every other week. It probably won't hit the front page often, but who cares?

We were going to do this internally at our Chicago office (Timur is a math grad student), so I'm open to Chicago-specific extensions, especially if they involve alcohol. I'm better at math when slightly buzzed.

<comment><USER25> Agreed. Alcohol & Chicago-extendsion - I'm in for that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I'm in. Though I don't think HN is the place to run the study group.

</comment><comment><USER27> I'm in. My email is in my profile and is firstname.lastname@example.com

</comment><comment><USER28> I'll get on board; I need to relearn this. Email in profile.

</comment><comment><USER29> I'm interested! please find my email in my profile.

</comment><comment><USER30> Awesome idea, I'm in. Time to go get Strang...

</comment><comment><USER31> I'm in. I have the 3rd edition of this book

</comment><comment><USER32> I'm interested in participating.

</comment><comment><USER33> I'm game. Where do we sign up ?

<comment><USER4> You don't. That's the best thing about it. We'll agree on this thread what book we're using and when the first study thread will happen; then, a couple weeks from now when it's time, someone will just post STUDY HN: Linear Algebra Chapter 1, and I will ask some dumb question and Colin Percival will jump on me for being dumb and we'll be off to the races.

I'm psyched.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> if you're relearning, you should use Horn and Johnson's Matrix Analysis IMO

</comment><comment><USER35> I'd like to join this.

<comment><USER36> I'm in. There is a free linear algebra text from UPS (U Puget Sound) as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I'm in, probably.

</comment><comment><USER37> Yesterday I pushed a tiny javascript algebra on github. I'll just leave the link here: <https://github.com/plainas/ualgebra.js>

It might be useful for you guys to check solutions and such.</comment>


Valuing Productivity, Not Profession, Could Reduce U.S. Inequality - <AUTHOR> https://www.citylab.com/equity/2019/12/economic-inequality-jobs-educational-opportunities-rothwell/604099/ <comment><USER4> > _I think we can have a society that rewards people for productive or > otherwise socially valuable contributions while also taking care of the poor > and those who can't work._

I find "socially valuable contributions" to be a disturbing phrase.

First, that implies there's some sort of authority - legal or otherwise - <USER3> determines "socially valuable."

Second, quite often society is wrong in what "it" values or finds popular.

Finally, I use "wrong" from my point of view. Obviously there are many definitions of "wrong" based on your ethics, morality, religion (or lack thereof), values, and preferences.

It sounds like yet another social credit system.. whoever runs it wins.

<comment><USER5> _> that implies there's some sort of authority - legal or otherwise - <USER3> determines "socially valuable."_

Well, we already have a system that rewards "valuable" contributions: Money.

Just a lot of people don't like that system much, as it turns out that system places little value on childcare, elder care and teaching; and huge value on executives who are fired for sexual harassment. Which doesn't line up very precisely with a lot of people's personal values.

<comment><USER6> Great childcare and elder care is very expensive and the people who do these jobs well are, in my experience, quite well compensated relative to other jobs available to them.

<comment><USER7> >Great childcare and elder care is very expensive

It's hard even to find a way to buy "Great childcare and elder care". Mostly you end up paying as much as such a thing should cost but the money just goes to people who "administer" minimum wage workers delivering care that is mediocre at best.

<comment><USER8> I ran through the numbers when my kid started in childcare. It turned out there wasn't really a grand bureaucratic conspiracy. Instead, mainly labor is just really expensive.

When your kids are still infants, at childcare centers, the caretaker:child ratio can get as high as 1:2. Those caretakers gross nearly $30k/year plus benefits & other employer costs such as FICA & Medicare.

<comment><USER9> $30k/year is not a lot of money - definitely not enough to raise your own kids on

<comment><USER8> No, but it does mean that as a parent, if (in this canned example) you are paying $18k/year- while the number initially sounds crazy- nearly all of it is going directly to caretaker compensation, not bloat & largess.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It remains very frustrating watching people organise against inequality as the evil of this era. Inequality isn't worth railing against and the focus of all this attention should be on living standards.

If everyone doubles their living standards over 10 years, absolute inequality rises (there is always going to be someone with no wealth/income because they want to live that way, so the absolute gap in wealth increases as the wealthiest member of society gets wealthier).

If the amount of wealth is doubled due to some center of extreme productivity (eg, a Silicon Valley) then that center is going to get preferential access to new wealth. Relative inequality rises.

In both of these scenarios, wealth inequality and living standards can raise in tandem. These are perfectly fine outcomes. Inequality is only interesting as a symptom of deeper issues affecting living standards. Should workers be rewarded according to their productivity? That would be nice, but then we would need to be very careful how we decided who got what job. There are jobs that are rare, highly productive and easy to do where the people holding them would be unfairly rewarded. That would be similar to what we have now. Focusing on median & minimum living standards will get much better results. If those are rising, inequality is not an issue.

<comment><USER11> I'm going to speak directly to your point, which is the claim that _only absolute wealth matters, but relative wealth does not_.

Relative wealth buys you status, position, and _power_ in society. That status protects you when things go wrong, when the _system_ fails to measure or optimize for the things that you care about, or when the music suddenly stops and you find that you're the one left without a chair.

People deeply care about not being on the bottom of the pecking order, because if you look at history, when anything goes wrong, it's always those at the bottom who get hit the hardest - whether it's famine, war, economic recession, or any of the myriad of instabilities and ills that visit our societies from time to time.

Your contention that we should _only care about minimum living standards_ requires a large amount of faith, not just in the system as it stands today, but that _the system won 't slowly erode those minimums over time_ because the poor lack the _political and social power_ to keep their minimums. Without the power to protect your own interests, you're at the literal _mercy_ of those who are better off than you to throw you a bone when you're most vulnerable.

And the best guarantor of social and political power is to be _necessary_ \- to be a critical component of the means of production. Automation, outsourcing, and foreign competition have all been chipping away at the competitive position of the median American worker.

A look at the path of inflation-adjusted minimum wage, the evisceration of unions, the opioid crisis, the recent Great Recession, the fact that standard housing, schooling, and medical care is becoming increasingly out of reach of the average wage-earners would suggest that in fact, life is _not_ getting better for those at the bottom, despite the very large increase in absolute wealth since the 1970s.

<comment><USER10> > Your contention that we should only care about minimum living standards > requires a large amount of faith, not just in the system as it stands today, > but that the system won't slowly erode those minimums over time because the > poor lack the political and social power to keep their minimums. Without the > power to protect your own interests, you're at the literal mercy of those > who are better off than you to throw you a bone when you're most vulnerable.

Yeah, exactly. The focus should be on stuff like that rather than on wealth/income inequality; I can see we are on the same wavelength here. The natural solution to what you are talking about is to find ways to increase the standards of people who are not well off.

The natural solution to inequality is to disenfranchise the wealthy, which doesn't put food on the table (literally, in the extreme China/Russia/Zimbabwe style cases). It works really badly & everyone important tries to migrate somewhere capitalist when it is tried, which is a contributing factor to why it generally isn't the done thing.

If the focus is on inequality, then realising that a policy is not working will take a long time. If the focus is on living standards, feedback will be quick.

<comment><USER12> > The natural solution to inequality is to disenfranchise the wealthy, which > doesn't put food on the table

To use an example from the leftmost mainstream politicians in the United States, a current proposal is to enact a wealth tax on fortunes over $X million to fund a larger social safety net.

You can argue that ideologically the focus should be on standards of living, not on inequality, but realistically a wealth tax fulfills both.

<comment><USER13> Why not simply accommodate the savings rather than constantly trying to confiscate them? A dynamic monetary system can do that.

I don't understand this obsession on the left with behaving like Robin Hood. Wealth taxes will not alter the power position of the rich. All it does is get up the nose of the rich and require us to pay those people who want to play Robin Hood.

QE labour hours however, and the power of the wealthy to deny others an income by not spending their haul is removed. They can count their coin and the poor still get to work and eat.

<comment><USER12> I'm not sure I understand what your proposal is but the answer to your question of "why wealth tax", the answer is pretty much because it's simple to convey and rally behind.

Deficit spending (or straight up "money printing") could provide benefits to those who need it without taxation, but decades of political obsession over "how are we gonna pay for it" means that people feel better if a policy of "buy X" is followed by "while taking money from Y to pay for it"

For Republicans, the Y is some nefarious unnamed government bloat or waste, but never military. Most recently it's food stamps, and as I understand it there's a lot of hungry gazes staring at social security and medicaid.

For Democrats, the Y is some nefarious wealthy entity, either Big Corporations or The Rich. So, ambitious far left proposals involve taxing wealth, adding very high marginal tax rates at the top, and taxing corporations and investment vehicles. This is often silly for obvious reasons. For example, Bernie suggests taxing stock transactions, bond trades, and derivatives transactions, by a (low) percentage, which sounds insane personally. But that stocks and derivatives sounds like Evil Wall Street Bullshit to some voters so they eat it up.

<comment><USER13> By definition if you spend more, you tax more. Every amount of govt spending is matched by an increase in taxation to the penny for any positive tax rate. The only thing that stops that is increases in private saving along the route.

Why do you want to stop increased saving?

The 'wealth tax' doesn't work because it doesn't stop the 'wealthy' from bidding on the thing government is trying to buy. So you are just going to cause inflation.

Why not try explaining to people how the system actually works?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> How would "productivity" be measured?

And who would measure it?

Assuming that additional government bureaucracy would be created for this (noble) purpose, what guarantee would we have that their decisions would be any more "rational" or "efficient" than the so-called "free market" system that currently exists in the US for determining salaries?

This is not a criticism of the author's underlying arguments, just a question about how he would implement the proposed remedy.

<comment><USER15> Heck, even as a software developer, which HN heavily skews to, how would we measure productivity? Many fields are very creatively driven, it's incredibly difficult to put a number on it.

Lines of code? That was shown to be a total failure years ago. Jira tickets closed? Some tickets are much harder than others. Hours of butt in seat? Well, sadly that still seems to be a bit in vongue, but is thankfully dying out.

Vlue collar jobs are easier to put a number one, but a lot of white collar jobs don't, and the USA is rapidly shifting to white collar work.

<comment><USER16> Exactly. At best you can ask teammates, but as soon as this becomes an important measure, people are incentivized to back scratch. Plus, people would have radically different standards for productivity based on their own experiences.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> > I think we can have a society that rewards people for productive or > otherwise socially valuable contributions while also taking care of the poor > and those who can't work. If people were paid based on performance and we > removed the political advantages that certain professional elites have > carved out for themselves, we'd be much better off in terms of both > inequality and economic growth.

What does this actually mean? Sure, a few professions like doctors have managed to protect their high salaries by constraining supply, but programmers are paid very well in the US and have no such protections.

It's hard to think of many more examples like doctors; lawyers, for example, have definitely not constrained their own supply and it's debatable how lucrative the profession as a whole really is, despite still having somewhat of an 'elite' connotation.

</comment><comment><USER17> My feeling has always been that no matter how you decide to allocate resources, some people are going to be 'better' at winning the game we design than others; maybe they have some skill that is highly valued in the system we set up, or they are lucky, or have connections, or have a higher drive succeed, or whatever else might factor into success.

Instead of trying to figure out those factors and mitigate them so everyone has an equal chance, why don't we just say fuck it, and tax the winners more heavily? We don't know why you were able to win in the system so well, but since you did, you get to contribute a lot more to helping the people who don't succeed in the system. Give a universal basic income, tax the winners to fund it, and call it a day.

<comment><USER16> This is essentially what social democracies do, like in the Nordic countries, and it seems to work great at achieving good results in a variety of societal dimensions.

The counter-arguments from fiscal conservatives generally take one of two tacks: either a plainly disingenuous one where they argue that this is somehow only possible in those specific countries (e.g. due to being small and/or relatively homogeneous), or an ideological one where they argue that even if this is beneficial to the society as a whole, they're against it because taxing the winners more is fundamentally wrong, taxation is theft etc.

Well, the Nordic countries don't do the UBI part, but taxing the winners heavily and funding policies that are effectively redistributionist because they treat everyone more or less equally (like public transportation or universal healthcare), yeah they do that for sure.

<comment><USER18> No, the Nordic countries don't really tax the winners more. The marginal tax rates for top earners there are about the same as in the US. The real difference is that they, along with most other European welfare states, tax the middle class much more than the US does.

> either a plainly disingenuous one where they argue that this is somehow only > possible in those specific countries (e.g. due to being small and/or > relatively homogeneous)

No, of course it is possible in other countries too. For example, people of Swedish ancestry in the US not only do better than average American, but in fact do much better than Swedes in Sweden.

<comment><USER16> Hmm, is that true?

> So on average, those in the highest earnings bracket will pay 56 percent of > their taxable income to the taxman (31 percent in local income tax plus 25 > percent in national income tax), but a top earner living in Dorotea would > pay 60.15 percent.

[https://www.thelocal.se/20180111/does-swedens-tax-system- rea...](https://www.thelocal.se/20180111/does-swedens-tax-system-really-screw- the-rich)

That sounds higher than the US. Maybe not that much higher than particularly high tax places like NYC, but compared to the US on average, yeah that sounds high.

That taxes there are _also_ higher on the middle class, yeah I don't dispute that.

<comment><USER18> Marginal tax rate in places with most top earners, like California and New York, is around 50%, if you add together both federal and state taxes.

<comment><USER16> Just used a tax calculator, in Stockholm gross of 500k USD annually was net 210k USD: [https://se.neuvoo.com/tax- calculator/?iam=&uet_calculate=cal...](https://se.neuvoo.com/tax- calculator/?iam=&uet_calculate=calculate&salary=4671068&from=year&region=STOCKHOLM)

In NYC it'd be net 284k: [https://smartasset.com/taxes/new-york-tax- calculator#xyAZi4N...](https://smartasset.com/taxes/new-york-tax- calculator#xyAZi4NK9M)

So yeah, it's much higher in Sweden. The effective tax rates are 58% vs 43%.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I have a huge problem with someone who says, "We should just make compensation merit-based rather than based on accidents of birth", because it refuses to acknowledge that we already live in that system. It's just that the "merit" is stuff that happens to correlate strongly to accidents of birth (like IQ, speaking the "correct" dialect, being well-educated, and so forth).

It turns into, "our system is broken, we need to system _harder_", and is just as much nonsense.

</comment><comment><USER20> This sounds like a great idea. Take away the ability to freely enter into contracts with other people and come to a mutually agreeable price. Rather, replace that with top down price controls.

Never been done before!

</comment><comment><USER21> There's a new book out by an econ prof with an Italian sounding name that is very relevant to this. It revisits economic ideas about value and reminds us that the path we're down, completely subjective utility value, is possibly not how we ought to think about it. Of course neither is eg labour theory of value, but it sounds like there's some in-depth discussion of the historical idea of value in there. Totally forgot the lady's name.

<comment><USER22> Thomas Piketty? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty- First_Ce...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty- First_Century)

<comment><USER21> That came out in 2013, and he's a man.

Mariana Mazzucato

[https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/29502362-the-value-of- ev...](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/29502362-the-value-of-everything)

<comment><USER22> I considered that perhaps there was a misremembered gender, and the ending of Piketty can be interpreted as Italian sounding, and it's the most talked about economic book of the last 10 years or so.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Valuing productivity is already reducing U.S. inequality. Lawyers and doctors can't prevent people from getting better educated nor can they completely bar technological advances. Sure they can take short-term measures like regulating DNA or law-tech companies, etc. But many people have an inherent desire to get higher quality health and legal help for cheaper. Regulators can't and won't ever completely stop the decentralization movement.

</comment><comment><USER24> Ok, we just ignore bunch of people who don't give a damn about being productive. Bunch of people who don't give a damn about society. Bunch of people who don't give a damn about anything.

For me biggest problem with this interview is ... not everyone wants to be productive, not everyone wants to have a new car, not everyone wants to have an education.

Guess what, society still has to care about those people and still has to allow them to "not give a damn". Pink colored glasses and saying "job hierarchy is to blame, we can all be productive" is foolish. You cannot force people to work "because inequality". (there were people who tried to do that but where I live we call them nazis and commies)

On the other hand I agree, most important thing is economic mobility, if someone wants a new car and he works for it, he should get it. If someone wants to be Phd in physics and she works hard and has results, no one should prevent that. But we are just water bags with silly emotions so we get together with other bags of water to feel important and to prevent other bags of water from having nice things to feel even more important.

</comment><comment><USER25> I feel valuing humanity, not productivity, could reduce inequality still further. Are disabled ("differently" abled) people to be starved because they are not productive enough?

</comment><comment><USER26> Start taxing the very wealthy

</comment><comment><USER27> Isn't this sort of a capitalist's spin on Marx's Labor Power theory? In such a system, a worker's productivity is roughly equal to their "power" in the marketplace.

</comment><comment><USER28> Valuing PEOPLE over productivity, could reduce global inequality.</comment>


Ethical issues in research using datasets of illicit origin - <AUTHOR> https://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2017/11/07/ethical-issues-in-research-using-datasets-of-illicit-origin/ <comment><USER2> (self-promotion)

To anyone who is interested in this topic, I published a paper a few years back on the topic of 'accidentally illicit' datasets. It's not my best work but someone might find it interesting.

[http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2739/24...](http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2739/2456)

Amusing anecdote: I wrote this paper (2) after a reviewer insisted they would reject my other paper (1) unless I tested the paper's algorithm on _10% of all images on the Internet_.

Talk about a hostile review!

(They also demanded I remove the performance comparison which showed the new technique to be some 1000x faster than existing techniques and more reliable... Hmm).

The reviewer then dragged out the review/response process for so long that I had time to write/review/publish the ethics paper above, in between one round of reviewer comments (!)

I then took the freshly published ethics paper to the editor for (1), and asked them to disqualify the hostile reviewer for making unethical demands and refusing to withdraw them even when this was pointed out.

The editor agreed. The reviewer was then replaced by someone else, who replicated the entire work of (1) _completely from scratch using only the description in the paper_ , confirmed the result using their own datasets they gathered privately, and who approved publication.

'Reviewer 1', they're always either the hero or the villain. It was an interesting feeling to see the very worst type of reviewer being replaced by the very best.

Anyway, that's the strange story behind this paper :-)

<comment><USER3> I love that story. But I have two questions.

1) What would be the possible motivation for such hostility from the first reviewer?

2) Why did you create a temporary throwaway account but then promote a paper with your real name and information?

<comment><USER4> 1) The reviewer may have had similar work and wanted to hold up the publishing of OP's paper while finishing their own work. Or there's some personal animus. Or OP's paper may have threatened to surplant the reviewers work. There's a whole plethora of reason for a particularly hostile review. It's a big enough problem that my partner who's going through grad school now had the option of requesting specific people NOT be on the reviews for her (first publishing in gradschool as a first author!) paper because of scooping, animus towards her PI, etc. that may have resulted in an overly hostile review.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> There is a very fine line between authorized data, technically public but implicitly unauthorized data, and illegally obtained, unauthorized data. Here's an example of each in the financial sector, from my personal experience:

1\. Financial account aggregators and "budget apps" like Min monetize their business, in part, by selling huge amounts of data to the financial sector. Sometimes companies like Second Measure take raw data from companies like Yodlee and clean it, then resell it. Nowadays there is an entire industry of alterative market research that has had all sorts of participants, from Foursquare (locations) to Spark (email enhancement). This is technically authorized, because it's in the TOS. The users effectively contribute their own data.

2\. I developed an extremely accurate, reasonably generalizable method of forecasting vehicle production at several companies that relies on implementing a VIN searching algorithm in conjunction with legally required NHTSA recall lookup portals hosted by each manufacturer. This data is what you'd call unauthorized, because no entity explicitly endorses your use of it. For example, several colleagues and I knew well ahead of time that Tesla would miss on production of the Model 3s because they were utterly unrepresented in our data. But this data is public, so it's fine to use from a legal and compliance standpoint. It was lucrative data specifically because it had a high signal for revenue, yet was hitherto unused and unidentified.

3\. I once found, in the course of looking for legally usable data, an actual security vulnerability disclosing all users of a publicly traded QSR's online delivery service, along with their phone numbers, email addresses and last four digits of credit cards. This is both unauthorized and illegal, because the data is contaminated with personally identifiable information and it clearly requires a vulnerability (not just scraping) to acquire.

I've seen overzealous data vendors accidentally slip from #2 into #3, which is really bad for all concerned. It's not a great look for the vendor, who will likely be fired, and it represents a breach for the company who owns the data and its users. Any firm that has purchased the data will likely be contamined and be forced into a trading lockdown of that security for a period of time by compliance.

My real concern is that illicit data like this is used in machine learning research. Machine learning is already pretty frustrating - it's common for me to find research from a conference that I'm simply unable to replicate because the training or experiment data is not available (this is annoyingly the case with A/B experiment optimization research put out by giant companies in particular). I worry that this trend of accepting machine learning research without any requirement for total data transparency will incentivize researchers to conduct their experiments using illicit data that doesn't need to be sourced.

<comment><USER6> Your second example is very fascinating. Is finding unique datasets like this part of your job? How lucrative is something like that?

<comment><USER7> I believe dsacco's posted about doing similar work before. Apparently there are teams of people at hedge funds that comb the web to find these kinds of datasets - non-obvious signals for financial metrics. Very eye-opening stuff. I always find his/her anecdotes interesting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Good work, Daniel. A laboriously-gathered overview of current practice, and discussion of how to determine whether uses of illegally-obtained data are justified.

<comment> barry-cotter It may be a wonderful paper and discussion but the author seems ridiculously positive about IRBs.

[http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/29/my-irb- nightmare/](http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/29/my-irb-nightmare/)

HN discussion of the above

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15127271](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15127271)

<comment><USER8> That's a different field entirely. Just because some American hospitals have trouble organising medical ethics reviews, does not mean that European or even American CompSci researchers will run into the same problems. Indeed, Daniel is (I think) positive perhaps based on good interactions with the ethics committee here (my wife is certainly happy with the ethics reviews she's had).

Even in that SSC discussion linked, many SSC commenters agree that their own ethics system was far easier, even in medicine.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> We gave the Japanese amnesty for [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731) in exchange for their biological warfare data. We had the option to do the right thing (burn it, put it on display), but we validated it.

<comment><USER10> > We had the option to do the right thing (burn it, put it on display), but we > validated it.

I'm not sure complete amnesty was the best thing to do, but I don't think destroying the data would be the best either. If we had burned the data that was already gathered, it would have been a complete waste of human life. Those people experimented on were murdered, and burning the data would have made those murders pointless. By using that data, we could prevent human death in the future.

<comment><USER11> If I remember correctly, there was also a similar set of unethical decisions in Nazi Germany that generated a body of knowledge of how humans survive under "situations", like lack of oxygen, rapid-(de)pressurization, decompression, % body burned and live. Just a whole lot of horrible things.

The problem was, this was done scientifically. Controls, and all that. The problem was they were intentionally treating their subjects (Jewish) like lab rats.

But when WWII ended, we realized some of their data could be used for the space race. And the US used it.

The ethical issues here are all encompassing. Do you get rid of it and let them die in vain? Do you use it, and benefit on people executed over genocide conditions? There's no good way to answer this, as the converse has a valid argument as well.

I look back and say, well, I was born in the early 80's. It's about 60 years before my time (would have to be born in the 20's to serve in the 40's).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Is the demand for it that is creating the rise of illicit data collections.</comment>


Are DOM tree elements global variables? - <AUTHOR> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3434278/ie-chrome-are-dom-tree-elements-global-variables-here/3434388

<comment><USER2> Gecko (Firefox) does this in quirks mode only. We're holding the line against this for the moment (<http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11960>).

</comment><comment><USER3> tldr version, minus the usual stackoverflow backandforth:

Named elements are made into properties of the "window" object in Chrome, IE, and Opera. That would include any element with an "id" attribute and most elements with a "name" attribute. Thankfully, any vars you declare in this scope override the DOM ones.

With some quick testing in Chrome, IE, and Opera, it appears that these elements are enumerable off of "window" in Opera but _not_ Chrome and IE (perhaps those two browsers create them only when you access them).

</comment><comment><USER4> Yep, Microsoft did it, and everyone else (for some reason) followed. My approach is to actively avoid relying on it for real work - but pull it out for the JS1K/10K comps ;)

<comment><USER5> Then you'd be breaking the rules of JS1K, because JS1K demos have to work in Firefox, and Firefox doesn't support this feature (except in quirks mode, which you can't turn on in JS1K).

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> You can, however, abuse this quite nicely for size-optimized javascript demos. For example if you look at some of the <http://js1k.com/> submissions. For anything other than those experiments, you should of course avoid.

</comment><comment><USER7> The IE guys are saying this needs to be kept for backwards compatibility. <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11960#c8>

Why can't it be kept for old doctypes and quirksmode like Gecko does? The HTML5 doctype should get rid of this. Surely _that_ wouldn't break top sites as MSFT is saying: <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11960#c12>

</comment><comment><USER8> Yes.</comment>


How does Apple get away with this UI? - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/yetanotherfella/status/1204475446655504385 <comment><USER2> The thing I hate most about Apple's updates is that if you say "try again in an hour", rather than prompting you if you want to update again, it just starts the update!

My PB is supplied by my employer, so I'm using it all the time in the daytime. Sometimes I have time to do the update, but sometimes I don't - but I might anticipate that I can come to a stopping point in an hour or two. But I don't get that option. If I say "wait an hour" \- it will just start the update in an hour - killing my browser and tabs, my IDE, my terminal sessions, whatever else I have open...

Hosed isn't the right word for it - fortunately IntelliJ allows me to continue where I left off, and getting my tabs back is no problem in most browsers. Terminal sessions are jacked, though. And just getting back to where you were mindset-wise - that's a major pain (it's one thing when it's on your terms, but when the rug is yanked out from under you, it becomes a real problem).

Ubuntu (and probably other Debian-based Linux systems - and maybe all of them - so many distros I haven't tried or haven't played with in a long while - sigh) does it right - if you say to try again later, it will pop up the same dialog later. Most security updates aren't of the nature that waiting an hour or a day is going to be a major issue (and if it were, we generally are informed well ahead of time of it).

So - I can understand and feel everyone's pain on this; Apple really should change this to allow user choice. Heck - I'd also love options to install "at next shutdown", "at next powerup", and "at a set time/day" \- because at the end of the day, when I shutdown my machine, that would actually be the best time to do the install/update (for me at least).

<comment><USER3> > Terminal sessions are jacked, though.

Interestingly, I protect against this by running iTerm, which asks me before quitting and prevents the shutdown.

<comment><USER4> > Terminal sessions are jacked, though

Tmux might be useful for that.

<comment><USER5> If tmux is local, the reboot is going to kill that too. There are ways to re- create your windows/panes automatically after reboot, but they come with caveats.

<comment><USER6> iTerm 2 can do that and even restore running processes. In my experience that feature works well enough.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I've been pressing "Remind me tomorrow" every. single. day. for the 31 days since Catalina has been released.

I'm waiting for 10.15.2 (which thankfully, appears to be right around the corner).

Edit: 10.15.2 appears to be available as of this moment. Though release notes don't appear to be up yet(?)

<comment><USER8> Are you quite certain Catalina is the only update available to you?

I haven't updated to Catalina (and won't for some time yet, due to institutional restrictions and legacy 32-bit software), but aside from the badge on the System Preferences dock icon, I only get the "you have updates" notification when there is an update available for the OS version I'm currently running.

I _do_ have to click on the "other updates" not-a-button button in the Software Update pane to see what's actually available and apply it, though, so it isn't entirely obvious that there's something besides Catalina to install.

(I'm also not entirely certain that there isn't some kind of institutional setting that's affecting this, or just weirdness on my end—I'm not trying to say my experience is universal, just saying there might be another explanation.)

<comment><USER7> I think you're right actually. But as you also said, it's not immediately obvious what updates are being referred to. The notification should be much clearer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> They are pushing macOS Catalina pretty hard, but this pop-up is just pushing you to the Software Update control panel.

There, you'll find that while the most prominent option is to upgrade to Catalina, there's a teeny tiny link to install other updates, which is where you can (and should) get critical updates for macOS Mojave.

[https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT210788](https://support.apple.com/en- us/HT210788)

Today's Dec 10 update addresses a kernel vulnerability, CVE-2019-8847. All users should get this update, but click carefully to make sure you don't accidentally try to upgrade to Catalina.

<comment><USER10> Oh, that's so astoundingly bad, it blows my mind! In effect, they are actively hindering users who don't (yet) want to upgrade to Catalina from discovering security upgrades. Surely, that cannot be their intention?

<comment><USER11> I'm not sure what this means. They released an update for a previous version intentionally to allow them to resolve security upgrades. That does not sound like hindering users.

The UI is clear. The notification is clear. Catalina only will install if you specifically ask it to install. Notifications for Catalina are distinct from Software Upgrades (they are two different notifications).

I do not understand people who assume the worst without even seeing it for themselves. Some people just want a bit of drama in their life.

<comment><USER10> In my experience, I only get a rather generic notification for software updates. When I click on it, I wind up in System Preferences, Software Update. And that displays the Catalina update very prominently, then in a much smaller font, "Other updates are available" with a "More info" link. Only after I click the latter, do I learn about the security update for Mojave.

After having been pestered about Catalina for quite some time, obviously my response is to close the window without looking further. If it weren't for the current discussion thread, I would still not know about this security update. This is why I called it hindering users.

(Not sure how your final comment applies here.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is hardly as bad as Windows 10 where I was quite literally given a prompt (full screen modal, couldn't close) for a system update that said:

"Restart Now" and "Ok"

Guess what "Ok" did? Restarted the fucking machine, but _not_ right away... no, it waited about ten minutes before randomly performing the update during a game I was playing.

<comment><USER13> That's not how windows updates work _at all_ so either you are just making shit up or your memory is terrible.

<comment><USER14> I'm going to go on a limb and say that the parent omitted something, like ignoring the updates for weeks prior.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I keep a list of shit like this:

\- [ ] Fix FaceTime audio ducking BS

\- [ ] Add screen sharing to FaceTime

\- [ ] VP9 decoder in Safari

\- [ ] Make Puck.app part of macOS

\- [ ] Make iMessage search actually useful

\- [ ] Tree style tabs (like that FF extension)

\- [ ] Safari profiles

\- [ ] A protocol to link profiles (tab A in iTerm opens links in profile A, emails from email account B opens links in profile B)

\- [ ] Improve Preview reliability

\- [ ] Make screenshots save faster

\- [ ] Something to announce that my charger is plugged but not charging (happens once a week - you realise you've got 2% battery left when everything slows down massively)

\- [ ] Something to stop Mail opening main window when there's some letters already open (aka behave like every other mac app)

\- [ ] Zoom on email when composing

\- [ ] Solve Mail app performance (3k of emails shouldn't take 5 seconds to render on i9)

\- [ ] Spell checker is pretty bad

\- [ ] Reliable way to disable dedicated GPU (and a 15" MBP model without it - most devs don't need it, but I understand devs aren't target market anyway)

\- [ ] This checklist was made with Notes app, which I starting to love, but pasting this list back doesn't parse as a checklist

\- [ ] Unsure if it's macOS or iOS bug, but it's been like that for years - storing Mom or Dad in contacts get's converted into Mom Lastname or Dad Lastname. Trying to use Siri "Call Dad" results in "I can't find a number for 'Dad Lastname' in your contacts, would you like to search instead?".

\- [ ] Contacts adds invisible characters when copy/pasting phone numbers

\- [ ] Can't change audio input without disconnecting bluetooth speaker (while on FaceTime)

\- [ ] Siri Announce can't tell apart english messages from non-english so it just reads out this madness

\- [ ] 2 letters missing from keyboard in my language (confirmed "working as intended" by Apple)

\- [ ] Can't share iCloud data with family who lives in different country

<comment><USER16> To add to your list:

* When rebooting after an update, Chrome tabs will begin auto-playing YouTube videos around ten seconds before I enter my password to log in.

* Number of unread items != number shown next to "Unread" in Mail.app != number shown in red dot over Mail.app icon

* Step count and distance reported by Activity.app != values reported by Health.app

* Reminders.app does not in fact remind me of anything, ever

* Unable to have multiple simultaneous timers running in Clock.app, unlike Android equivalent

* Un-deleteable duplicate entries in Calendar.app

* Maps.app keeps reverting to driving instructions (I don't own a car)

* If I am listening to my phone or tablet through Bluetooth headphones, and an alarm goes off, the alarm first silences the headphones and then comes out of the phone or tablet instead

Some are macOS issues, others are iOS, but they're all problems.

<comment><USER17> You can set your preferred mode of transportation in Settings > Maps. No help for the other myriad issues though

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This is silly. If you click _anywhere_ on the notification it brings you to the "Software Update" preferences dialog where "Advanced..." lets you uncheck "Check for updates". There are a bunch of options, actually, for very granular control, like whether to download in advance or not.

And here's the thing... this is _good_ UI, because...

Like herd immunity, I want _everyone_ to be installing security updates as soon as convenient to prevent malware from spreading. What is shown are _exactly_ what the easy, default options should be. But if you're an informed consumer and have specific reasons to disable updates, then "Advanced..." is _exactly_ the place to put it.

<comment><USER19> Unchecking "Check for updates" does not make this stop appearing every day if you aren't running Catalina because they conflate notifications for new major OS versions and for security updates.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I remember this was one of the things that made people switch to Apple from Microsoft around ~2006. Looks like Apple is turning into Microsoft now.

<comment><USER21> Apple is in it's Microsoft ME phase of life.

<comment><USER22> Are you sure it's not Vista already?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> The best part is "Try Tonight" never actually works.

<comment><USER24> This really seems like a fixable problem, if my laptop is in sleep mode in my backpack overnight but > 70% battery, why can't it still install the update overnight?

PS4 is also laughably bad at this. It's been sitting there, plugged in and connected to internet for 6 months, in rest mode and not completely powered off. But it'll wait until I finally try to play a game to force me to download and install 50GB of updates right then.

<comment><USER25> > _This really seems like a fixable problem, if my laptop is in sleep mode in > my backpack overnight but > 70% battery, why can't it still install the > update overnight?_

Yes, that way you can wake up with a 20% battery. Just enough to power it on and get all kinds of warnings about how there's not enough power left to run things.

<comment><USER26> Apple could be brilliant here. Notification on phone/watch: "your mac has an update, you want it right now?"

<comment><USER22> You're suggesting MORE update notifications? No thanks

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> There are so many huge UI fails in Apple products nowadays ...

My most recent encounter is pretty much anything to do with Apple Pay (especially on the mac). I couldn't get any transactions to complete. Ended up being that my address didn't validate (apparently) because it was 'too long' \-- good luck figuring that out via the (horrific) Apple Pay address form edit UI ...

<comment><USER28> Apple Pay story: We had a credit card on the account that was expired by months and thrown away. We couldn't delete the old card because it was the default[0], and we couldn't add a new card to make the default without entering the last digits of the old (which we no longer had). We also couldn't cancel a subscription without the last digits.

Ultimately found a work-around by going to the accounts website and adding the new card from a family plan member (which didn't require the last digits of the old on the main account holder's account) and then cahnging the default and deleting the old. But it wasn't documented anywhere.

[0] [https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT203905](https://support.apple.com/en- us/HT203905)

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> This irritated me so much that I disabled "OSXNotification.bundle". No more popups.

<comment><USER30> I blocked their update server with Little Snitch. Similar effect.

<comment><USER31> I did that too. Little Snitch is a wonderful app (although I suspect it lets DNS lookups through)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Microsoft and Apple are unlikely to ever make this as easy as flipping a UI switch at this point. It'd be careless to provide a simple means of allowing a mainstream user to effectively disable the delivery of security patches.

<comment><USER33> Is it actually true? Are the updates really for security and that these companies care about our security so much that they're willing to create a really bad user experience? My dad has an old machine now that is essentially unusable due to updates. The machine is used rarely enough that almost any time it is used some of the software (Windows, the browser or something else) wants to and automatically updates. The problem is that you cannot do _anything_ for 15+ minutes when that machine updates. I guess it keeps him secure by discouraging him from using the computer in the first place.

<comment><USER32> Ideally? No. Inevitably? Probably.

An operating system is software. _Most_ software eventually stops being updated.

Microsoft has historically done a pretty reasonable job at delivering security patches to old versions of Windows but that eventually ends.

Apple tends to EOL their OS updates relatively sooner but they will still sign security patches for older versions at times.

Your dad's computer may continue to be technically operable but will inevitably become functionally obsolete.

It's unfortunate but it happens.

Automobiles that required leaded gas to run right might be a good analog here: you could/can keep them running, but at what cost. Leaded gas was a known health danger so the benefits in that regard were clear, but also look at the advances that have been made in internal combustion engines since leaded gasoline was phased out.

Likewise, an old computer (namely one that is connected to the internet) becomes a risk and Microsoft does not have the impetus to continue supporting it.

And this is the point when the suggestion to install a friendly version of Linux is made. But frankly I'm not sure I'd even go to that trouble before reviewing what your dad's needs actually are and considering other devices that may actually be a better solution for the time and money.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I really wish Apple would figure out how to update my machine without making me turn it off.

<comment><USER35> People complain about this all the time. I've been using Windows 10 for some time now and never had a problem with it. No forced restarts, no update available popups. It just works silently;

<comment><USER36> Once you get used to Linux updates happening without restarting or freezing your computer, you'll never want to go back.

In a world with security updates, updates seemingly every day, every week, and monthly large updates, this would be such a great feature on MacOS.

<comment><USER37> > " _Once you get used to Linux updates happening without restarting or > freezing your computer, you 'll never want to go back._"

I suppose those "System Restart Required" messages on the console from Ubuntu Server after updates are just imaginary then? /s

<comment><USER38> Ubuntu is turning more and more Windows-like it seems. I was on PCLinuxOS for a while, and updates were user-initiated, iirc. Most wouldn't require a reboot, unless there was a kernel update. You could do those updates and happily not reboot for days, only getting the new kernel when you did. Now I'll get icons and messages indicating that I have security updates available, and after a while I'll be told that I need to reboot (since it apparently did them for me instead of waiting on me to do it myself). Then it would bug me more and more often to reboot until it just left the message on the screen. I'm running simulations, I'll do it when they finish. At least it hasn't progressed to the stage of just rebooting at an inconvenient time, which seems to be the norm in windows.

Still, it's inoffensive enough that I haven't bothered tracking down how to make it act sane again.

<comment><USER39> As far as I know, Ubuntu is still the only one that can livepatch the kernel in the background without bringing down the whole system. (Maybe RHEL 8 can now too?) I think the "system restart required" message means that something was running that it updated, and the only way to guarantee that it stops and restarts is for the user to restart the whole system.

<comment><USER38> I just assumed that they installed the new kernel in a different directory and pointed there via grub or whatever when rebooted. I wasn't thinking about live-patching the active kernel. That's pretty nifty if they can pull that off.

I just want them to not do anything, even security updates, without my explicit permission despite their fears over the security of my system. I have reasons I'm not updating right now. It comes down to the question "who's damn system is it, anyway?"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> The most infuriating of those are the "turn auto update on"

Actually the worst part is that if you prolong it long enough it will install.

But, Ueah, how do they get away with it? It's just something you live with. I guess this is like how people just resigned to keeping the IE toolbars in the nineties.

<comment><USER41> It's possible to block updates from the terminal, but it is intentionally made obtuse because regular end users shouldn't be deferring updates indefinitely.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> I got enough of that reminder and upgraded to catalina.

after this was done I could not ise microsoft office, to which I have a license key. An "update" to office 365 was promted, to which I also accepted .... turns out office 365 is a subscription based product.

as a user with some knowledge of open source alternatives I dont see why these two corporations are lowering the incentive for me to keep using their products, at one point it will just be easier to boot something like manjaro or ubuntu from the hardware and get rid of reminders and subscription offers.

I am actually open for HN users suggestions for an OS replacement for an MBP from late 2013

<comment><USER43> There is a standalone version of Office 2019 that works just fine on Catalina without a subscription

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> IPhone is worse. Whenever there is a new version update, now you have to update it or there will be a popup window the whole time, day and night, even when using other apps. Annoying AF

<comment><USER45> Really? I always have to go hunt to Settings to trigger my updates. Got a screenshot? Maybe I'm pwnd by the man...

<comment><USER46> Yeah, never noticed that either across my two iPhones. I just notice that the System Settings icon has a red dot and will run the update when I have time.

<comment><USER45> So maybe the other guy is the one who is NSA pwned...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> I have just accepted this as part of my daily routine now alongside other great staples such as daily standup, email checking, checking logs, slack, etc.

<comment><USER48> sudo softwareupdate --ignore "macOS Catalina"

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> I recall that OSX used to let me select which updates, and I was always happy to explicitly allow security updates while skipping the latest versions of all the things i don't use, and also skipping unwanted OS upgrades. IMO the worst thing they did for security was making it impossible to distinguish between security patches, Garage Band releases, and UX changes.

</comment><comment><USER50> I would pay money for an application that adds a "fuck off" button to this UI. Hides the prompt for a week. I swear it only comes up when I am in the middle of something. I have fallen for the dark pattern of delayed install a few times and it is maddening. I update my software fairly frequently, but not every damn day.

</comment><comment><USER22> There's another one they have like this, I think it was in iTunes

It says something like: Do you want to update iOS.

It then has a YES and a CANCEL but also a check box to say don't ask again, but it it only pays any attention to the checkbox if you click YES for this time. Cancel just closes the dialogue and does nothing.

Dark patterns.

</comment><comment><USER51> It's even worse with the sign in with your Apple ID toaster. There is no remind me later option that at least hides the toaster so you can continue with your work. You have to click view and enter into the modal.

</comment><comment><USER52> BTW, a website with similar nasty UI aspects: [https://grumpy.website/](https://grumpy.website/) (I'm not affiliated with this)

</comment><comment><USER53> Yes. I am tired of updating and my 2015 MBP getting slower with whatever software they add to make it intentionally bloated and slower. Planned obsolescence is not a conspiracy theory. It's a real thing: [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/oct/24/apple- sam...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/oct/24/apple-samsung- fined-for-slowing-down-phones)

<comment><USER54> In your opinion when is a good version to roll back to?

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> as commented on the same thread "...Windows will literally just install them and make your pc restart if you wait too long." generally speaking, you _should_ install updates at least for security's sake

</comment><comment><USER56> I will be the first to jump on Apple but why would you turn off updates entirely?

<comment><USER57> The Catalina "upgrade" breaks a lot of things, and for me the things it breaks are much more important than the new features(?) that I'd get

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> Would you guys prefer we go back to the day where browsers weren't automatically updated? Oh but that's different right?

<comment><USER59> It is different, yes.

Sometimes OS upgrades delete your mail:

[https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/apple-mail-app- catal...](https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/apple-mail-app-catalina- wipes-deletes-email/)

So that's the world we live in. However I think you have a very good point and silent updates are an okay end-game, as they are with browsers. The stakes are very high, as they are with browsers.

With browsers, here are the table stakes with auto updates: a silent update without a prompt could introduce a security issue to all users - web sites are untrusted and can send any html they want to browsers. Users browse websites they don't trust all the time. They click links willy nilly. I could put in any URL into this comment and you would click it, since you know you are on latest Chrome or Firefox and you know any zero day would be patched. You view HTML across a very hard security sandbox. So browser security issues could be instant p0wnage, and keeping everyone always updated introduces a huge baddie incentive on each latest update. There's no chance to fix it if everyone gets it. The update mechanism also needs to be harder than Fort Knox. I imagine the infrastructure for Chrome's update role outs has 10,000 human hours of security hours spent on it.

The stakes are even higher with operating systems, though: people run local applications they may rely on and which could break. Here it is not so much security as functionality.

The software was written against and tested against a certain version. A new version can behave differently. Software can't adapt to that, it's not live.

With web sites, at least it's always being served. If it renders weird in latest chrome or firefox, there's a good chance it will get fixed. (The main reason for this would be if it wasn't compliant to begin with.) Web sites are always actively being served. If they're "dead" they're offline.

Software running locally is already there. It may or may not be updated. It could be dead but people still use it.

So the models are different but with very high stakes in each case.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> Not applying security updates puts you at risk. It is in your best interest to make all of the paths lead to eventually reminding you again to update. Nothing forces you to update, it will just remind you again that you need to.

<comment><USER61> Catalina is not a security update.

<comment><USER60> Yes it very much is: it adds support for per-app, per-directory permissions, like Little Flocker did. It's a huge security benefit (stops ransomware, for example) and is the main reason I updated to it.

Relatively unsurprising, considering that the developer of Little Flocker now works for Apple.

<comment><USER62> That's not a bugfix. Not having it won't make you any worse off than you were for the last decade. You're not put a risk.

<comment><USER60> You're right, it's not a bugfix, but it is a security update. It makes your computer immune to most types of ransomware, which is a huge and common threat these days.

Not having that functionality was dangerous enough that someone wrote a very involved program called Little Flocker, which was valuable enough to be sold to F-Secure. Apple hired the author (although it is perhaps not directly attributable to Little Flocker, he was well known in Apple-related security circles prior) and in the next major OS rev after that hire, the functionality was included stock in the OS.

People running Catalina are at greatly reduced risk from common threats from malware.

It's absolutely a security update.

<comment><USER62> You could still run that program.

It's a "security update" in that it improves security, but it's not a "security update" in terms of preventing risk for exploits that have come out or become popular since the last patch.

When people talk about always installing security updates as soon as possible, they mean the latter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> java-man "you don't own it"

hilarious.</comment>


How a Radical New Teaching Method Could Unleash a Generation of Geniuses - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/business/2013/10/free-thinkers/ <comment><USER3> let's have some dissenting opinion here.

not all kids are equal. not all kids _want_ to learn. in each and every discussion over this topic people bring up quotes by very smart people, like kubrick, sagan, etc. on how organised learning is not needed, a young mind wants to learn, grows like a flower, all by itself, even better without the shackles of structured education.

i call bullshit. this is biased through the people stating these arguments. if you're a genius or borderline genious then of course the standardized school system is not for you. if you're smarter and faster than your teachers the whole thing can't work.

but the vast majority of kids is not like that. yes, some people are plain dumb. nothing to do, not a bad thing, pure nature. might be great at something, sports, fine manual labor, but simply not good with high mental tasks. some kids don't like reading, it's too hard and does not bring any value to them, nothing sticks, no mental images are formed. just letters stuck together.

this romantic view of humans is the root of a lot of failed social experiments. from open school systems (montessori, waldorf,...) to the new humans that communism wanted to create.

the modern school system is built to provide a base level of education, targeted for the medium range intellect. learn basic skills, through repetition - tried and tested method, from sports to art to education. reading, writing, counting, calculating. if you're one of those kids that taught yourself how to read at age 4, well, guess what, your experience in school will be subpar. but just don't go around and push for school reform to have schools fitted for your style of self learning. the vast majority is not like you.

<comment><USER4> Frankly, I hope _none_ of the education-related ideas coming out of high tech hubs such as the Silicon Valley, come true. Nothing wrong with the fine individuals living and working here, but we are not the most gifted ones when it comes to figuring out how _human beings_ function.

We are great at figuring out _systems_. Hardware. Computers. Robots. Networks thereof.

But self-aware nature-made wetware... please, just step away from that stuff. You're only making a mess.

<comment><USER5> Wow, so nice to see a refreshing attitude here on HN. You nailed the arrogance of SV types. Not everything can be improved with technology, just look at these massive failures in disrupting education : Coursera, Edx, Udacity. I, too, hope that engineers will just step away from education. /s

<comment><USER6> Khan Academy?

"Today, there have been 85 million users to date. Each month, there are 6 million unique users on the Khan Academy site. In total, there have been 260 million lessons delivered and over 1 billion problems answered on the related exercises." [http://jpalfrey.andover.edu/2013/05/09/khan-academy-meets- ph...](http://jpalfrey.andover.edu/2013/05/09/khan-academy-meets-phillips- academy/)

<comment><USER5> I guess the sarcasm tag should have been more obvious :D

<comment><USER6> Sorry, lately it's been hard to distinguish whether people are being sarcastic or are just idiots.

My apologies.

<comment><USER5> Very relevant to your thoughts [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "I think the big mistake in schools is trying to teach children anything, and by using fear as the basic motivation. Fear of getting failing grades, fear of not staying with your class, etc. Interest can produce learning on a scale compared to fear as a nuclear explosion to a firecracker." ― Stanley Kubrick

<comment><USER8> That's been a popular view among progressive education reformers as well. It's the basis of Montessori schools, for example. I went to one up through Kindergarten and liked it, finding regular 1st grade utterly dull in comparison. But I don't have a good guess as to whether it would've been a better overall schooling (I still found plenty of time to learn things on my own).

I've also long liked this Seymour Papert quote vaguely along those lines: [http://www.kmjn.org/snippets/papert85_logovisions.html](http://www.kmjn.org/snippets/papert85_logovisions.html)

However in parallel to these kinds of views being popular among education reformers, it's also been popular to mock them as idealistic hippie views of education. And a different category of education reformer has had almost 180º opposite ideas, based around standardized, repeatable, scientifically measurable education (the basis of NCLB, MOOCs, etc.).

<comment><USER9> While a radical departure from the old school methods, Montessori is not intrinsically "progressive". It is built on the idea that there is a clear curriculum with the very big difference being children are primarily responsible for choosing from that menu of options, trusted that their own interests are an adequate guide.

Someone who definitely falls outside the progressive reformers would be John Holt, yet he passionately argues along similar lines as what Kubrick is saying here.

Holt: "... the human animal is a learning animal; we like to learn; we are good at it; we don't need to be shown how or made to do it. What kills the processes are the people interfering with it or trying to regulate it or control it."

By modern definitions, Holt is not even exactly "homeschooling". More accurately, he advocates what would be called "Unschooling" \-- the idea that home life observing adults is a more than powerful enough motivator for young children to acquire basic skills.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The article reports, without references, "So in 2011—when Paloma entered his class—Juárez Correa decided to start experimenting. He began reading books and searching for ideas online. Soon he stumbled on a video describing the work of Sugata Mitra, a professor of educational technology at Newcastle University in the UK. In the late 1990s and throughout the 2000s, Mitra conducted experiments in which he gave children in India access to computers. Without any instruction, they were able to teach themselves a surprising variety of things, from DNA replication to English."

Where are the publications about this? How much peer review have they had? We have discussed Mitra's work here on HN before. What is the latest news about follow-up on his studies? I would be delighted to hear about new and more effective methods of helping young learners learn (I am a teacher of young learners) and I am especially interested in following up on the research to make sure that it is accurate.

[http://www.epsiloncamp.org/RepetitionPractice.php](http://www.epsiloncamp.org/RepetitionPractice.php)

(Above link is an example of my following up on educational research claims. I do this continually.)

AFTER EDIT: I find by Google Scholar search that most of Mitra's publications on education research are reposted on his own Hole-in-the-Wall website.

[http://hole-in-the-wall.com/](http://hole-in-the-wall.com/)

</comment><comment><USER11> Interesting how the public school "reform" movement in the US cuts hard against this sort of experimentation --- in particular, by mandating curricula, and evaluating students and schools by performance on cookie-cutter tests that make no room for individual interests or variation.

<comment><USER9> Not really. That is not intrinsic to the reform movement. That is the educational system responding to political pressure. The reformers have to play the game by the rules as they exist in the moment. If the standardized cookie cutter test results become the coin of the realm, then every kind change will be justified by test results, whether the proponents think that is a useful idea or not.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Children want to learn, and if you dont beat out their love of learning by forcing them into a box that hardly anyone fits in, their inherent need to understand the world comes out. Its almost... logical.

<comment><USER13> I am a fervent proponent for modern constructionistic learning environments, but affecting change in the current system is almost impossible. Some teachers are enthusiastic and willing to spend their own time to develop and implement these modern* ideas about learning, but in the end, one way or another, they have to conform to the traditional educational system. If it isn't for management that presses for better test results, parents that want good grades, children that cannot take to the new way (for whatever reason) it is the seemingly incommensurability of these ideas with the traditional norm for education that leads to a watering down of the ideas and a feeling of hopelessness about it all.

What many don't understand is the enormous difference between the learning of the one child (your child) and the education of a nation. Try institutionalizing these "almost logical" ideas about learning for nation-wide implementation for a reasonable price and see what happens. I think it is possible to implement these ideas, but that means that we as a nation have to make hard choices. At the moment, we choose to fund education for all and learning for all be damned.

*: Every couple of decades these ideas or similar ideas seem to be reïnvented by a new generation ...

<comment><USER14> "...affecting change in the current system is almost impossible."

As the kids say, nowadays: This. Any major change in education will take a cultural shift. And cultural shifts are generally very, very slow to form.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> There have always been techniques and methods available to vastly improve the outcomes of students. The problem is that education is a very political subject and the winds shift as quickly as the politicians do.

Education is a favorite pet issue of every wanna-be FDR and for whatever reason, they can't just let teachers do their jobs. They have to tell them what they can and can't teach, what targets they have to meet, create arbitrary and senseless metrics of merit.

So forgive me if I'm unimpressed with this so-called solution to education. Would it be better than what we have now? Sure it will, virtually anything would be that reduces the amount of oversight in the system. Could you sell it to the public? Not a snowball's chance in hell. It wouldn't last a year.

</comment><comment><USER16> "One SIMPLE TRICK to radically change educational outcomes!!"

it's amazing that people still actively publicize idiotic self promoters and charlatans like Mitra.

</comment><comment><USER17> I always find it a little sad to reflect on education because I think we can unleash a generation of geniuses.

I don't think it even takes a radical teaching method. I think it takes a radical reordering of priorities.

Instead of glorifying athletes and closet organizers famous for making sex tapes ... we need to glorify education, hard work, and resourcefulness. And parents need to reinforce the message by rewarding/encouraging those traits.

<comment><USER5> Glorify hard work? Madness. We don't need these protestant values in the coming post-scarcity economy. We should glorify efficiency, curiousity, self- sufficiency and internal state of tranquil happiness.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Unsurprisingly, the headline's "new" teaching method isn't particularly new (as the timeline sidebar in the article itself makes somewhat apparent). For example, the Sudbury Valley School [1] has been around since 1968 and is even more "radical". No grades, no curriculum, no classes, no separation by age. The governance of the school is democratic, with all decisions -- including those regarding budget and staff -- decided by a body called the School Meeting which is composed of the staff and the students together, with one vote per person.

The Sudbury School of Atlanta has an interesting blog post [2] describing how the students can naturally pick up basic skills through participating in the management of the school, in this case by choosing and acquiring a school pet.

This Wired article is more about the undirected aspect, but the compelling thing to me about adding the democratic element (the oldest running example is the Summerhill School [3], established in 1921) is that the decisions being made affect the student, so the student has a motive to participate and learns as a by-product. Thus there's a hope that children in general could benefit, not only those children who are particularly "self-directed learners".

Additionally, the things they're learning (reading, writing and arithmetic, but also teamwork, negotiation and leadership) are directly beneficial in society -- because the school itself is a microcosm of society.

It may not be a model that produces "geniuses", but it does seem like a good model for producing adults/citizens. (I have no personal experience with alternative schooling.)

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudbury_Valley_School](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudbury_Valley_School)

[2] [http://sudburyschoolofatlanta.blogspot.com/2012/11/sudbury-a...](http://sudburyschoolofatlanta.blogspot.com/2012/11/sudbury- assignment-learn-math-reading.html)

[3] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summerhill_School](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summerhill_School)

<comment><USER19> You're right that there is nothing new about almost all of these ideas. John Dewey covered a lot of this in his 1902 book "The Child and the Curriculum".

<comment><USER20> So what if it's not absolutely new? It's new to the people in their specific context and _appears_ to be producing results, again, in that specific context. Very little of what we do is new, but still has merit when applied in a novel way or a novel context.

<comment><USER19> "So what" is that the article says it is new when it is not new.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> And who, in the role of mentor or teacher, has not discovered this to be an obvious truth? The difference between "here is what you do to solve this" and "here is the problem and (possibly) some areas that it might be worth focusing on". Someone given the latter wil come away with knowledge. Someone given the former will come away with a set of steps to follow.

That aside, this long-winded series of human-interest anecdotes reminds me of why I stopped reading Wired. The whole thing could have been written in 1/3rd the space.

</comment><comment><USER22> Freedom in learning is so, so important. This case study illuminates that pretty well. It's a great look into an example of allowing children to truly learn at their own pace, with gentle guidance regarding subject areas and provided with the resources they need to discover new knowledge. The story is heartwarming and a great read, and a useful comparison to the modern American style of education.

As others have pointed out, there is no magic bullet. This method would work incredibly well for 90% of subjects taught in elementary school. However, for non-English language learning, additional guidance would be needed - <USER2> teachers could nudge them towards Duolingo, various online multilingual dictionaries, etc. I do believe that this system could be used as the core of a new teaching paradigm, but it is not solely sufficient for a complete learning experience to the standards that we have come to expect in America.

For developing countries (which, sadly, Mexico bears much resemblance to), this could be an incredible tool. An internet-connected computer and guidance from involved teachers can easily produce students who are ready to help lift their countries out of economic malaise. In this way, I believe the internet can serve as the Great Equalizer many of us hoped it would someday become. If this method used alone is capable of producing students 70% as capable (by some nonexistent perfect metric) as those in first-world nations, that would still be an enormous leap forward for developing nations. I think these guys are really on to something in this regard.

I find it interesting that as our civilizations mature, we find ourselves oscillating back away from the industrialized American education system paradigms and towards a more holistic, broadly-focused educational strategy using qualitative methods rather than quantitative objectives. Students are not a homogeneous population, and historically we have tried to deal with this issue by ignoring it and cramming them all into the same mold, with minor variations. It makes me glad to see that we are starting to consider that we should instead allow for this variance by designing systems with broader definitions and qualitative goals, to allow the students to grow in the directions they are best suited or disposed to.

</comment><comment><USER23> "The exterior of his schools will be mostly glass, so outsiders can peer in."

That reminds me of one of the technical schools I saw in downtown Lima, Peru. It had a huge number of large glass windows on the front, and as I walked along the main street, I could peer in and see row after row of tables, each with several large Apple monitors, each with a student or two in front of it. It was massive.

I'd really like to go in there next time I visit and find out more about their techniques.

(Incidentally, several blocks away there was a high school named "The Albert Einstein Institute". :)

</comment><comment><USER24> This article tells an amazing and inspiring story. I love the burro tale and how it illustrates the positive attitude of these kids who really want to learn. I hope that everyone donates to [http://www.wired.com/business/2013/10/student-centered- movem...](http://www.wired.com/business/2013/10/student-centered-movement/)

Teachers like Sergio Juárez Correa are an example of what teachers should be doing, specially in rich countries like the US.

</comment><comment><USER25> Aaawww nuts. Yes, education could be vastly improved, but you know what, my sons school _is_ vastly improved over what I had.

Since 1913 when IQ tests started being nationally or internationally graded, the IQ median has been kept at 100. But without that smoothing the median level of 1913 would be 77 or so today, and the median today would be in the 130s

We have got smarter, or perhaps we have had mental tools passed onto us through education and social norms.

ref: err... a Ted talk recently released....

<comment><USER10> Here is your reference, the talk by James R. Flynn on TED (spoken in March 2013, published on TED in September 2013) "James Flynn: Why our IQ levels are higher than our grandparents'."

[http://www.ted.com/talks/james_flynn_why_our_iq_levels_are_h...](http://www.ted.com/talks/james_flynn_why_our_iq_levels_are_higher_than_our_grandparents.html)

The research by James R. Flynn on changes in IQ raw score levels over time in many different countries has been described by intelligence researcher N. J. Mackintosh like this: "the data are surprising, demolish some long-cherished beliefs, and raise a number of other interesting issues along the way." (IQ and Human Intelligence 1998, p. 104) In general, Flynn is a very respected researcher on human intelligence. Here is what the late Arthur Jensen said about Flynn back in the 1980s: "Now and then I am asked . . . who, in my opinion, are the most respectable critics of my position on the race-IQ issue? The name James R. Flynn is by far the first that comes to mind." Modgil, Sohan & Modgil, Celia (Eds.) (1987) Arthur Jensen: Concensus and Controversy New York: Falmer. Here's what Charles Murray says in his back cover blurb for Flynn's book What Is Intelligence?: "This book is a gold mine of pointers to interesting work, much of which was new to me. All of us who wrestle with the extraordinarily difficult questions about intelligence that Flynn discusses are in his debt." Flynn has earned the respect and praise of any honest researcher who takes time to read the scholarly literature on human intelligence. Robert Sternberg, Ian Deary, Stephen Pinker, Stephen Ceci, Sir Michael Rutter, and plenty of other eminent psychologists recommend Flynn's research.

<comment><USER25> Thank you - and apologies for the late reply.

ps if you ever do come across this I would love to know if you have either a really good memory, do a lot of research on the spur if the moment, or have an impressive filing system? cheers

<comment><USER10> For topics that come up over and over and over again on Hacker news, I have a 251KB flat text file with some references on various topics (and a few of those appeared in my reply to you). The particular TED talk was memorable to me because a local researcher shared it to an email list for the journal club I participate in, and then I posted that TED talk to my Facebook wall.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> > in 2010 only 50 percent of public school staff members in the US were > teachers.

This has as much to do with schools hiring "staffers" and "instructional assistants" as a cost-cutting measure as it does with top-heavy public school bureaucracy. It's akin to the "associate/adjunct professor" fiasco in a college environment.

</comment><comment><USER27> The real question is -- can we do this on a mass scale that the general populace can benefit from? The problem with getting kids to learn is _public education_ , namely where one-size-fits-all is sacrosanct.

</comment><comment><USER28> This is not new, Chomsky was educated the same way.</comment>


The Making of "Gears of War: Ultimate Edition" - <AUTHOR> http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-the-making-of-gears-of-war-ultimate-edition <comment><USER2> Shame that consoles seem to be promoting this type of 'repackaging' more. Seems the 'HD remaster' is the trend of this generation.

Not to belittle the work of the team. Simply that they could have worked on something else/new instead of covering for users not wanting to dig out their old obsolete consoles/shut down servers.

<comment><USER3> Gamers ask for HD remasters all the time. And, they spend money on them. It's not for everyone, but it is a very viable market.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/search?q=please+HD+remake&re...](https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/search?q=please+HD+remake&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all)</comment></comment>