Keep learning, should you invest your own time? - <AUTHOR> https://dev.to/jhotterbeekx/keep-learning-should-you-invest-your-own-time-22l <comment><USER2> I really enjoyed reading this article. Some things I agree with: learning is imperative for success in your life. I wouldn't necessarily suggest learning only that which benefits the workplace, though. I have always valued learning, and strive to learn something new every day. In the field of computer science, I do believe it is important to at least keep up to date on new trends and proven methods. Things change, and better techniques are created and discovered. If you could improve your work ethic, why wouldn't you choose to do so? Anyways, thanks for sharing!</comment>


GitHub: Search * "Confidential" "all rights reserved" - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/search?p=19&q=%22Confidential%22+%22all+rights+reserved%22&ref=searchresults&type=Code

<comment><USER2> I believe this is one mistake a some people make when looking at code on Github. Sure the code is posted on Github, but it doesn't mean it's posted under a license that allows you to use that code in any way. Github is a source code repository, not an open source code repository.

See: [https://help.github.com/articles/open-source- licensing#what-...](https://help.github.com/articles/open-source- licensing#what-happens-if-i-dont-choose-a-license)

<comment><AUTHOR> confidential

adjective

intended to be kept secret.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Confidential notices on open-sourced code are funny, but what's wrong with "all rights reserved"? From my understanding, that just means the owners are choosing to not place an open license on the code and reserve all of their rights. By open sourcing it, I'm sure they recognize it will be difficult to enforce those rights, but that's a different matter.

<comment><AUTHOR> I only searched for "all rights reserved" because it yielded more code with an actual license in it and not just the text "confidential". I'm sure you could refine the search even further.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> "PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL. DO NOT DISTRIBUTE."

Right on the first (nineteenth?) page. Nice!</comment>


Show HN: FolioSpace.me - a portfolio for hackers to show what they make - <AUTHOR>

I built FolioSpace after I tried to create a portfolio of my work, but found that all the existing sites focused on photographers/artists. A few friends had hacked together personal "project sites" using WordPress, but it was far from ideal and a pain to set up.
After thinking about it, I realized how interesting it would be to have "who made that?" data publicly accessible (similar to IMDB or GitHub, but for anything), so I built FolioSpace.me. I focused on making it easy to embed  images/video/music using image/youtube search. It also allows you to tag co-workers/contributors.
Here's my portfolio as an example: http://foliospace.me/scosman
Share some projects and let me know what you think! Thanks!
Note: I heard about geekli.st after I was 95% done. It's cool, but I think FolioSpace is very different beast. <comment><AUTHOR> Clickable links: <http://foliospace.me> and <http://foliospace.me/scosman>

</comment><comment><USER2> I was just looking for something like this! The tagging of contributors feature is really neat too. Anyhow, it'd be really nice if I can edit the order of the projects listed.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'll definitely be adding this. One of many "I'll do it soon" items.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do you prepare for long onsite interviews? - <AUTHOR> I have an interview for my dream job coming up. I feel qualified, but also intimidated by the fact that I will be meeting with 8 different people, individually, over the course of 5 hours.<p>How do I best prepare, as someone who is quite introverted and unaccustomed to this intense form of socializing? I will be practicing questions, but what else? I want to knock this out of the park. <comment><USER2> Take something you can read there, something not directly related to the interview. If you happen to have a little break, it's a good way to refresh your energy.

Take a notebook to make notes during the interview. Make a TODO list for your own questions, things you'd like to know about the company and the team. Update the list during the interview every time something interesting shows up; you can go back to this thing and ask about it.

You can also prepare a set of answers for those unrelated and/or unnecessary questions like "what was your worst conflict in the career" or "what's your weakest point", especially if you have a list of the ones you hate. Note that it's more important to have prepared the list than to have it.

On a similar note, list your own projects and tasks you were most proud of or that were especially challenging. It's a handy thing to have in case your mind suddenly goes blank.</comment>


New Phishing scheme targeting government employees Using SBA Official Website - <AUTHOR> https://www.hackers-review.tech/2020/08/new-phishing-scheme-targeting.html <comment><USER2> Misleading title.</comment>


Twitter Shifting More Code to JVM, Citing Performance and Encapsulation - <AUTHOR> http://www.infoq.com/articles/twitter-java-use <comment><USER2> I like this. I recall a startup some years back with a vision to build something complex. The founder sat down with everyone and said that we had an important decision to make: Do we build something that grows or do we build something that evolves?

Neither way forward was presented as an obvious win. Building something that grows meant overengineering and trying to forecast the future. Building something that evolves meant constantly rewriting things, taking time away from new development.

Twitter seems to have taken the "evolution" route, and it has served them well. I'm not at all sure they would be this successful if they'd tried to build on the JVM right from the start using the technologies available at the time.

<comment><USER3> The problem with Java is mainly that people think they have to use all the horribly complex, intrusive, badly written, underperforming frameworks that exist in the Java sphere. And then, of course, you will inevitably be screwed.

To this day it takes _real_ effort to convince Java programmers that a lot of "best practices" are anything but.

For instance I still see Java programmers use frameworks that require them to maintain mountains of flimsy XML configs for things that they ought to have done in code. Both to get the benefit of letting the compiler do the work of weeding out boneheaded errors and to get rid of unnecessary flexibility that just leads to more work and more confusing, hard to read code.

Java is a great language in which you can be very productive. But productivity means that you have to crack down on people who drag along J2EE-crap, or whatever crap was invented to make J2EE-crap slightly less crap. It also means you have to mentor people actively and harass anyone who even thinks of doing in XML what can be accomplished much faster in testable, compiled Java code.

<comment><USER4> Yep, I saw this same thing. Mountains of XML deployment descriptors / "component wiring" (some "Spring" garbage), needlessly verbose and usually unneeded mapper classes, useless interfaces (my rule is if you are only going to have ONE implementation save the interface for later after you know you got it right and need it), extra layers that do nothing (except "map", of course), etc.

kill me. Makes me want to kill myself.

<comment><USER5> This exactly describes my very brief experience working with Java professionally. Back in university it was no big deal - the differences between C++ and Java weren't _that_ big. In a production environment, though; ... XML, XML, XML!

All the XML-wrapper tools for Java are supposedly the reason why there is so much XML config stuff going on - but the result is that you end up writing soo much code in XML instead of the actual language that you're supposed to be using.

It's like somebody looked quickly at the MVC pattern, got it all wrong, and now Java has very tight coupling between XML and Java code for any production environment that hopes to leverage existing tools.

<comment><USER3> And the really bad part is that in Java XML has always been extremely painful to work with.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> One of the key things that was kinda skimmed over: You should check out <http://github.com/twitter/finagle>.

It takes async network programming with netty into a functional programming paradigm. Programming scala/finagle network services is much nicer IMO than coffeescript, ruby/em/fibers, raw netty. I can't wait until we release our finagle-based cassandra client. It's been really nice to work with.

Here's some sample code:

[https://github.com/twitter/finagle/tree/master/finagle- examp...](https://github.com/twitter/finagle/tree/master/finagle- example/src/main/scala/com/twitter/finagle/example)

<comment><USER7> I've been using Finagle over the last couple of weeks to build a small little side-project. It's been almost a religious experience for me. This is how network programming should be done.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> In my opinion, the best part of their infrastructure is their willingness to specialize in languages within each stack. It isn't simply "Java everywhere".

"To allow developers to choose the best language for the job, Twitter has invested a lot of effort in writing internal frameworks which encapsulate common concerns."

The single best investment companies can make is to allow developers to choose their specialty, and their language. Otherwise you have a huge overhead of skill set mismatch. And your talent pool can be bigger if you're open to more than one language.

It's a refreshing view.

<comment><USER9> Twitter can afford the to have multiple languages in their stack but most start-ups simple don't have that luxury. If you have a early stage start up with about 10 developers and you need to quickly build a set of server side component or services for your product, would you want to use multiple languages to develop that or use one programming language ? Having developers choose best languages for the job would be disastrous if you end up with your stack written in 5 different languages. I would not discount the importance keeping codebase easy to manage.

<comment><USER10> In my experience, languages don't make a codebase more complex. What makes a codebase complex is how many subcodebases you have. In particular, I avoid touching my company's JavaScript code not because I can't do JavaScript but because it's difficult to learn an entirely new set of APIs.

If you can allow multiple languages to share common code like you can on the JVM, then I say it's ok to go crazy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This sounds slightly misleading to me:

 _The primary driver is honestly encapsulation, so we can iterate faster as a company. Having a single, monolithic application codebase is not amenable to quick movement on a per-team basis. So when we decide to encapsulate something, then because of our performance concerns, its better to rewrite it in the JVM for most systems, than to write a new Ruby system._

It sounds from that like their primary driver for using the JVM is actually performance, but that they only decide to rewrite components when encapsulation drives them to do so. I can't see how the JVM provides any encapsulation benefits over Ruby for new systems.

</comment><comment><USER12> Netty is a godsend. Java threads are extremely memory-hungry, so async I/O is a must for handling many connections. We routinely handle 200K simultaneous connections on our push servers without breaking a sweat.

<comment><USER13> Mind if I ask what the specs are for those servers?

<comment><USER12> AWS m1.large. We don't use nearly the entire CPU or memory footprint, but m1.small just is a wee too tiny and there's nothing in between.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> "...static typing becomes a big convenience in enforcing coherency across all the systems. You can guarantee that your dataflow is more or less going to work, and focus on the functional aspects...But as we move into a light-weight Service Oriented Architecture model, static typing becomes a genuine productivity boon."

A 'productivity boon'? I don't understand. At the risk of invoking the ancient static vs. dynamic religious war, this statement makes no sense to me.

I get that if your codebase is tangled enough, and your unit test suite is inadequate to "guarantee that your dataflow is more or less going to work" that maybe _rewriting_ significant portions of it in a type-safe system makes sense. I guess. But without specific code examples it's hard to say exactly what he's talking about.

Myself, I've spent many years in both static and dynamic environments and I know exactly where I'm more productive -- and it's not wrestling complex parameterized types to the ground, pulling up abstract classes or interfaces, and/or configuring IOC containers, abstract factories and the like.

I wonder though -- this has echoes of Alex Payne's criticisms a couple of years ago, which I think Obie Fernandez addressed pretty well:

[http://blog.obiefernandez.com/content/2009/04/my-reasoned- re...](http://blog.obiefernandez.com/content/2009/04/my-reasoned-response- about-scala-at-twitter.html)

<comment><USER15> _A 'productivity boon'? I don't understand. At the risk of invoking the ancient static vs. dynamic religious war, this statement makes no sense to me._

I don't know what they mean either, but my first guess has to do with company size and mobility of staff.

I love dynamic languages most when I'm coding solo or with small teams. I don't need to express a lot of things to the computer when they're so clear in my head. But if I'm going to take over an adequately maintained code base, I'd rather it be in a static language, because more of the intent is explicit.

At this point Twitter has a lot of engineers and is still growing, and they're in a very dynamic business. It's plausible to me that they get a global productivity boost even though static languages could feel like a productivity hit to each individual engineer.

<comment><AUTHOR> > But if I'm going to take over an adequately maintained code base, I'd rather > it be in a static language, because more of the intent is explicit

Out of interest would you feel the same if both codebases had adequate test coverage?

In the post one of the reasons given was that with a static language you can pretty much guarantee that a dataflow is going to work, that you won't be caught out by getting the wrong type. I'd see this being most useful at the edges of the system, and in those cases incoming data would normally go through some validation anyway (including through a schema in many cases) which would normally make clear the types involved.

Having said that I do think in those cases being able to specify types can makes things slightly easier for newcomers, I'm just surprised its seen as a big enough advantage to be one of the key motivators to switching language.

<comment><USER16> A decent static type system ensures every object will be compatible with the types of all its references, no matter how the program may manipulate them. Only 100% path coverage could replace that guarantee, and that's generally regarded as infeasible.

No project I've worked on in twenty years had test coverage I could call "adequate", though I realize this is partly my fault. Hard-core TDD from day one might get you as far as "mediocre", and the industry average is much worse than that.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sure thing but I was really thinking more of the "more of the intent is explicit" issue (and its affect on developer productivity) not guarantees regarding compatibility.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> jrockway's law: add enough developers to a project and it eventually becomes Java.

<comment><USER18> Except it seems to be Scala here?

<comment><USER19> "In the case of the search team, since they do a lot of work on Lucene, which is Java-based, they have a lot of experience in writing Java code. As such it is more convenient for them to work in Java than Scala or another language."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> One of the important lessons, IMO, is that you should always be making pragmatic decisions that work today and into the _near_ future. You can't predict how your system will change over time, so engineer in today's needs and let tomorrow take care of itself.

Pragmatic failure inevitably leads to analysis paralysis. Just worry about getting stuff done. :)

</comment><comment><USER21> I wonder if the reason Twitter never sees any significant evolution in product is because they've weighed themselves down with too much iron cladding on their services or if they've had more time to iron clad their services because they never evolve the product.

Neither may be related but for a large company with very little product they seem to produce astoundingly little.

<comment><USER22> They may have very little functionality, but do it at scale. e.g. even searching tweets (which doesn't seem to work that great...) is a massive undertaking (not _astoundingly little_ ) that they're obviously still working at.

<comment><USER21> That's a fair point and I don't trivialise the engineering however I am taken aback by the just how little product they produce. In a similar timeframe Facebook had created vast swathes of product and dealt with far greater user numbers than Twitter.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> This is similar to facebook going from php to c++ via hip hop. ( <http://developers.facebook.com/blog/post/358/> ) Very few companies will ever reach the scale of twitter and facebook. Building with ruby, php, python.. whatever your team is comfortable with is still ok.

</comment><comment><USER24> Holy name-soup, Batman! Stuff that was new to me: Gizzard, Finagle, Blender, Netty and Earlybird.

</comment><comment><USER25> I wonder how the story had been, if twitter had opted for Python, instead of ruby.

Do they still have these problems or in these aspects python is better than ruby?

<comment><USER26> Given the huge growth of the site in the first few years and the relative inexperience of the founding team with problems of this magnitude, I expect the story would have been the same with Python, Java, .NET, etc.

The simple Web Server -> ORM -> Relational database architecture that most modern web frameworks utilize can easily break down under tremendous concurrent load, especially if you attempt to run it on commodity hardware.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> As a JRuby fan, I have my fingers crossed that they will switch to JRuby and help it become "more mature." :)

</comment><comment><USER28> Hopefully they don't have any Java experts on board.</comment>


Ask HN: What Are the Best Non-Fiction Books of 2010? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> Ask HN: Best book you read in 2010 and briefly why -<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1973516></comment>


Former nuclear reactor operator on Fukushima risks - <AUTHOR> http://theenergycollective.com/nathantemple/53384/how-shutdown-and-core-cooling-japanese-reactors-likely-functions

<comment><USER2> New TEPCO update:

[http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp- com/release/11031304-e....](http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp- com/release/11031304-e.html)

High Pressure Coolant Injection System of Unit 3 automatically stopped. We endeavored to restart the Reactor Core Isolation Cooling System but failed. Also, we could not confirm the water inflow of Emergency Core Cooling System.

</comment><comment><USER3> This article might also be of interest, based on the information available from authorities in Japan: [http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/nuclear- crisis-in-j...](http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/nuclear-crisis-in- japan-fukushima-0518.html)

</comment><comment><USER4> > _the US military has flown coolant to the site, but the coolant they use is > regular water; I can't imagine why the US would need to fly in coolant._

The US did not fly any coolant to Japan.

[http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/11/japan-quake- nuclea...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/11/japan-quake-nuclear- coolant-idUSN1125270120110311) "US did not deliver coolant to Japan nuclear reactor"

"Ultimately, however, Japan did not need assistance from the United States but Clinton did not appear to have been updated before she made her public remarks."

</comment><comment><USER5> 0426: Japanese government spokesman Yukio Edano says radioactive meltdowns may have occurred in two reactors at the plant - AFP. via BBC

</comment><comment><USER6> Lol... This is from one of the comments below the article (I did not write this):

"Feet? Degrees Fahrenheit? This is so funny. How many feet wide is your nuclear reactor core? How many stones does it weigh? Surely this must be a joke.

The article is laden with namedropping but has no information at all on all crucial points such as the actual explosion. That anyone takes this seriously escapes me.

And, seriously? Measurements in body part lengths? Any engineer who went to school must have learned the proper system. I seriously doubt this article is genuine."

I kind of agree. Japanese reactors do not use feet or retarded Fahrenheit scale. If you write a scientific article, use a proper scale and SI standard of measurements in order to be taken seriously (hint, hint, nudge, nudge).

<comment><USER7> Meters are stupidly based on the size of the Earth (literally, given some of the ways the meter was originally defined). Give us the reactor dimensions in attoparsecs!

<comment><USER8> You should read this: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre>

"Since 1983, it is defined as the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum in 1⁄299,792,458 of a second"

<comment><USER9> Yes, that is technically the definition now, but under that logic, since a foot is precisely 0.3048 meters, you can just as easily say a foot is the length of the path travelled by light in 1/983571056 of a second. The meter was clearly originally defined by earth, and the precise definition only clarified later.

<comment><USER10> The meter was originally defined in terms of the earth, and the foot was originally defined in terms of peoples feet.

No matter how you slice it, feet are just dumb.

<comment><USER6> The sad part is that some people are STILL trying to argue that...</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Hipku – encode any IP address as a haiku - <AUTHOR> http://gabrielmartin.net/projects/hipku/ <comment><USER2> As a creative writing of poetry major and computer programmer, I think this is just unbelieveably cool.

My contribution to the hipku craze is a Wolfram Language version of the encoder, running on the Wolfram Cloud:

[https://www.wolframcloud.com/objects/902f5a2b-6672-4223-8c47...](https://www.wolframcloud.com/objects/902f5a2b-6672-4223-8c47-d1a1e71b3f81)

</comment><comment><USER3>
      Ace ants and ace ants
      aid ace ace ace ace ace ants.
      Ace ants aid ace apes.

Encode any loopback address as a tongue twister?</comment>


Laptops: Mac vs WinXP/Ubuntu? - <AUTHOR>

Is there something I'm missing?  I have tried to find good arguments for getting a Mac over Ubuntu/Windows, but haven't really found any that hold water.  I mostly do documents, presentations, spreadsheets, research, internet browsing, light programming.<p>The differences between them appear to come down to personal preference than an overwhelming difference: -Security.  Mac and Linux have better security handling and less malware than Windows.  I use DeepFreeze, which can fight off even laughing kitty. -Survives accidents.  Maybe there's a slight difference here, due to the sturdier frame/case of Macbooks? -Performance.  I'm looking at response time, level of annoyance during daily use.  Vista is a bitch, but WinXP and Ubuntu seem great.  With similarly equipped laptops, Macbook seems on par or slower than WinXP, and much slower than Ubuntu. <comment><USER2> I had been using a Linux laptop for over 6 years until it died last fall. Now I'm using a MacBook and I'm absolutely loving it. Why?

\- Power management. Suspend and resume just works. The battery life is great. Linux has catching up to do in terms of power management. (I know ACPI docs are bad/non-existent, and that it's not the kernel hacker's fault, and that lot's of things are improving. But my Mac does a better job right now when I need it, and I didn't have to configure anything.)

\- Keynote. I need to give good presentations as part of my job, I need to communicate ideas. Every minute I don't spend fighting my presentation tool is an extra minute that I can spend on content and delivery. OpenOffice Impress and MS PowerPoint drive me nuts. Keynote is so ... simple. It just works. It has a decent interface. Well done animations are suddenly worth the effort (and nothing explains a technical process as good as a well-done animation).

\- Presenting works. How many times have I seen people fail to get X11 to talk nicely to a projector? Even (Linux) kernel hackers had that happen to them. If they can't figure out X11, I sure don't want to risk to look unprofessional in front of an important audience. With my MacBook, I just show up, connect my Laptop, and it works. Every time.

\- It's still a real UNIX (unlike Cygwin). I've got Emacs, I've got bash, and most of development work doesn't feel any different from what I did with Linux.

\- It's got MacPorts. I thought I was going to miss Linux package management tools, but MacPorts is just as good (if you don't mind waiting for the compile to complete).

\- Time machine. Yes, I do know rsync. I do know cron. I do know all kinds of tools. Did I use them regularly? No, I was too lazy, as I suspect most people are. Have I lost data because of that? Yes, and it hurt. Now, I do a backup every night when I come home, because it happens automatically. If I break my MacBook, all I have to do to restore my old system (including all installed programs and settings) is to hook up a new Mac to my backup drive. OS X will do the rest, which is great since I bet that my hardware will fail just before an important deadline...

So is all that worth several hundred dollars? For me, it is. Buying a MacBook has taken away one more thing to worry about. I rely on it to just work, and so far it has not let me down.

<comment><USER3> Oh, and interestingly, suspend and resume work flawlessly on my MBP under Fedora 9, without configuration. So yeah, this is still a hardware issue, and when the hardware is good, it works fine.

<comment><USER4> Ubuntu 8.04 on my Dell D830 has decent hibernation (never use sleep or suspend, so I don't know it they are good).

It seems that assorted issues come up because of various hardware configuration: video card, wifi, sound card, etc. But as of now I'm quite happy with my Kubuntu laptop.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If were buying a laptop today, it would likely be a Thinkpad + Ubuntu combo.

You get a nice, productive OS and reasonably priced, elegant and sturdy hardware. What's not to like?

<comment><USER6> I have to agree here. My personal t42p thinkpad running ubuntu 'feels' just as fast as my work MacBook Pro. I also think the build quality of Apple laptops is very inferior to the thinkpads.

However, the MBP is just more 'fun' to use. So if you have money to burn go for the Apple. If you just need function, get an old x86 laptop and throw ubuntu on there.

Jer

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think you're right, it all comes down to personal preference. I like macs for their sturdy laptop, and osx unix like os.

I got fed up of loosing precious time configuring linux and researching for 100% compatible hardware. I don't like windows, it slows me down. Oh, one more thing, I can get commercial grade apps like photoshop or microsoft words on osx. We always need to be compatible with the rest of the world.

I do pay a premium for Apple laptop, but hey, they're good quality and I'm a sucker for design.

</comment><comment><USER8> One strong reason is to stay upwind—with the Mac, you can also run XP and Ubuntu, but not vice-versa.

The other major reasons for me, anyway, include Spotlight, Time Machine, Textmate, and Terminal. The first two might not seem all that important, but once you have them, you won't want to live without them.

And, if for some reason you hate OS X, which is uncommon but, I suppose possible, you can consistently boot into XP / Ubuntu.

<comment><USER9> Yes you can run Mac OS X on a machin, I installed it on my Dell and it worked very good. Its just not easy to install, but than it is as good as a Mac.

<comment><USER10> It's illegal and also you don't have full hardware support.

<comment><USER11> There is some confusion about just how illegal it is in the US. The EULA does not permit it, but that isn't the same thing as it being against the law - especially since the EULA is presented post-purchase. (This assumes you bought your copy, of course.)

Still, until judgement in Apple vs Pystar (which is slightly broader) it would be better not to assume anything. Common law systems can produce some funny results and special cases. Just because you can drop a Ford engine into a Toyota without fear of legal action doesn't mean it carries across directly to software.

Being able to use software you buy however you wish with very little fear of inciting legal action is a great argument for adopting Linux, of course :)

<comment><USER12> The EULA doesn't matter, IMO.

You violate the DMCA when you run OSX86. Certain OS X binaries are encrypted.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I love Ubuntu. 3 Years, no hitches after the first months. Only switched to windows when it came free with my new laptop. Still dual boot Ubuntu, though.

</comment><comment><USER9> My personnal experience: -Windows Vista is not bad, my next Laptop is with Windows Vista. Windows Vista only works bad on old hardware/software. -I have worked on Mac OS X for 4 months, I will not buy a mac soon, here is why: Mac is cool for new users, it is easy to use. But if you are a good Linux/Windows user, you'll find that Mac OS X is a loss of time. I can do things faster in Linux and Windows. For documents presentations, spreadsheets its pretty much the same for Mac or Windows because they both use Microsoft Office. I personnaly prefer Microsoft Office than OpenOffice. For internet browsing they all have firefox, so pretty much the same. I don't know what you call exactly light programming. For Web Developpement I think it is pretty much the same, for Programs I love Visual Studio and I hate Mac OS X SDK Developer (or something like that) so that gives you my opinion. And I think dual boots are stupid, I prefer one perfect OS, so I'm not buying a Mac to put Windows on it.

<comment><USER14> > If you are a good Linux/Windows user, you'll find that Mac OS X is a loss of > time

I don't doubt this is true for you, but I fail to see your logic. Mac OS X offers the power of Linux with vastly better user experience. OS X lets you do all the powerful *nix stuff but at the same time saves you from having to hunt for drivers and do tons of configuration. There's definitely something to be said for Linux, but time savings isn't one of those things.

<comment><USER15> Better user experience? Not for certain kinds of work. If you're in the terminal a lot, for example.

The OS X Aqua terminal really blows, and its X11 terminal isn't much better. I never have any problems with terminal settings under Linux, but every time I try to SSH under OS X some stupid thing happens like the Backspace key doesn't work. X11 is balls slow under OS X, too. Under Linux I can install any software I need in 15 seconds, whereas under OS X, if I need some library or something, I end up searching the 'net and finding some random guy who distributes such-and-such a package for OS X, and it always has a wonky install process (which invariably makes it impossible to uninstall).

So yeah, Linux saves me a LOT of time.

<comment><USER15> I should point out that I do use OS X for games, web browsing, and casual programming tasks. It's a good OS, but I can't live with it when I'm really trying to be productive.

<comment><USER16> _I do use OS X for games, web browsing, and casual programming tasks._

It's been a while since I looked into games on Linux, but if this is correct, things are worse than I could have imagined.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I find that whatever environment you're most comfortable with is the best way to go. I find that XP/Ubuntu are more comfortable for me than other environments. I can use a Mac, but I find myself working against it (probably due to experience) in times when I really need things to be straightforward. It's a bit like learning Emacs for me, I can see that there's some power behind it but I find it too different to vi to bother. In this case, my vi would be Linux or Cygwin.

I'm not keen on Vista at all and would much rather use XP or even 2000. I suspect I'll avoid it till Windows 8 comes out.

I also don't think that the price difference between a Mac and PC laptop is justifiable, but different strokes for different folks I guess.

</comment><comment><USER18> I work on various hardwares (laptops, desktops, macs) so sometimes i need to move an installed hard drive on one mobo to another different mobo

win98 hd can be used across, good luck with XP / Vista

iBookG4 tiger hd can be swappable to mac mini

ubuntu hd, i had occasions when it's not swappable (always kernel panic on other mobo - must reinstall from _scratch_ )

OpenBSD always works (tm) on every mobo, even on my 10 yo XD380 thinkpad

BUT YOU CAN USE VMWARE!!! errr, i use simpler, OS / hardware independent tech: VNC

my setup now is: win98 for legacies, win-only software / hardware mac mini for fancier hardwares bluetooth, firewire, DVI etc

OpenBSD for development, VNC to win98 and Mac Mini (powerPC)

It used to be OpenBSD+Ubuntu ... However, time tweaking Ubuntu is better invested in win98+mac ... i feel ubuntu is trying to be win/mac/BSD* and it's weak in the three fronts -- weak identity, designed by committee for mass

you may think supporting 3 OS is more complicated; however it's not true

if the OS misbehave and need complete reinstallation: win98: i could just dd if=win98 of=/dev/disk2 and it's ready in 10 mins _shrug_ osx: reboot from install disc, format tiger partition, map the tiger-image and it's ready in ~30 mins OpenBSD: just do ftp reinstall, untar Site44.tgz and it's _production_ ready in 15 mins Ubuntu: i dunno, ... i'll prolly waste another hour+half or two reinstalling it

NB: Can u operate 3 OS (Win/OSX-powerpc/Unix) on a single machine? * BSD is more powerful than linux ... err GNU/linux ... or should i say GNU/BSD ? ... I dunno, i just want to hack and use the most powerful tools available, no time for silly nerd politics

</comment><comment><USER19> The Mac Dev tools kick ass, but if you want to stay cross platform (e.g. Python or Java for example), then you are probably as well on Ubuntu as anything else.

Certainly, if I had the same requirements, I might want a TP running Ubuntu.

If you like the Mac hardware (shiny, vents at the back, beautiful underneath) get a Mac laptop, since you can run Ubuntu or Windows easily on it.

I'm really a Mac guy, but I run Ubuntu on my remaining non-Apple hardware, and it works great. It always seems a tad smoother than OS X for mainstream Unix dev, e.g. No faffing with Fink or Ports etc.

</comment><comment><USER4> Last laptop purchase had me seriously looking at macs, but I ended up getting an OS-free Dell D830 because it offered 1920x1200 15in screen and the clit mouse, both unavailable on macbooks.

I did spend a fair amount of time dicking with things to get a few things working Just So, though Ubuntu 8.04 seems to have fixed most of my previous annoyances.

</comment><comment><USER20> I got a mac HATE IT, there are 2 programs that I cant use so end up spending 95% of time in VMWARE.

Also tried to install bootcamp, but MAC os says can't move files and I need to backup entire hd and then restore it. (MAC OS doesn't have defrag)

<comment><USER14> Did you not know that two of your main programs weren't available for OS X? Guessing by your use of MAC you didn't research much. Same for the defrag, there are several utilities that can do that for you (or you can just copy back and forth from a backup drive). iDefrag is a popular one, but I've never used any as I have plenty of free space and fragmentation's not an issue for me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I think you can't go wrong with WinXP, and even Vista is OK. My friend uses it on Laptop with one-core Intel processor and 1GB ram, and he was able to configure it so it is booting and running as fast as XP.

<comment><USER22> If you could possibly provide more info as to how your friend did it. I'd definitely be interested, my laptop needs a boost.</comment></comment>


Launchberg identified 10 best VPN services in 2019 - <AUTHOR> https://launchberg.com/10-best-vpn-services-for-you-in-2019/ <comment><USER2> No mention of PIA? Any reasoning behind not including it?

<comment><AUTHOR> Haven't tested, but it looks interesting.</comment></comment>


Does playing chess make you smarter? A look at the evidence - <AUTHOR> https://theconversation.com/does-playing-chess-make-you-smarter-a-look-at-the-evidence-76062 <comment><USER2> I think playing Chess as kid did wonders for me in life and as an adult.

Speaking only for myself, I am a competitive person and generally play to win any board game (as opposed to say golf which I suck at and play for pure leisure)

A couple notable things Chess did for me:

1) taught me to think about multi-layered cause and effect (something I use daily in my life as a manager) - ie how to create and execute a strategy

2) boosted my Confidence in making a decision and owning the outcome (something I believe a lot of people struggle with).

3) Taught me to be aware of my state of mind. I lost countless games I "should not have" for endless reasons I felt were preventable. Today I am hyper aware of my state of mind and will deploy fixes to get me to a better state depending on the issue (need more rest, stop the distractions, white board it out)

4) inspired me. Nothing like playing against a great player and seeing the beauty of a strategy unfold all the while your pieces and strategy slowly disintegrate into a blazing flame of glory. I saw the possibilities of what I could accomplish with study and practice

5) I could add a lot to this list...

Now did any of the above improve my GPA or SAT scores? Not directly but I do think it's undoubtedly helped my career. No question in my mind that I am teaching my son chess just like my father did for me.

<comment><USER3> Chess came from India where it was used by the ruling class to learn important skill like emotional management.

As the rulers had all power, it was incredibly very easy for them to get mad at someone and engage in destructive activities. Chess helped the new princes learn emotional management and act better when met with situation like, strategy failing, loss of your resources etc...

Later the game was brought to middle East by Arab traders from where it went to Europe and new world.

<comment><USER4> New princes in India went to ashrams to learn all these things or have dedicated gurus.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> GM Hikaru Nakamura famously took the Mensa online IQ test and scored a very average 102

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nx3h70GoaoM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nx3h70GoaoM)

I guess if you accept IQ as a proxy for general cognitive ability, this would suggest the article is right. On the other hand, I still find it very counter intuitive. The ability to plan ahead and the spatial thinking are things I though would transfer well to other domains (arguably both are not things that an IQ test, or the academic tests from the article, would measure well though).

<comment><USER6> It isn't assumed that IQ is a proxy go general cognitive ability, it is known that it correlates to some degree with many positive outcomes and abilities.

So you can look up how well it correlates with what things, and what it doesn't, and get an idea of what it is predictive of.

It isn't anywhere near perfect of course, you can't capture the whole of a person's cognitive ability in one number, but then it is only a "proxy" as you said.

<comment><USER7> Recent research across various specialisations just indicates that being good at mensa tests largely only correlates to being good at mensa tests.

<comment> david-gpu Sources, please. Peer-reviewed, if possible.

Mensa is an association of moderately high-IQ people, and IQ correlates positively [0] with education and income, among other things.

[0] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Social...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Social_correlations)

<comment><USER8> Anyone considered "profoundly gifted", ie IQ over 145, would shudder at the idea of being associated with Mensa. It's basically an organization for moderately intelligent people with self-esteem issues who like to think they are rare geniuses.

<comment><USER9> That sounds like the exact same personality issue, but with the added flaw that they're too smart even for those Mensa plebs.

<comment><USER8> Most profoundly gifted people don't want to be "outed" as profoundly gifted because they have been bullied or ostracized for much of their lives because of it. There's a reason why very high IQ scores don't correlate to very high success. High IQ is nothing except a certificate you can hang on your wall to brag, hard work is what gets you success.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Chess is all about memorizing patterns of many kinds to then recognize them and reapply on the spot.

What all great chess players have in common is an amazing memory and the will to think and work on chess all day long (which is more astonishing to me than the memory side).

<comment><USER11> This line of thinking ends up being applied only to chess, while what you are saying is true about most fields that need human expertise and judgement.

LeBron James is famous for being able to remember every shot he makes. There are cricketers who can tell you ball-by-ball plays from memory. Roger Federer remembers most of his matches. I have seen technical founders have an uncanny ability to 'remember' their code bases and figure out what to change. Boxers remember fights and sparring sessions in crazy detail. Mathematicians can do the same with papers they read ages ago.

I feel that memory and understanding co-evolve. The more you understand something, the better you remember it. The more knowledge you are able to memorize, the better you are able to understand and assimilate and create new ideas.

I am commenting because I have seen several smart people give this line about chess being about memory without realizing their professional expertise involves a great deal of memory too. In my experience, this is probably because when kids play chess, there is always this one kid trying to memorize opening and dazzle other people. Ultimately, those kids do not go on to become grandmasters. But yet, the people who lose to them think they lost because they did not memorize an opening.

<comment><USER12> "LeBron James is famous for being able to remember every shot he makes"

No he isn't, and no he can't. This is total hyperbole and he has never said he can remember "every shot" he has made. He can identify games from short sections of video, and he can remember certain memorable dunks, etc. But he can't (and no one else can either) remember every shot (including failed shots).

<comment><USER11> You are right. Upon, rereading - yes, this is hyperbole. I didn't intend that.

My point should have been that he can remember plays when triggered just like a high level chess player can remember positions when triggered. The expert's memory is way better than what ordinary people remember in almost any domain that requires human expertise and judgement.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Far more important than whether or not chess makes you smarter is... that teaching chess helps kids appreciate thinking ahead. This doesn't make them smarter per se, but it helps them realize that they should be using their smarts. Learning to think ahead about what will likely happen is an incredibly important life skill.

</comment><comment><USER14> > The same applies to video game training

Eh? I read the introduction/summary of the linked article, it appears to say not that there's a failure to transfer, but that it depends on the game:

> Enhancing perceptual and attentional skills requires common demands between > the action video games and transfer tasks Adam C. Oei and Michael D. > Patterson* Division of Psychology, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, > Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore Despite increasing > evidence that shows action video game play improves perceptual and cognitive > skills, the mechanisms of transfer are not well-understood. In line with > previous work, we suggest that transfer is dependent upon common demands > between the game and transfer task. In the current study, participants > played one of four action games with varying speed, visual, and attentional > demands for 20 h. We examined whether training enhanced performance for > attentional blink, selective attention, attending to multiple items, visual > search and auditory detection. Non-gamers who played the game (Modern > Combat) with the highest demands showed transfer to tasks of attentional > blink and attending to multiple items. The game (MGS Touch) with fewer > attentional demands also decreased attentional blink, but to a lesser > degree. Other games failed to show transfer, despite having many action game > characteristics but at a reduced intensity. The results support the common > demands hypothesis.

Given that this linkage appears to be misleading, it's hard to take the conclusions of the article seriously; what else are they misleading the reader about?

<comment><USER15> The research is still showing that training with video games is only improving the video game skill, the "common demands." It is not transferring to improved overall cognition. That is in line with what the article says.

<comment><USER14> No, it says that it improves whatever skill is shared in common between the game and other task:

> In line with previous work, we suggest that transfer is dependent upon > common demands between the game and transfer task.

Which is, I mean, duh? Was someone else suggesting that playing a game would improve a completely random skill? Obviously there'd had to be something in common.

Maybe I'm misreading this though.

<comment><USER15> Your quote is the "common demands" I mentioned. Video games will improve your ability to do tasks very similar to what happens in the video game. The actual research done isn't relevant to the article, they just used it as one of many papers supporting the "common demands" theory.

The article is talking about how those things won't improve your general intelligence, as many people did think playing chess would randomly make you smarter.

<comment><USER14> I suppose this depends on how narrow the tasks/skills in question are, as there are various ways to measure general intelligence.

For example, there was a study indicating that playing Starcraft improved multi-tasking ability:

> Using a meta-analytic Bayes factor approach, we found that the gaming > condition that emphasized maintenance and rapid switching between multiple > information and action sources led to a large increase in cognitive > flexibility as measured by a wide array of non-video gaming tasks.

I suppose here the rub would be, exactly how specific or different from the video game were these "non-video gaming tasks"? If they're broad enough that we consider them reasonable measurements of overall multi-tasking ability, then yes, playing Starcraft maybe made you smarter in one particular dimension. If they're all very similar to the game itself, and broader measurements found no change, then no.

> To determine changes in cognitive flexibility that occurred as a result of > video gaming, participants completed a battery of psychological tasks at > pre-test and post-test (at 40 hours of gaming). The battery included > measures that address cognitive flexibility as well as measures of unrelated > constructs. Measures of flexibility included the Attention Network Test > (ANT) [28], Stroop task [29], task switching [30], a novel multi-location > memory task, and test of Operating Span (Ospan; distinct from simple > counting memory span) [31], [32]. These are classic measures of cognitive > flexibility in that they require the switching or coordination of cognitive > processes in order to successfully navigate the task at hand. For example, > the task switching paradigm involves switching between two different > stimulus identification tasks. All the measures in the cognitive flexibility > task group assess the ability to coordinate attentional processes between > two or more concurrent or alternating operations. Measures of predicted > unrelated constructs included the balloon analogue risk task (BART) [33], > visual search task [14], information filtering task [34], and WAIS-IV digit > span memory task [35], [36]. These tasks were chosen to help delineate the > specific hypothesis that RTS training would lead specifically to cognitive > flexibility enhancements given that RTS game play stresses fast-paced > switching and coordination of decisional processing. The visual search task > and the information filtering task were chosen due to their use in previous > action video game research [12], in order to differentiate RTS training from > action video game training. BART and the digit span memory task were chosen > due to further delineate cognitive flexibility from the broad domains of > risk sensitivity and general memory. Participant groups were equated on the > Multimedia Multitasking Index (MMI), a measure of the amount of time an > individual spends simultaneously engaged in more than one form of media > [37]. Consistent with best scientific practices and openness, the task > grouping and analysis strategy were determined and publically disclosed [38] > prior to data collection.

Gonna be honest here, that all sounds rather impressive to me but I have no idea what those tests actually entail.

[https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0070350)

<comment><USER15> They mention somewhere that the tests were chosen to be as similar as possible to the chosen video games actions.

You're missing the point of the research paper. From the beginning, they supported the common demands theory being discussed. They were trying to determine what aspect of a game led to the transfer of the skills to the common demand task, and found that demanding games that required you to use that skill the most led to the best transfer of those skills to the common task.

Meanwhile, the article is using the common demands theory to support their claim,

>The fact that skills learned by training do not transfer across different domains seems to be a universal in human cognition. In other words, you get better, at best, at what you train in – which may just sound just like good old fashioned common sense.

Improving your ability to attend to multiple items may have some benefit outside of video games, but it's not going to help your grades much. You'd be far better off spending that time studying.

 _edit_ sorry, I did not notice that was a different study. My broad point doesn't change though, using StarCraft to train your multitasking is just going to benefit your multitasking.

<comment><USER14> I feel like we're arguing different things. The full paragraph that I originally quoted from says:

> The failure of generalisation of a particular skill, in fact, happens to > occur in many other areas beyond chess – such as music training, which has > been shown to have no effect on non-music cognitive or academic abilities. > The same applies to video game training, brain training, and working memory > training, among others.

But then, the article they linked to doesn't support that, and you yourself agree that you can train a particular skill through games that will apply to other, non-gaming tasks that use the same skill. Yes, it won't affect other cognitive skills (duh), but it does generalize to other domains that use the same skill.

<comment><USER15> You're taking "non-music cognitive or academic abilities" to mean "abilities that will only benefit playing music" when they mean "abilities used playing music that may have some use elsewhere." Keeping time for example. The link fully supports that statement then.

The rest of the article makes it clear they realize these skills can be helpful in other areas, they mention chess helps with geometry and math at the end. And you seem to agree with the article as you think it's obvious that they won't affect other cognitive skills.

<comment><USER14> > You're taking "non-music cognitive or academic abilities" to mean "abilities > that will only benefit playing music" when they mean "abilities used playing > music that may have some use elsewhere."

Lol. "Music-related skills have no benefit for skills that don't benefit from music skills". Very convenient to make your supported outcome a tautology.

<comment><USER15> I'm not randomly choosing it, that definition is used throughout the article and the links provided.

Providing a minor improvement to common tasks is nothing like the boost to overall general intelligence and academic ability that people say activities like music or chess cause. Aggressive parents don't force their kids to play an instrument to improve their sense of time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Of course it cannot make you smarter. Intelligence is innate. chess is a skill/ability in which ones proficiency may be positively correlated with IQ but in and of itself does not make you smarter. There are no exercises or activities that have been shown to actually rise IQ, unfortunately.

<comment><USER17> (note that of the many possible definitions of intelligence, I'm using IQ here to align with research terminology)

There are definitely activities that have been shown to increase IQ, even when attempting to correct for confounders, although not by a dramatic amount.

For example, spending an additional year in school increases IQ by 1-5 points, depending on which study you believe. [0] Similarly, having a healthy diet as a child "increases" IQ, although you could equivalently phrase it as malnutrition decreasing IQ.

[0] [https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/brainstorm/201806/ho...](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/brainstorm/201806/how- much-does-education-really-boost-intelligence)

<comment><USER18> From the article:

 _The three study types respectively yielded estimated IQ increases of approximately one point, two points, and five points per additional year of schooling._

And what were the three study types?

 _Cognitive tests were taken before participants differed in their degree of education (e.g., before some dropped out of high school) and again afterward, sometimes decades later.

A policy change, such as an increase in the mandatory education level, resulted in some students staying in school for longer.

Students who made an age cutoff to begin schooling were compared with students who had not._

So the best study, which tested IQ scores before and after, showed the least improvement, at 1 IQ point. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of education for boosting IQ. I would conclude the opposite of this article. When better studies show smaller and smaller effect sizes that's a good indicator that there's probably nothing going on.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> One question is whether you can learn non-cognitive skills from chess that transfer to other fields eg. tenacity, dealing with loss, the ability to sit and think for long periods of time. I probably had some of the most memorable failures of my sheltered life on the chess board, starting from when I got suckered with a 4 move checkmate in the first week I learned how to play.

<comment><USER20> Some of these skills (I would add: patience, focus, controlling anger, planning a few steps ahead) definitely transfer and are especially valuable to teach to children. But all these apply at the beginning already, for champion- level play the famous Morphy quote applies:

"The ability to play chess is the sign of a gentleman. The ability to play chess well is the sign of a wasted life."

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Chess was my FIRST introduction to "money hustle" via tournaments, playing pick-up park games, against my dad, etc.

Owning the results and preparing for the next game taught me a life outlook: Win or lose, there's always a new game waiting if you still want to play.

</comment><comment><USER22> Reading thru the posts here, I realize that what we ought to be searching for isn't what makes us smarter but what makes us more able.

</comment><comment><USER23> I have been playing chess since 10. Whether smarter or not, it has made me cautious and planning way ahead for many of my endeavors. Thinking through each move, weighing every chance and pouncing on the slightest opportunity to win it all has certainly made me feel a lot more confident in myself.

It is an addiction.

</comment><comment><USER24> "The chess community is probably right in criticising the recent study, as it suffers from several methodological shortcomings that probably invalidate the results." A remarkably self-undermining statement, and at odds with the tone of finality in the rest of the article.

</comment><comment><USER25> Playing chess does not make you smarter but studying chess does. You see when you decide to study chess theoretically you come to a point where you want to figure out a system to increase your chances of winning. Chess is very dynamic and complex, uncountable positions can be reached so the system you come up with should consider all of those factors. Chess theorist (not necessarily GM players who mostly memorize patterns) are able/trying to grasp complexity in a systematic way. The skills learned from studying chess can be applied to studying the stock market, distributed systems and other inherently complex systems.

</comment><comment><USER26> I mean. The same could be said about MTG, DND and a lot of other games.

Seems obvious to me if you play a game that makes you use your brain, it will help you in the long run.

If you just use your brain to consume trash it will become trash.

Garbage in, garbage out.

</comment><comment><USER27> Are any of the well-known grandmasters computer programmers?

<comment><USER28> Mikhail Botvinnik [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Botvinnik](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Botvinnik)

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I think part of the reason why we don't see chess having a predictive impact is because the ability to generalize a specific skill must also be acquired for that to happen. Basically, being able to extrapolate a narrow skill to more general problems, is in its own right a skill.

</comment><comment><USER30> Looking at Kasparov, not really.

Bet seriously, I have seen famous programmers in person. And famous sportsmen. A disproportionate number of them are dull IRL.

So, do play chess. Just do not build your life around. And do let your parents lock you up to reach world-best results.

</comment><comment><USER31> Slightly OT:

>This is why so many parents around the world are keen to get their children playing chess //

Did they study this or is it assumed. I taught my kids to play because it's fun and I hoped they'd enjoy playing.

</comment><comment><USER32> I've been doing well just kind of obliterating all the pawns early on. It seems to open up the board a lot and presents opportunities.

Is there a name for that strategy or maybe it will backfire against better players.

<comment><USER33> The worse you are the chess, the more you want to keep pawns on the board since they tactically restrict the game. The more pawns that go off, the more the game opens up into sharp tactical lines which give experienced players an enormous advantage.

All of that leads into my recommendation for getting good at Chess as a beginner: Don't waste any time with opening preparation. Pick two openings you like (one for white, one for black) and stick with them. All your time and effort should go into tactics.

<comment><USER34> This is just false. Tons and tons of closed positions played by grandmasters.

<comment><USER33> Grandmasters spend enormous amounts of time doing opening preparation, in some cases creating strategies for and memorizing entire opening lines.

Is that going to help bad/beginner/average players? Not at all, in many ways they're not even playing the same game. Jumping to conclusions based on what Grandmasters do is therefore apt to mislead.

<comment><USER34> Granted, but saying worse players prefer closed positions is just false. Take the French defense, for example. Advance variation of the French is much harder for beginners compared to the exchange variation. And you can say the same for many other positions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Yes of course it does. So does listening to classical music and having leather-bound Shakespeare volumes in a home library.

</comment><comment><USER36> Does playing chess make you smarter? Not _really_ \- presumably the title has been miscopied?

<comment><AUTHOR> Corrected. Thanks.

<comment><USER36> cheers - I've since posted the original article link in another comment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Apparently, the authors believe chess skill is domain specific. This is opposed to domain generalization, ie claims such as "chess makes you smarter".

Compared to a list of actual domain generalizable skills, it is clear that chess would be the odd one out. For example, some domain generalizable skills include self-control, leadership, time management, etc.

</comment><comment><USER38> what about playing go?

</comment><comment><USER39> I'll take issue with this quote: "This is a problem because research has shown that the excitement and fun induced by novel activities can cause a positive temporal effect on test scores - a placebo effect."

This is not a placebo effect. Doing a variety of things does make you smarter. If I learn to play chess, there is a very real effect. From there, you have diminishing returns on investment. If I play chess for 4 hours per day, then it crowds out other, more productive activities.

There is a perceived mystique to chess, but it's no different then checkers, contemporary German game geek games, or any of a range of other strategic games. People who play such games a lot will be better players when placed in a novel game (or a real-life situation which requires the same type of strategic thinking).

And such games are no different than a broader set of other cognitively- engaging activities, be that logic puzzles, editing Youtube videos, or STEM/maker activities.

In most activities, there's an initial surge of growth (so long as I do it for long enough to learn something -- not a one-hour thing I forget after a few months), followed by rapidly diminishing returns, but that's far from universal. In programming, for example, that surge comes when people start to think algorithmically (e.g. in terms of big-O notation), not when learning to order operations. In reading/writing, that comes when people start to really think through audiences, structure of text, etc.

<comment><USER40> The placebo effect is a real thing as in its a good positive thing that is fundamentally real. You do feel better even if the effect is a placebo.

Placebo doesn't mean fake, or the subject imagined it up, or pretended.

In science you have to control for things to make sure effects can not be just a temporary effect.

<comment><USER41> > In science you have to control for things to make sure effects can not be > just a temporary effect.

The duration doesn't have anything to do with whether something is scientific. It has to do with a statistical correlation of cause and effect.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> The original article (from 2017) - this one has been lifted without the links which provide references.

[https://theconversation.com/does-playing-chess-make-you- smar...](https://theconversation.com/does-playing-chess-make-you-smarter-a- look-at-the-evidence-76062)

</comment><comment><USER42> I think this is one thing that would be very, very difficult to study right.

There is huge selection bias. Playing chess for a long time select people who are very different from general public and from people who just decided to play but will drop it soon. People also play chess in a different way: some people play just to kill time while some play really competitively.

I think that regardless of whether chess in itself doesn't do much (I would be surprised if that was so), people who can stick to playing chess competitively are more likely to also exercise their minds in other ways.

I also believe that playing chess is one of those exercises that have other beneficial results (like training focus). Other example might be running which I think of the beneficial effects one that people forget to mention is training ones willpower (assuming you do more than just light jog).</comment>


Facts has finally died. 360 B.C. - A.D. 2012 - <AUTHOR> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-talk-huppke-obit-facts-20120419,0,809470.story

<comment><USER2> _"Anybody can express an opinion on a blog or any other outlet and there's no system of verification or double-checking, you just say whatever you want to and it gets magnified. It's just kind of a bizarre world in which one person's opinion counts as much as anybody else's."_

Are any start-ups or companies working on this problem?

</comment><comment><USER3> Is that a fact?</comment>