Are Computers Making Society More Unequal?  - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/currency/2013/11/when-machines-replace-humans-at-work.html <comment> alex-g I don't care about inequality (of outcome). I care about suffering.

Automation may increase inequality between those who are able to take advantage of it, and those who aren't - but it is better to say that increased automation _exposes_ an existing problem. Namely, it so happened that many people were recently able to make a reasonably comfortable living in less- skilled work. There was always a population who couldn't manage that, but now it is a larger group. So the idea that people below a certain productivity threshold don't "matter" isn't tenable any more. But that was never a morally acceptable idea, just a politically pragmatic one.

Reducing inequality shouldn't be a first-order goal. Of course we should make sure that everybody has a decent chance to make the best use of their abilities and resources. But we also need to structure our society to reduce suffering and improve the general quality of life, including for the economically unproductive.

<comment><USER4> This is an excellent point, though I'm not sure you'll be in agreement with why I feel that way. The issue comes down to how you define "suffering".

One of the reasons income inequality is such a silly measurement of overall economic well-being is because people often believe it _must_ be correlated with suffering. In other words, those at the poorer end of the spectrum _must_ be suffering relative to those at the rich end (and usually _because of_ those at the rich end). But this doesn't appear to be true in modern society at all.

In reality, those at the poor end of the spectrum have never experienced less (physical) suffering. Food, clean water, and basic shelter have never been cheaper. On a minimum wage salary, you can live a life without what I would call suffering, though it will look nothing like the typical portrayal of "middle class" life we see on TV. If you're sick, you can get extremely advanced medical care without cost (even in the US, there are free clinics in all major cities, and if you visit the emergency room, though you may be billed preposterous sums, you'll still get care).

What constitutes "suffering" is probably one of the biggest disconnects that plague liberals and conservatives.

<comment> alex-g Perhaps we agree more than you expected. I certainly agree that it is too simplistic to say that poor people are suffering because rich people have the money (and that therefore, if we take from the rich and give to the poor, the problem is solved). But that's a pretty 101 sort of critique anyway. Economic and cultural hegemony have been part of the left-wing conversation for a while now, and my main original point was that the concerns of the unemployed and underemployed have tended to be politically ignorable (due to lack of numbers, cultural shaming, the perception that unemployment is always temporary, etc.).

And I agree that being poor in a contemporary rich country isn't as miserable as other ways of being poor. I see you were quite careful to pin your example to "a minimum wage salary", which is a level of income and security that many people don't have. Since I think we probably both care a lot about equality of opportunity, we should agree that being billed preposterous sums for healthcare is still not a brilliant situation, just like not being able to afford to go to college, lacking access to banking services, and so on. I'm not saying we need to buy everyone an Xbox One because that's the new baseline, but I hope that liberals and conservatives can agree that there are powerful mechanisms that entrench people in poverty, to the general detriment of society.

<comment><USER4> Ah, you raise a few interesting points.

>> _the concerns of the unemployed and underemployed have tended to be politically ignorable (due to lack of numbers, cultural shaming, the perception that unemployment is always temporary, etc._ <<

This seems like it must be true, but I'm not sure it is upon further consideration. Politicians have spent a great deal of time and effort on issues that affect the poor (and the comparative "poor"). In the US, we have a substantial welfare system that includes housing subsidies, a variety of food subsidies, and a variety of medical care subsidies. I would add that benefits under each of these systems has been pushed through by both "liberal" and "conservative" governments. (Many European countries have had an even greater focus on policies that benefit the poor.)

But I would argue that the biggest gains those on the poor end of the spectrum have made over the last 30 years (and certainly over the last 200 years) has been driven by market forces, not political ones. The widespread decline of food prices has been due to private activity, in spite of government policy (see, e.g., various agricultural subsidies/tariffs that maintain above-market prices). The enormous decline in prices of finished goods, durable goods, electronics, and basically anything you'd put in your home, has similarly been driven by market forces. This leads to a tremendous decrease in suffering that is difficult to measure. [For example, cheap air conditioners, furniture and televisions make what would have been miserable conditions in 1950's New York into perfectly pleasant conditions today.] So, perhaps focusing on overall growth will produce greater benefits to the poor than simply focusing on symptoms of poverty.

>> _Since I think we probably both care a lot about equality of opportunity..._ <<

Equality of opportunity is a terrifying outcome. Of course it sounds wonderful in theory, but how do we attain it? The novel Brave New World illustrates how this would have to be done: (1) prohibit natural births, instead hatching babies under laboratory conditions; and (2) raise and educate children en masse, in a (presumably) government-run institutions. Of course even this would result in slight differences in opportunity. Even if everyone shared the same DNA, it would be impossible to ensure each person had the same experiences during childhood (i.e. Billy gets bullied for some reason and never reaches his potential while Bobby doesn't and attains success).

So, in this respect, I don't believe that anyone wants true equality of opportunity. The question is, how close is close enough, and at what cost? Because, at a certain point, the only way to increase equality of opportunity is to decrease freedom. We're currently at the point where the main freedoms we are losing relate to how much of our income we get to keep (i.e. increase tax revenue to provide subsidies/programs for the poor). Most people don't have a huge problem with this.

But we're already begin to sacrifice other freedoms, and this is only accelerating. If your kid is fat, he will have a decreased opportunity to succeed. So, we impose sin taxes on certain ingredients. The FDA bans trans- fats. New York City tries to impose size restrictions on sodas. All of these rules are meant to save us from ourselves, or in essence, to give those with less information or willpower a more-equal opportunity to succeed. The same logic applies to smoking or drinking, housing, schooling, etc.

I'm not sure I see a logical place to stop. If someone notices you drinking or smoking during pregnancy, should society step in? There is a chance the child will be negatively impacted. Of course, this means he won't have the same opportunities as if you had not drunk or smoked during pregnancy. This means the child's opportunities won't be equal to others due to your choices. Should we supervise or jail you to ensure you don't drink or smoke while pregnant? Even terminate the pregnancy if we discover you drank or smoked while pregnant?

Of course, the child of a successful 35-year old mother who drinks or smokes while pregnant may have far better opportunities than the child of a 15-year old mother with no education who doesn't drink or smoke. To what extent should or must society intervene in the latter case?

The converse case is even more terrifying. I didn't have an equal opportunity of succeeding because I had a stay-at-home mom who taught me to read when I was 4. She taught me years of history and science outside of school, things my peers never learned after 20 years of schooling. I got to peer over the shoulder of friends and relatives who ran successful small businesses. There's simply no way replicate or ensure that everyone has these experiences (outside of a Brave New World-esque regime). Should my parents therefore be prohibited from trying to give me an advantage over others?

It's fascinating to me that America chose a revolution based on liberty near the time the French chose a revolution based on equality. 200 years later, the world is a far richer place due to the advances wrought under freedom. Certainly giving people as much opportunity as possible is a worthy goal, but I fear the consequences of what would be required to ensure true equality of opportunity. So then, perhaps we're back again to the more worthy goal: eliminating suffering.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > Smart software... is ushering in an era of "hyper-meritocracy."

> ...the cognitive requirements of working with smart software...

> Online education... will only deepen inequality... Because of the premium it > places on conscientiousness. some people are pure self-starters... But at > the same time, I think it's a pretty small percentage of the population.

These are all excellent points.

It's funny -- centuries ago, when there was no meritocracy, if you stayed poor, it probably wasn't your fault. You were born a peasant, and there really wasn't any way out of it. Some people argue that it made for happier people. (And if you were rich, it wasn't because you were really smart or capable, you were probably just born into aristocracy.)

But the kind of ruthless economic meritocracy we have today is much less forgiving, as your shortcomings are made so much more obvious. If you're the kind of person who enjoys reading programming manuals and studying Fourier transformations for fun, then you'll probably have a great career ahead of you. But that's just not the case for most people.

<comment><USER6> Some day, when the AI systems take over, and the world no longer needs so many people that enjoy reading programming manuals and studying Fourier transformations, the great bulk of programmers will be lined up and shot, in retribution for their years of pampered arrogance.

And it won't be the people we put out of work, it will be the people who paid us, who will have long since had enough of it.

<comment><USER7> I find your comment bizarre. A baker doesn't spend $X on flour unless she can make more than that from selling the bread.

Companies don't pay programmers big bucks and give nice benefits unless they make a lot more off the software programmers build.

Nobody is getting ripped off here.

<comment><USER8> What a joke. What you've written could be said of any well-paid job right up until it's eliminated: "Telegraph operators were paid well and felt themselves part of an honored profession. It was a good way to make a living for a lot of people."[1]

Companies would be THRILLED to eliminate developers and no longer have to pay them. And plenty of people are working on that problem:

"Imagine sitting at a Salesforce event in 2008 in Chicago while Salesforce.com's CEO, Marc Benioff, swiftly works an entire room of business users into an anti-software frenzy. I was there to learn about Force.com, and I'll summarize the message I understood four years ago as 'Not only can companies benefit from Salesforce.com, they also don't have to hire developers.'"[2]

[1] [http://www.appalachianhistory.net/2010/06/3918.html](http://www.appalachianhistory.net/2010/06/3918.html) [2] [http://programming.oreilly.com/2012/10/salesforce- developers...](http://programming.oreilly.com/2012/10/salesforce-developers- acquisitions-investment.html)

<comment><USER7> Sure, if companies could do without paying programmers, they would and should.

That doesn't change the fact that they continue doing so (at least for now) because they see it as a good deal. Programmers are responsible for continuing to have skills that are marketable if the economy changes.

>> "right up until it's eliminated"

This phrase implies an Evil Power is deciding who gets to live or something. In reality, a job is "the opportunity to meet a demand by selling labor." It's not unjust to stop demanding something.

When people stopped wanting top hats, that wasn't unjust, even though it meant hat-makers needed new jobs. If people stop wanting software, it won't be unjust, even though it will mean programmers need new jobs.

I'd love for my house to produce its own electricity so that I could fire the power company, but until that seems easy and cost-effective enough, I pay for power because I think the money I spend gives me outsize benefits. Same with my employer paying me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It's funny how the "equality" thing can depend on various notions - <USER2> assumptions.

Unless we are talking about unconditional equality (i.e. same for everyone including slackers), what about an equality based on how productive people are? It's called marginal productivity ethics, and following that theory our current society is very unequal, and the society envisioned by the articled (the so called "hyper meritocracy") is much more equal.

"In the aftermath of the marginal revolution in economics, a number of economists including John Bates Clark and Thomas Nixon Carver sought to derive an ethical theory of income distribution based on the idea that workers were morally entitled to receive a wage exactly equal to their marginal product" ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_product_of_labor](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_product_of_labor))

If anything, computers put an emphasis on the fact that waking up everyday and showing up for "work" with the only qualification of having a pulse is not sufficient anymore to command a salary, especially when machines can replace the worker for a fraction of the cost (and do a much better job)

Things change. I for one will not lament on the fact that our society is becoming so productive and efficient that (gasp!) some people also have to become more efficient!!

<comment><USER10> I think it's partly that technology can multiply the differences in marginal productivity between people.

For example it's a common meme on HN to talk about "10X" or "100X" programmers. If such things are true then it probably makes sense for 100X programmers to be paid 100X more. The difference between a 1X and 10X programmer however may only be marginal in terms of actual intelligence etc.

Therefor if we assume a 10X programmer gets $100,000 , a 100X programmer get $1M and a 1X programmer gets $10,000 which is not going to be a living wage if one has a family.

So one needs to be at least say a 3X programmer to earn a living wage. But maybe there is no such thing as a 3X programmer, only 1X , 10X and 100X.

<comment><USER11> There's also the fact that if a 1x programmer gets forced out the market, the 10x programmers become 1x programmers (by the definition of a 1x programmer) and the 100x programmers become 10x programmers...

<comment><USER12> Bingo. Everyone is replaceable over a long enough timeframe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I call bullshit on this. The nordic countries have a pretty great tech sector too, and they don't suffer from this. Its a policy thing, and I was always under the impression that this is a choice that the USA has made consciously, and is widely acepted as a given - that cutthroat capitalism creates greater inequality, with (maybe) bigger growth rates.

<comment><USER14> I agree. Reaganomics started massively concentrating wealth long before the Internet came along.

<comment><USER15> Surprisingly, cutting the (progressive) income tax rates and raising the (flat-to-regressive) payroll tax rates made the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Who could have guessed?

<comment><USER14> Trickle down economics would only work if your average rich person were a Jeff Bezos, Steve Jobs, or Elon Musk, not an overstuffed communist apparatchik in a business suit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Why is the sale of labor considered so different than the sale of anything else?

You don't feel immoral selling your car to the highest bidder. Why should selling your labor be different?

You don't feel immoral buying bananas as cheaply as possible. Why should purchasing labor be different?

I'm not trolling; I'm genuinely trying to think through these questions.

<comment><USER16> Labor is a complex commodity because it is linked to a human being. It's natural and right that the value of labor is influenced by supply and demand. However, value is also determined by the cost of production. What is the cost of production of the laborer? The very fact that labor is intrinsic to the laborer sets it apart from other commodities, and gives it additional social, cultural, and moral dimensions. Labor laws are designed to address these additional aspects. In the same way, treating labor as a pure commodity is dehumanizing and exploitative.

<comment><USER7> >> In the same way, treating labor as a pure commodity is dehumanizing and exploitative.

Inherently, or only when it leads to abuses, like in "The Jungle"? Are worker treatment laws sufficient?

>> value is also determined by the cost of production

In what way? If it costs me $500 to make something, but nobody wants it, its value is still $0 (eg, a crappy sculpture). If it costs me $0 to make something and everybody wants it, its value could be millions.

<comment><USER16> Value is multifaceted, but in this case it should be pretty clear. If the demand for something only exists at a price less than the cost of production, then the product will not appear on the market (at equilibrium, all else being equal, etc.). If something costs you zero to make, the price of the item will probably fall to zero (at equilibrium, all else being equal, etc.), regardless of demand. A crappy statue has multiple valuations, one of which is the cost of production (in addition to use value, exchange value, market value, labor value, etc.).

Treating labor as a commodity is by definition dehumanizing. Dehumanization "entails a perception of other people as nonhumans — as statistics, commodities, or interchangeable pieces in a vast 'numbers game'. Its predominant emotional tone is that of indifference ... together with a sense of noninvolvement in the actual or foreseeable vicissitudes of others" (Bernard, Ottenberg, and Redl 1971, 105-6). Even in cases of slavery, the slave's labor is not what is actually considered the commodity. Commodification of labor has lead to real declines in the US and abroad in terms of worker quality of life, wage stability, worker freedom, power relations, worker skills, and democratic involvement.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Wealth has always been closely linked with the amount of value a person can provide to other people. Of course I am leaving out wealth created through corruption or sheer power.

Intelligent machines, software and connectivity have only made it easier for a single person to provide value to millions of other people.

Lebron James makes $60 million a year because the NBA, the Miami Heat, and the companies that he endorses feel he provides at least that much value to their organizations and brands. NBA players fifty years ago didn't make that much because the fans weren't able to have the kind of access that is available now through 24/7 sports TV channels, the Internet, social media. That increased access through technology means Lebron can provide more value.

<comment><USER18> On the other hand, capital accumulates, and is consolidated over time.

Also part of the reason athletes make so much more today is because of sustained labor agitation on the parts of the unions. Go read 'Ball Four' for an example of what pre-union sports was like.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> More unequal? Maybe. More for everyone? Certainly.

It's not like "computers" can be stopped...

</comment><comment><USER20> pg writes about a lot of this in his essay Mind the Gap. [http://paulgraham.com/gap.html](http://paulgraham.com/gap.html)

<comment><USER21> I loved this line:

"the rate at which technology increases our productive capacity is probably polynomial, rather than linear. So we should expect to see ever-increasing variation in individual productivity as time goes on."

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> It's common during rapid shifts in technology to have a kind of gilded age when "robber barons" who are early adopters amass absurdly huge fortunes very quickly. Same thing happened with the railroads, telephone, television, automobiles, etc.

Eventually things tend to even out. Money wants to flow, and you can't have an economy with all money concentrated in so few hands and nobody to spend it.

</comment><comment><USER22> The amount of education required to make a decent living has increased, to the point that today you might need a graduate degree to make a middle class white collar living. Whereas 50 years ago, high school was enough. Pre-tractor farming days you hardly needed middle school. This is a significant mobility problem when you virtually have to crapshoot your life and hope you chose the right field. With increased automation, the level of understanding of a subject or business needed is so great that the average person may never find a genuine opportunity to break out on their own. Try being a rockstar entrepreneur straight out of college outside of app development. At some point even apps will be full of entrenched players like other fields. Contrast that to that not too long ago even a neighborhood corner store could compete and offer an alternate to the wage system.

This is why I believe this time is different - a basic income is needed or else the populace will be like serfs with little mobility from their trade. In other words, a caste system.

<comment><USER23> If you wanted to work as a banker prior to the adoption of computers you'd need an education advanced enough to calculate amortization tables. Now you'd simply need to know where to put the numbers into a spreadsheet. Same for accountant. Attorneys can now run instant searches for relevant case law rather than spending time in a law library. Construction workers have instant access to information on a variety of materials and methods. Doctors have computers giving guidance on diagnosis as opposed to consulting experts. Students worldwide can learn from the best teachers in many subjects. I could make this list much longer.

In general, the individual knowledge requirements for most jobs have gone down drastically, and the potential paths to acquire that knowledge have grown.

<comment><USER22> The caveat is middle class living. If all those jobs were easily done or trainable, thereby removing the tendency towards credentialism, then by and large those workers should be interchangeable. That lowers the pay and forces the would-be middle class to specialize further in yet something else.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I was going to post my take on this matter...but something struck me when reading the replies. The quality and thoughtfulness of the discussion here is so good compared to the utter crap that is regurgitated on TV and most newspapers. I'm happy that discussions of this level can be found on the internet, and that computer systems enable them.

</comment><comment><USER25> A better headline would be "Intriguing musings about unexpected ways people working with computers will impact and transform society".

It's a set of notions extracted from a book - if the book is better written and more clearly organized than the article, it will be a thought provoking read. But if it parallels the article, it will be a tiring slog through disjointed assertions.

A key idea is that people with the right blend of conscientiousness and cognitive capacity and style will be able to use technology to enhance their lives in ways that most people will not. And that we cannot predict what these will be, but there there are analogs, and they show the power of the idea.

Intriguing speculation, worthy of consideration, poorly presented in the article. Hopefully better presented in the book, but I ain't readin' it just yet.

</comment><comment><USER26> Once you factor in genetic selection (Gattaca style -- many aspects of which we are ALREADY capable of), inequality will not just become a matter of knowledge/education/motivation as this article states, but BIOLOGICAL - <USER3> that will really be the turning point in global inequality.

This is-- from a scientific perspective-- not far off at all, and we haven't figured out the ethical system that can help us navigate this coming phenomenon.

Even start-ups like Counsyl, which are doing great work with respect to genetics and family planning, are a part of this movement towards genetic variation between the rich and poor.

</comment><comment><USER27> Tyler Cowen is one of my intellectual heroes. If you found that article interesting, you might enjoy his blog, Marginal Revolution:

[http://marginalrevolution.com/](http://marginalrevolution.com/)

</comment><comment><USER23> Articles like these seem to make the superficial assumption that technology only puts downward pressure on the unskilled or uneducated. That improving technology can only benefit the existing elites. I couldn't disagree more. Tech improvements are more often used to allow the relatively unskilled to replace the highly skilled. Innovation is commonly driven by scrappy upstarts who have no choice but to try something new because they can't beat the existing order at their own game.

</comment><comment><USER28> Yes any tool or productivity increase (wheel, horses, printing press) naturally increases inequality. Redistribution is the only answer if you think equality is important.

</comment><comment><USER29> There was an article in the economist a couple of weeks ago which argued that because growing inequality was a global phenomenon it was unlikely to be related to tax policies, labour laws, etc. but rather due to global factors such as technology and globalization.

On a microlevel the argument seems to make sense the middle-market jobs are the ones that are being wiped out and having salaries driven-down by out- sourcing and technology.

<comment><USER30> OK, but globally inequality _isn 't_ growing, by many measures. Hans Rosling illustrated that this week[1].

World income now fits a more continuous curve compared to the rich- and poor- of the past. World equality has presumably been helped by out-sourcing: it's just that some of the 'equality' is no longer owned by the West.

[1][http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24835822](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24835822)

<comment><USER29> I think we're talking cross-purpose; I think you're talking about inequality between countries while I'm talking about within countries.

<comment><USER30> Yes, except that I wasn't talking at cross-purposes and nor about countries.

I was talking about inequality between individuals globally, because I think it's fundamentally a more important measure - and there is now far less global poverty.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Good example of Betteridge's Law.

Also - inequality is a red herring. As long as the poorest people are doing better, it's irrelevant that Bill Gates is a Billionaire.

<comment><USER32> > _As long as the poorest people are doing better, it 's irrelevant that Bill > Gates is a Billionaire._

But the human psyche doesn't seem to work that way. There's a fair amount of research suggesting that we tend to measure our well-being not in absolute terms, but relative to those around us or who are otherwise on our mental radar. [ADDED:] No matter how well someone is doing, if he perceives that others "around" him are doing better, he's likely to feel bad about himself.

[ADDED:] Feeling bad about doing worse than those around us probably has an evolutionary advantage as a motivator. There may even be a dollop of sexual- preference selection at work, too: We probably recognize, perhaps unconsciously, that potential mates judge us in part in comparison to other available candidates.

(Tl;dr: Envy is a powerful force, which may have been built into us in part by natural selection.)

<comment><USER7> If most people are envious of Bill Gates, does it follow that they have the right to take away his money and redistribute it?

<comment><USER32> > _If most people are envious of Bill Gates, does it follow that they have the > right to take away his money and redistribute it?_

You're presupposing that there's such a thing as a "right" outside of a given social framework. (Cf. @rayiner's various comments on that subject.) If people are envious by nature, that's like the weather; to paraphrase Robert A. Heinlein, attempting to argue with the weather is seldom a profitable enterprise.

In any case, Bill Gates's success was not due solely to his own efforts; he built his achievements on a foundation provided by his fellow citizens, of America and the world. So it's not a _moral_ axiom that Gates should keep some particular share of the money that happens to come into his hands. Cf. Elizabeth Warren's famous talk during her campaign for the Senate, where on the subject of fair taxation she accurately pointed out that:

 _There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody. You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police- forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory — and hire someone to protect against this — because of the work the rest of us did._ [1]

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htX2usfqMEs](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htX2usfqMEs), starting at 0:50, _transcribed at_ [http://spectator.org/blog/2011/09/22/elizabeth-warren-on- fai...](http://spectator.org/blog/2011/09/22/elizabeth-warren-on-fair-taxat).

<comment><USER7> >> You're presupposing that there's such a thing as a "right" outside of a given social framework.

I absolutely am. I'm with the framers of the US Constitution in saying that government and society do not create rights, they merely recognize them. I have a right not to be murdered, for example, even if I happen to live in a society where murdering people like me is allowed.

But I base that statement on my theology, not my economics.

>> You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for.

It's equally true that "the rest of us" drive around on roads that the factory owner paid for - possibly more true, assuming he/she pays proportionally. Why does this matter?

<comment><USER32> > _I have a right not to be murdered .... But I base that statement on my > theology, not my economics ...._

Glad you recognize that. Pragmatically, a "right" exists only to the extent that others accept it, voluntarily or otherwise. I can also claim the right not to be murdered. But if I, an American, were to find myself in the hands of certain factions of the Taliban, then that so-called right might be of little efficacy.

There's a legal maxim -- OK, technically it's an equitable maxim -- _ubi jus ibi remedium:_ Where there is a right, there must be a remedy. That is, once the courts recognize that a right exists, they will somehow fashion a remedy to vindicate a breach of that right. But there's a corollary: If there simply _is_ no remedy that can be enforced, then neither is there a right.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Technology is a force multiplier. If there was a gap between the most and least able before, it will be larger now.

</comment><comment><USER34> Is the Horseless Carriage Making Society More Unequal?</comment>


Chess boxing - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_boxing <comment><USER2> Wu-Tang Clan - Da Mystery of Chessboxin' [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJk0p-98Xzc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJk0p-98Xzc)

I wrote a paper on chess boxing in college (one of those intro-level English classes) and used this song as a reference. The professor loved it.</comment>


Show HN: Monday Calendar - Handle todos, meetings and events side by side - <AUTHOR> http://mondayapp.com

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm building Monday for the web and iPhones+Androids in full HTML5, with help from Backbone.js, Appcache and Sass+Compass, and it's an amazing platform! I can't wait to write more about the stack and the lessons I've learned building and debugging it all.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> And it's not blue!

But anyway, I'd really love your feedback on the Monday front page and to hear your expectations from calendars. I've got some time left in the big vision hourglass until I head back to hacking.</comment>


Amazon researcher explains science behind Alexa's newly announced whisper mode - <AUTHOR> https://developer.amazon.com/blogs/alexa/post/c0e7798d-32bc-4549-9c24-97d204a7bf3a/whisper-to-alexa-and-she-ll-whisper-back <comment><USER2> "If you're in a room where a child has just fallen asleep, and someone else walks in..." considering the other person as Alexa bothers me. I appreciate the tech but the fact that Alexa/Amazon corporate is participating, even passively, in interactions with my children and myself causes me pause.

<comment><USER3> Then why buy it, dude? Do you think Alexa isn't listening to you when you scold your kids in the kitchen? Seriously.

<comment><USER2> I haven't purchased one. Good research should be encouraged. Ethical implications of implementations should be discussed openly.

<comment><USER3> His isn't ethical implications discussion. This is you using every one of these feature release pages as your product review page. If nothing has changed about your position why even tell us? It's like all those people who comment on software built with Go. "I don't understand why Terraform uses Golang. It has no generics"

That's not "programming language feature discussion". It's obsessively off- topic behaviour.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Alexa never even hears me when I shout at it, nevermind whispering!

<comment><USER5> That is because they haven't developed shout mode yet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I realize I'm not the target audience of the smart speaker but I already carry a silent interface to anything I would like to do with Alexa in my pocket.

Listening to whispers is creepy.

</comment><comment><USER7> The article hasn't been published for a whole day and the link to the announcement (the first link) is already broken. Can anyone provide it? Thanks

<comment><USER7> The link works now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> As a European, I cannot believe that millions of people just across the ocean are putting always-on closed-sourced internet-connected listening devices in the hearts of their homes. Maybe it's the lack of shared history? I highly recommend seeing The Lives of Others (2006)[1] to those, who want to understand why Europeans take their privacy so seriously.

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

<comment><USER9> It's not that I care about privacy particularly - it's that I can't imagine the use case for me personally. They could give them out for free and I'd not be interested in owning one.

<comment><USER10> The "killer app" for me is being able to say "Alexa, turn the light off" when reading a book late at night, instead of having to drag myself out of bed to flip the switch.

<comment><USER11> You mean the clapper?

<comment><USER10> A particularly nice clapper that has secondary features like telling you the weather, serving as an alarm, and so on, yeah.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I trust these guys know what they're doing, but determining a whisper from a spoken word doesn't sound like a difficult problem. I think they should have just used a logistic regression first given that it seems they're not sure how the model works and whether the last 50 frames matter due to systemic biases in the data collection or actual trends. The graph of their posterior confuses me a bit too. Is the model predicting individually for each frame? Or is it contextualized for all previous frames up to that point? If it's the former, their approach to picking a conclusion seems off, if it's the latter, I would question their model.

Edit: although I suppose the graph shown could be one of the better looking cases of certainty and not reflective of their typical result

<comment><USER13> It's not only a matter of telling "this was a whisper", but also of actually recognizing what in the world did you say in that whisper, no?

<comment><USER12> That is a separate problem from what the article describes.</comment></comment></comment>


New York Is Going to Turn Off Part of Niagara Falls - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/2016/01/new-york-is-going-to-turn-off-niagara-falls-heres-how/ <comment><USER2> We're in-between Buffalo and Niagara Falls, so I have a little context here. If you haven't seen the Niagara River, it is one _really_ fast-moving, rather large, river, so it's quite an engineering feat (at least to a layperson like myself) to dam even a portion of it.</comment>


Ask HN: How do you personally learn? - <AUTHOR> My short list of the skills that have helped me the most in my career as a software engineer is not sorted. But the ability to quickly learn things is easily on that list. With technology constantly and rapidly changing, small improvements in the speed at which I learn things can have a big and cumulative impact on my productivity. But we rarely discuss personal learning strategies. What are your personal strategies? Please consider mentioning even what you consider to be dead obvious. It might not be to others. <comment><USER2> I only learn when I have a project in mind that I want to do. No matter if it's work on or around my house, creating an app or designing something like a logo or interior. Then I just start. Walk into a wall. Stop. Look for learning material or inspiration. Start over.

Reiterate. Learn more. Reiterate.

I'm not easily frustrated by failure, starting over or general lack of progress. If I have an interesting goal I just keep going. It might not be the most efficient way, but it's how I learn best.

<comment><AUTHOR> > I'm not easily frustrated by failure or lack of progress.

That's one of those very obvious but super important things I was looking for. I would have never thought of this myself, but it's one of the most important factors in my own learning too.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I'll start with a few off the top of my head:

\- Make sure it's something I'm interested in learning. There is no substitute for passion.

\- Find a hero. Find someone who is already an expert and attempt to get as good as they are. But be realistic that you don't ever need to become as good as they are. It's just something that helps you focus on where you are headed.

\- Have a list of other things you want to learn. You will get stuck a lot in the beginning and it's better to just quickly switch to something else when you are stuck and let your subconscious work on what you are stuck on. Sitting in front of a screen frustrated and trying to get unstuck is usually a big waste of time.

\- Go for a walk. Some of my best thinking is during a walk. And there's mounting evidence that exercise generates new neurons.

<comment><USER3> > there's mounting evidence that exercise generates new neurons.

This wikipedia article is one of my favorite discoveries. The list of benefits just _keeps going._

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurobiological_effects_of_phy...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurobiological_effects_of_physical_exercise)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> You may find the following guidelines helpful (in no particular order);

1) Be curious always. This is the key to build motivation. Focus on developing a "T-shaped" skill-set i.e. broad knowledge on a variety of domains with deep specialization in a few as required by a job or needs.

2) Do not focus on competing with others. This is a sure fire way to lose motivation. Always focus on persistent and incremental learning. You are only competing with your "past you". Calvin Coolidge said it best;

 _Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not: nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not: the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent._

3) Understand the difference between "learning for knowledge's sake" vs. "learning for a job". The former is what you should strive for. It will guarantee a lifelong occupation for the brain, however constraining your external circumstances might be.

4) Always spend some time Reading and Thinking before jumping into Doing. We live in a time in Human Civilization where almost all of the accumulated knowledge is codified in some fashion for easier comprehension (Scientific Laws, Theories etc.). When you Read, you get other people's experience for free which can inform your actions when it comes to "Doing". Remember the quote "Standing on the shoulders of Giants..."

5) Finally, learn to accept failure without falling into despair and losing self-confidence.

</comment><comment><USER5> Some really random, obvious things I do:

\- I really look for learning materials that have diagrams, or videos. Plain- text blog posts and documentation are really obtuse for me to actually grok what's up

\- I've got into a good habit of writing (with a notebook and a notes app). I actually do weekly check-ins, almost like "sprint retros", just for myself. Sometimes they're silly, but they're handy to crystallize whatever I was thinking about the last week

\- If I want to learn a programming language or framework, I try to build something I'd actually use, or something someone else can use. It's a useful motivator!

Also, checking HN is a good way to stay on top of things :)

<comment><USER6> Does anyone have a system they would recommend for organizing physical notes that backs them up in the cloud?

I take a lot of notes the old fashioned way because I find it helps my retention, but they can pile up fast when I'm particularly busy.

<comment><USER7> I use syncthing across various devices and organize a group of folders with markdown files in them, then view / edit them with a markdown editor.

Super simple, free, and the best note system I've used so far.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I don't have time to do a proper write up this morning but I've got a pile of brain dump for you.

First, learn to operate your "hardware" efficiently.

Look into NLP (Neurolinguistic Programming, it gets some crap for being pseudo-scientific, which is not entirely undeserved, some NLP folks play fast and loose with science.) I recommend this book, but there are others: [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3803577-get-the-life- you...](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3803577-get-the-life-you-want)

Also, investigate self-hypnosis. The biggest mistake people make is trying to think with only their _conscious_ mind.

Next, what kind of learning? Most of what you're talking about is "little stuff", really. Learning on the level of values or identity is much more powerful and far-reaching than picking up a new habit or skill.

Levels of learning, from most profound and general to most specific:

        identity
        values
        beliefs
        capabilities
        behaviours

See also Gregory Bateson's work, this seems a decent source: "Bateson's Levels Of Learning: a Framework For Transformative Learning?" Paul Tosey, University of Surrey [https://epubs.surrey.ac.uk/1198/1/fulltext.pdf](https://epubs.surrey.ac.uk/1198/1/fulltext.pdf)

Fun stuff:

"Programming and Meta-programming the Human Biocomputer" John C. Lilly (YMMV)

"Psycho-cybernetics" Maxwell Maltz This is based on self-image modification. Dr. Maltz was a plastic surgeon who noticed that some people had profound psychological changes from cosmetic surgery while others didn't. Upon investigation he discovered that the difference was whether or not the external change in appearance affected their internal self-image. The surgery was a (hellof a) way to effect change in the patient's self-image. So he started teaching people how to do that directly, so they didn't need the cosmetic surgery.)

"Super-learning" Ostrander, Schroeder, & Ostrander Old but interesting stuff.

<comment><USER9> +1 for the excellent Maxwell Maltz

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I use my wiki ([https://philosopher.life](https://philosopher.life)) to help me reason about everything. Some things take a long time to discover or digest, and I like that I get to structure the path that I take.

<comment><USER11> Take this... it may help you on your quest.

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

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

[https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAYKrWW8wyjQX6qmL94zNLg](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAYKrWW8wyjQX6qmL94zNLg)

<comment><USER10> These are lovely gifts. Thank you. =)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I struggle a lot with learning due to ADHD but I found below heuristics/techniques helpful in overcoming barriers to learning: 1) OKR : Objectives and Key Results - especially hierarchical deconstruction of OKR [1] 2) OODA : Observe-orient-decide-act loop (similar to REPL in Lisp) [2] 3) DSSS : Deconstruction, Selection, Sequencing, Stakes - an accelerated learning technique promoted by Tim Ferris' Four-hour Chef book [3] 4) Outlining and Concept Mapping with Workflowy or Org-mode 5) 4DX : Four disciplines of Execution as described in the book Deep Work by Cal Newport

[1] [https://www.amazon.com/Measure-What-Matters-Simple- Drives/dp...](https://www.amazon.com/Measure-What-Matters-Simple- Drives/dp/024134848X) [2] [https://fs.blog/2018/01/john-boyd-ooda- loop/](https://fs.blog/2018/01/john-boyd-ooda-loop/) [3] [https://tim.blog/2012/11/05/the-4-hour-chef-the-first- chapte...](https://tim.blog/2012/11/05/the-4-hour-chef-the-first-chapter-and- a-publishing-first/)

</comment><comment><USER13> I learn best when I make something as soon as possible, however basic. Then after a while I go back, find the best book on the subject I can find, and read it from start to finish.

For example: JavaScript. I procrastinated learning JavaScript for years. It was intimidating. Then jQuery came along, which is not exactly JavaScript, but it was easier to pick up. After several months, I was ready for the next step. I bought David Flanagan's book, JavaScript: The Definitive Guide, and just started reading it from the beginning. I don't know if I actually finished it, because the second half is reference, but I at least skimmed that part.

Copying snippets from the Internet will get you started but leave your knowledge patchy and even wrong. Eventually you need to read an organized and thorough tour. For example, I would never have understood JavaScript's prototypes by copying snippets.

On the other hand, if I had tried to start on page 1 of a thick book, without hands-on experience, it would have been equally unfruitful. It would have been too abstract. With some practice under my belt, the advice in the book had something to adhere to, in my mind.

</comment><comment><USER14> My strategy is roughly: Figure out what is the hardest part and do that first. Spend a lot of time to do it right. Then iterate until there are no hard parts left. Or in other words, don't waste time doing things you are already good at.

<comment><AUTHOR> To anyone experienced and good at something, this is such an ingrained habit it's one of those obvious things we easily forget. Average musicians practice the song over and over, great musicians practice the hard part over and over.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Aside from learning by doing, I spend a fair amount of time building intuition. Reading a lot is the bulk of my strategy. Blogs, books, HN comments, reddit and the occasional YT video. This is all passive, so it's not as good as actually _doing_ stuff, but I find that it accumulates (slowly) and helps me build more context, which ultimately leads to something of an intuition for whatever I'm working on. I've been doing this for about twenty years.

I've recently been experimenting with note taking and spaced repetition. Basically when reading, I try to add the occasional tidbit to an Anki deck. I don't think I've gotten the hang of this yet, I currently feel like I'm not adding enough entries, but I want to avoid creating too many notes. Suggestions about stricking a balance would be greatly appreciated.

Edit: typo

<comment><USER16> "Suggestions about stricking a balance would be greatly appreciated"

Michael Neilsen (spelling?) suggests adding something into your Anki deck if it's worth >=10 mins' time to memorise. (As that's the total time you'll spend reviewing it in Anki, if you keep using Anki forever.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Deconstruction. The ability to break something down into its smallest parts, and understand how the relationship of those parts makes something tick, will teach you how it works. It also them gives you the ability to innovate, as when you put the parts back together, you can do so in new ways.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is a great one. It's actually so important it's a separate item on my short list of top skills. I have it as "ability to debug", but "ability to decontruct" is a better and more general category. Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I have to actually DO things to learn it well. Out of all the subjects I had in school, I was best in math and I think that's why. You can actually do math at home in your room and get immediate feedback (the answer is either right or wrong). You can't DO science in your room, you just memorize and see if you memorized correctly. You can do things like write English, but at the same time there's a lot of objectivity there and it's hard to get immediate feedback.

I CAN memorize well. But that is barely learning something. I do not learn by memorizing, I do not learn by being lectured at for an hour at a time. School was not very worthwhile for me outside of the fact that I had to collect signals so people will believe I'm slightly better than mentally retarded. I slept through much of high school - my teachers would pull me aside and say "please try to stay awake - your grades are great so I guess it's fine but please try."

I skipped half of my classes in undergrad - some of the easier business and science courses I only showed up for the tests. Some of my courses I went from an A to a B/B- minus because they penalized absences.

And I still ended up with good-to-great GPA's, a healthy number of academic scholarships, and a couple degrees.

If I'm not actually in it, building it and getting relatively quick feedback on if my solution is correct or not - I'm not learning very well. I'll memorize all day - but what a waste of time.

</comment><comment><USER19> I have no strategy, learning just feels insanely good. Usually things I can't make sense of just get optimized away/drift into the ether and I don't care for remembering them (if it's important I will keep detailed notes of procedures, names etc at this point, but generally details/trivia don't cross my "care threshold"). <\-- and honestly that is super important. It's just as much what you _don't_ learn, you know?

But things that change my understanding of a domain, let me contribute to something other people are building, or otherwise tell me how the world works?

Chances are I will spend hours non-stop talking about them relentlessly to anybody in range (or silently to myself) usually while moving, pace around so I can think faster, draw them, play around with problems that involve them, see everything in every domain as a manifestation of them for a while, and so on and so forth.

And apparently eventually it sticks. Like the first few notes of the song that was playing every morning of 8th grade or the color of grandma's roses. You can't fall in love with something for a while and then not think a little of it every time it's quiet.

</comment><comment><USER20> If I decide to learn an entirely new skill 'X', my steps are generally:

1\. Imagine how I would do 'X'

2\. If I hit any walls, I look up that specific step

3\. Eventually I end up with a complete idea of how to do X, so that I have a basic mental model of X to challenge and grow

4\. I then look up videos/articles/books on how to do X - important to do this before testing step 3 as "1 month in the workshop saves 1 hour in the library"

5\. Once I've seen a few different ways of X, then I try to do it. If it doesn't work I go back to step 4 and learn more.

6\. (OPTIONAL - if I want better results) I first iterate on the 'final product', to see how tweaking various steps affect the final result. For example, if I'm brewing beer I'll do two attempts in parallel with one varied parameter, so I can figure out how that single parameter is affecting the result.

7\. (OPTIONAL - if I feel creative) Once I have a good idea on how to do X with success and sufficient quality, I then consider if I can innovate.

8\. (OPTIONAL - if I want to be a master) Once I'm done innovating on X, and feel satisfied that "this is good enough", I try to make the process more efficient.

9\. Share results with interested friends, and use their feedback to go back to step 6.

</comment><comment><USER21> After the fourth or fifth disaster, I begin to suspect I might be doing something wrong.

</comment><comment><USER22> 1\. I can only learn by doing. If I can't turn it into a project, then I'll never internalize the details, and cannot really claim to have learned anything. 2\. For it to be a project, there has to be a deliverable. Could be a repo on GitHub, a clock sitting in the living room, a blog article, or something repaired around the house. But there has to be an artifact I can point to when I say "I learned this." 3\. Don't get stuck. If progress gets delayed on one part of the project and you have to wait for something - whether it's a part, or it's just going to take some time to figure something out - then work on another part of the project in the meantime. Keep moving forward, even if it's not the central thing in which you're interested, even if forward motion is slow.

</comment><comment><USER23> Through a series of costly and humiliating mistakes

<comment><AUTHOR> I like this because it's exactly what I asked for: don't leave out the obvious. Great point for brainstorming.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> For me it's 20% what everyone else is saying and 80% stack overflow. For real.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes! SO is one of my biggest learning resources. I'll go into a little more detail: the minute I want to learn something I start looking on SO for questions to answer. Yep, questions to answer. I can't answer any of them at the beginning, but I sort of try to brainstorm it a little and guess at an answer. And when someone else does answer, I learn a little. Eventually I can start to actually answer a question here and there. Sometimes I get it wrong and people correct me. And that's another learning experience. Repeat on a daily basis or even several times a day and it hugely increases my learning rate on any give tech topic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> My most productive learning has happened while I was deeply invested in creating something new. Being a bit thick, I would run into obstacles almost every step along the way, but being thick has its benefits: the obstacles break down before my skull does.

I've tried going through books and courses, thinking, ahh, it's time to get serious, I must Learn JavaScript or Learn C or what have you, and this never gets me very far. But if instead, I decide to Make Thing, where Thing just happens to require C or JavaScript, now I have a point, a purpose, a destination, and though there may be headaches, I know that they are worth it, and I get where I'm going in the end.

</comment><comment><USER25> I've been doing an audio blog on just that topic: [https://alchemist.camp/learning-machine](https://alchemist.camp/learning- machine)

I've experimented a lot with MOOCs, OCW, spaced repetition, paid courses, teaching strategies, etc. The specific ideas I've recently been most focused on when learning are:

\- The depth of processing. I learn much faster and retain the knowledge/skills longer when I take a very active approach that involves deeply processing the material I'm learning.

\- Making my studies more game-like. Games are fantastic, not only for motivation, but also for learning.

\- Tightening my learn-use loop.

<comment><AUTHOR> > when I take a very active approach that involves deeply processing the > material I'm learning.

Can you give a concrete example of what that looks like?

<comment><USER25> Sure. If I'm reading, I ask myself what I expect the author to suggest or I ask myself specific questions I think the chapter could answer. Then, as I read, I update my priors.

If I'm taking notes, I'll do it by hand (which leads to better retention of information than typing), and I do it in cursive (which involves deeper processing than printing). In the past I tried taking notes in another language, but that was too slow.

If I'm learning a language, I'll try to spend more time listening to audio instead of watching video. When working on pronunciation, instead of just trying to say a phrase "correctly", I'll try to say it like a specific actor in the way they would with the same pacing and the same facial expressions.

If I'm learning a web framework, I'll take breaks from reading guides or docs to rewrite something I've previously written in an older framework. Then I'll go back to the guide.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Start from examples almost immediately. If you start with the foundation or background, you'll lose me almost immediately, because I lack the context to tack the new knowledge onto.

Show me what we're doing/how we're using this knowledge, and very frequently I'll start thinking "hmm I wonder how they do that, I bet that's why we have to do XYZ first." Then you learn about it, you've had a moment to think through it in your own, and now you have plenty of context scaffolding to stick to.

</comment><comment><USER27> Personally. Spend a lot of time on a topic and choose a small amount of things. Don't let the list of things you want to learn grow too larger before things are ticked off.

</comment><comment><USER28> I just try to start doing a simple example of whatever I want to learn, and after I realize all the things I don't have/know that I need, I start to build out a more organized framework.

For example, a few years ago I had the vague idea that mortgage rates were low and investing in real estate was a good plan. I didn't know where to start, so I just started looking at listings. Quickly realized I'd need an agent to get more detailed info about the properties I was interested in and to make offers, so I Googled "Buyer's agent <city>" and found the local association of Realtors. From there I found an agent who owned similar investment properties to what I was looking at. Once he started getting me more detailed information about properties, I realized I didn't know how to analyze profitability well. Talked to my agent and read books/articles until I could build a basic model with appropriate assumptions. So forth and so on until I bought a property.

I think it's often too challenging to build a plan on how to learn something if you're starting from scratch, so just picking an obvious starting point and doing _something_ is a good way to build momentum and learn a little bit that you can then build on.

</comment><comment><USER29> I just keep writing code, glancing at docs when needed and try to spend as much time as possible actively using the thing I'm learning instead of reading about or getting stuck in "what if" scenarios. In most cases writing as much code as possible (and looking up things as needed) will help you learn things faster than sitting back and reading.

A few days ago I wrote a post on what I learned from 7 programming languages over 20 years[0]. It kind of touches on the process of learning and takeaways. I almost always have a project in mind to build when learning something new.

Basically I'm not afraid to experiment. I don't think it's a problem to write code and then throw it away, or spend weeks learning how to use something to ultimately throw it away. You almost always learn something you can apply to something else which is really the main takeaway from the post.

[0]: [https://nickjanetakis.com/blog/it-is-not-a-waste-of-time- to-...](https://nickjanetakis.com/blog/it-is-not-a-waste-of-time-to-learn-a- few-languages-or-frameworks)

</comment><comment><USER30> I try to understand things as deep as possible, often that goes together with building it myself. I am not satisfied with "that's the way it works". That worked well for a lot of things, I often read other people's code to see how stuff works. This approach is the reason why I refuse to use Kubernetes; I wasn't able to understand it, it has just been too complicated so far.

</comment><comment> awinter-py take 3 months off and do a project that requires a new skill

this may be a personal observation (not sure it's industry-wide), but companies are averse to letting in-house people apply new skills on the job. They can even be averse to reading and experimentation during work time. Even when they're cool with it, the work day isn't structured for heads-down time.

Most managers have little patience for intentional 'try fail' cycles.

structured work is especially hostile to category jumping -- for example, I switched from high-speed finance to web, I picked up marketing & branding knowledge, from self-started projects. It would be hard to seriously try these at a job but they've paid dividends in my career.

there's a forgiveness / permission spectrum here but interrupting an ongoing job for 'mini grad school' has been the way that I keep fresh and make vertical jumps in my programming / tech management career.

</comment><comment><USER31> At a micro level I learn by doing. Just building stuff, trying to extract general principles as I go.

At the macro-level, I try to learn things where I can transfer knowledge as much as possible. It's easy with software development, as critical and computational thinking and top-down/bottom-up reasoning can be used everywhere.

</comment><comment> non-entity Honestly thinking back, I can only really learn nowadays by doing, and I have to be genuinely interested in it. Furthermore, I've found only by jumping in can I retain the attention needed to learn.

As an example. I recently tried to learn a programming language I had some interest in. Initially, by attempting to follow a book chronologically which I grew bored of by the 4th chapter. Later, I had something I wanted to make, and decided to jump in using the book / docs as a reference when doing something I wasn't familiar with and amazingly, I was able to keep focus and actually learn.

Unfortunately recently, many of my learning projects are coming to a halt because I find I need to purchase _X_ and wait for it to ship, usually temporarily losing interest in the meantime.

</comment><comment><USER32> I can learn things quickly. Read a few chapters, poke at some code, make something work.

I do however need a few months to _understand_ something. I have found that this "incubation" time works well for me, and I find myself far more comfortable with the subject afterwards.

</comment><comment><USER33> I learn best when I just jump right in and get my hands dirty. I definitely use an iterative approach over an incremental approach. I prefer to just take a rough pass at structure gross estimates in my head of what needs to be done where. I just get something working even if its just `return true; // TODO` for now, and then iterate over and over with a finer-toothed comb each time.

This sounds like general work practice but it's highly tied to learning for me. When I use this strategy I tend to learn on the go and learn what I need to know rather than worrying up front about what I should research or wasting time planning things that don't end up materializing.

</comment><comment><USER34> I make a plain text file of a certain topic (e.g chess, economics, politics) and progressively add my own thoughts on in it and useful info I get from others (books, videos, lectures). A lot of early modern thinkers had this thing called a commonplace book. like John Locke, William Paley, Jonathan Edwards, Leopardi, Bacon, Emerson and Thoreau. I think it's a pretty good way to learn. I prefer having a digital version of it since it's much easier to access and I don't have to worry about losing it.

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

</comment><comment><USER35> If the goal is to acquire a skill, it's about deliberate practice... I have to come up with a project I want to do, make sure I have energy for it, set time aside for some days, and take a step forward each day (or each other day..)

If the goal is to acquire new knowledge and explore new fields, setting 1h aside each day to read (and study/highlight) non-fiction books works very well for me. I am very strict about this, almost like a second job. For me, it's about acquiring and digesting knowledge gradually. More than 1h a day does not work for me.

Hope this helps!

</comment><comment><USER36> \- I Don't learn for the sake of learning, in the phase of life, where I have to be picky!

\- Spend some time (few hours to 1 week max) based on the subject I am trying to learn

\- Augment my learning with mind maps and Anki flash cards for long term augmentation

\- My favourite: make a small from scratch, throw away version of whatever it is trying to learn, so I internalise it (again set a 2 week time constraint). Example: write a home grown version of Numpy (not everything the core only) or an augmented reality library (may be something that can just detect the horizontal plane)

<comment><USER37> Can you go into more depth about mind maps, and specifically how they help you?

I'm building an information repository _(of a sort..)_ and my plan for retention is spaced repetition _(ala Anki /etc)_, but I've been unsure how to fit mind maps in it. I've got an inkling that I can automate mind map construction based on a form of labels, but tbh I'm not sure what problem I'm solving with mind maps. How do you find they help you?

<comment><USER36> It is an interesting idea to be able to generate mind maps automatically.

I just keep a few pages aside, scribble notes, use bookmarks for pages if I am reading a book. Only when I am done, I build a mind map. Usually a book's mind map is made up of multiple mind maps, 1 per chapter.

I use mind maps for the forest overview while flash cards are my trees and leaves! I find the combination very simple to build, maintain and fun to review. Hope this helps, let me know if you want any help in your auto mind map construction idea.

<comment><USER38> Great combo suggestions. Are there any specific tools you use for the mind maps?

<comment><USER36> Really a personal mix of analog and digital; I will try to explain a bit in detail, hope this gives an idea.

So I use Bullet Journal (analog notebooks) for perusal work and Notion/Org Mode for office work; Notion for non IP work and Org mode for IP work. My org mode is not in cloud anywhere; only on my disk. All my planning and to-dos go somewhere in here.

I follow this directory layout convention in my home directory:

Projects/<Subject Area>/: \- Books \- Articles \- Courses \- Papers

So for everything I am working through, say a book 'Realtime Rendering' under 'Graphics' subject area, I make a dir 'Books/realtime-rendering' directory with 'mind-map' directory which contains all mind-maps scanned from my analog mind map notebook where I make the mind maps with pen and paper. This also contains the exported Anki flash deck for that book.

After making this a habit, I have found that I have become selective about what to work through; I take my time to find out as there is good but worth-it effort to make flash cards and mind maps for long term memory augmentation. Even if I am not very regular (only about 50-60% a week) to review my cards, I am way better off now than before putting this system in place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I use Anki to learn the basic language and terms. When I joined a new company and domain last year for example, it was a lot of new acronyms.

When searching through documentation, I look for the dense writing of scientific papers. Clear definitions are very useful but often missing in documentation.

Look for the "greybeards" and listen to them. Their intuition is valuable. However, if you have a solid argument then have no fear to voice your concerns. If you disagree with someone more experienced then take the time to really find out why.

</comment><comment><USER40> 1\. When learning something, learn it in small chunks — like reading a chapter at a time from a book. Then write things down on paper and review regularly.

2\. Keep a bullet journal[1] for learning new things.

3\. Try explaining what you learn to your spouse, friend, coworker, and see if they can understand it. If you're able to explain it in simple enough terms then most likely you have mastered that. Also, teaching reinforces your knowledge.

[1] [https://bulletjournal.com/](https://bulletjournal.com/)

</comment><comment><USER41> Create a list of the people who know the most on the topic and what they are saying / what position they have. For ex. If I want to learn about what Lidar is I start with What does Elon Musk think and then try to find all the people who have the opposing view and learn what they think about the topic. Once you have two or three parties on both sides of a topic you can start to formulate your own next-step questions /research topics.

</comment><comment><USER42> I learn best jumping in the deep end and learning from previous patterns in code and understanding why something was done the way it was done.

Reading books & loads of technical writing doesn't seem to set in very well for me.

Watching conferences and online course videos also helps understanding concepts. I couldn't for the life get my head around Redux when reading their website but I bought a udemy course for $5 and it basically clicked instantly!

</comment><comment><USER43> I've found I need structure and accountability, which is annoying since usually that means you're spending money (i.e. a personal trainer, a paid class/bootcamp instead of googling).

A really interesting startup idea would be to figure out how to scale accountability in a way that, psychologically, would be similar to a coach/teacher/mentor but at a fraction of the cost.

<comment><USER44> >A really interesting startup idea would be to figure out how to scale accountability in a way that, psychologically, would be similar to a coach/teacher/mentor but at a fraction of the cost.

There are many services like this for losing weight and what not where you basically bet that you'll reach your goal in the given time. Sites like dietbet and healthywage.

It wouldn't surprise me of something already exists tha can be used as is for learning.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Another question: How do you avoid getting overwhelmed when starting to learn? In fact, how do you decide what to learn?

</comment><comment><USER46> For difficult subjects, or stuff I might not work on immediately, I go through a book or class and take COPIOUS notes.

The idea is that they're good enough for me to use to explain the subject to someone else; the old proverb about "You only understand something when you teach it to someone else" is really true.

</comment><comment><USER47> I do a lot of self-introspection. It started as my effort grow into a more mature person and now it's is a habit. But this habit sometimes leads me to overthink. I'm still evolving as a wise person, I think. It should never stop!

</comment><comment><USER48> Scanning before reading getting a idea what it is going to try and teach me before actually reading it.

Writing down every word I don't know/understand and getting comfortable with them.

Playing with the subject matter.

Discussing the subject matter with people.

</comment><comment><USER49> For most skills, I absolutely must have a small project in mind from the beginning. I have no patience for learning a new language or tool if I don't have a particular project that uses it.

</comment><comment><USER50> I play around. I want to see what kind of output some different inputs cause.

Works better with composable concepts and where you can get quick feedback.

Bret Victor has had some excellent thoughts on this area.

</comment><comment><USER51> In addition to other comments, I try to find somewhere/project that I can use and practice the new skill.

</comment><comment><USER52> I learn with the classic read (or watch), do, repeat loop.

</comment><comment><USER9> I am going to write my answer before reading others' comments, because I don't want to be primed by the other comments.

Because we are all different in some sense, and yet similar in the main sense, certain strategies work for all of us, while some for only those who are similar in that narrow sense.

I need not mention the general sense, since I suspect there maybe many comments with a high probability of mentioning the general case.

In the narrow case of what works only for me, I cannot learn when I don't have a big picture context for my learning. A Book like Lubanovic's Python cookbook is certainly not my style. I need an overall context, so that each small bit makes sense within that context.

For instance, if I want to learn a foreign language word, seeing it deciphered in a textbook, alongside a text does not guarantee my learning it or remembering. Even less so, if it is a word in a "word list dictionary". I need a text which excites my interest enough to want to know the unknown words in it. A Reader's-Digest-like shallow text is not exciting or stimulating enough.

Ditto to programming and CS. I need to know where each learning bit fits in the overall scheme and the scheme should be exciting. I don't want to learn (cannot) simply because something is popular due to network effects (C++) when I know there are better solutions like a combination of Rust, Racket, and Ruby.

I also need to know whether it is worth my input. Like in the C+ case, is my effort paid in triplicate? If not, not interested. Intrinsic motivation in learning something can translate to a pay off, but it better be as good as (similar input output ratio) Scheme/Lisp/Racket to justify learning it.

Recently I have been looking at Java, in the popular book by Eckel. I am having doubts as to whether I should go deeper in Ruby or also see what Java offers. My motivation is damped by the way Scala is written since it seems to be what Java aimed to be but couldn't. I am stuck now. On one hand, I want to know If I am missing something if I dont learn Java. On the other, I dont want to learn sth arcane and programmer-unfriendly when and since I have alternatives like Scala and Ruby and Kotlin.

Hence, for me to want to learn creates the necessary mental readiness to actually learn it. I picked up Ruby fairly quickly because the explanations by David Black, in his Well Grounded Rubyist were excellent enough to allow me to learn it all in one place, with zero frustrations.

In summary, for me to learn sth, it has to be useful, interesting, stimulating, and practice-friendly. After this is satisfied, I need clear explanations and logical progression with hands-on real-world applications. With all this, I dont need any tricks or strategies. It will all fall into place.

Best,

James</comment>


Ask hN:Is there any Startup Help in South Florida - <AUTHOR>

We all hear of the Silicon Valley and New York. What about South Florida or Florida in general? <comment><USER2> I would take part in something on Sanibel Island next March. I've been visiting since I was a kid, and really enjoy it.

How about... Startup Node 2012: One month at an reasonably affordable, family friendly destination. Provide a designated place to collaborate (in the spirit of startup weekend or bar camp), and an online presence to include remote collaborators (so people can join in before and after the time that will actually be there). Just sell 'tickets' for $20-$50 or so, and give attendees access to a Google apps/docs account (i.e. firstname.lastname@example.com)... and github, of course.

Ad-hoc mingling at the Mucky Duck on Captiva from 4-5 (before they open for dinner).

Sounds fun to me :)

<comment><AUTHOR> May you give me more descriptive information on the event that you are talking about? Is there a website that I could check out?

<comment><USER2> Nope - you should make the web site. I just want to attend.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> [http://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/news/2011/02/01/um-l...](http://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/news/2011/02/01/um- launch-pad-model-expands-to-help.html)</comment>


CSSNano: A modular minifier based on the PostCSS ecosystem - <AUTHOR> http://cssnano.co/ <comment><USER2> This is the kind of thing that PostCSS should _really_ be used for: responsible transforming of existing CSS without inventing new syntax or doing invisible "magical" transformations.

Or trying to emulate built-in features from other preprocessors.

<comment><USER3> So really you just don't like cssnext/css-modules, since there are lots of postcss plugins that try to emulate features from preprocessors. If all you're doing is transforming css, I don't see the need to abandon preprocessors though...

<comment><USER2> Exactly. Use PostCSS in conjunction with preprocessors.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Similar : [https://github.com/hail2u/node- csswring](https://github.com/hail2u/node-csswring)

Written with PostCSS too

</comment><comment><USER5> I am interested to know what are the objective benefits of minication ?

My understanding was that if you did enable gzip compression that takes away most of your advantages from minifying the code ? Am I wrong in this ? Also, does someone have stats on how much more saving can be done with minification , compared to just gzip ?

<comment><USER6> I don't have a gzip benchmark for cssnano itself, but I know that the road to best compression is using both.

[http://stackoverflow.com/a/807161/1745309](http://stackoverflow.com/a/807161/1745309)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Some of these seem a bit extreme, converting things to pica from px, for example? I could see that confusing me if I was trying to work from the deployed CSS back.

<comment><USER6> Since v3.2.0 this is no longer done by default and can be enabled via the config object. The website should probably be updated to reflect this.

[https://github.com/ben- eb/cssnano/releases/tag/v3.2.0](https://github.com/ben- eb/cssnano/releases/tag/v3.2.0)</comment></comment>


How Much Sugar Can You Avoid - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/12/30/opinion/sunday/100000004844838.mobile.html?_r=0 <comment><USER2> As someone who semi-regularly cooks, all the prepared food choices looked really unappetizing to me.

It's easy to avoid added sugar if you make your own food: just don't dump sugar in while you cook.

I think the bigger story here is that for most of human history, every single household cooked because it was the only economical way to feed yourself (restaurants have always been a luxury good). In the US, we've recently had this weird economic inversion where it's become cheaper to feed yourself off of junk food, so now cooking has become some sort of luxury good.

Come to think of it, exercise has followed the same path. In the past, only the rich could avoid physical activity. Nowadays, it's rich people who can afford pricey gym passes and personal trainers while their poorer compatriots also work in a call center or some other sedentary setting.

<comment><USER3> > It's become cheaper to feed yourself off of junk food

Has it really though, or are people just drawn to the convenience?

<comment><USER4> Cooking for yourself is only cheaper than eating out if you buy in bulk and buy whatever is in season. Often the capital outlay of this makes it daunting, not to mention the fact that people who are worried often don't have a car to drive to the supermarket and therefore have to carry all those groceries by hand or on the bus.

It's very hard to compete with the local burger chain which is within walking distance and where you can get a burger, chips, a drink, and desert for only a few dollars.

<comment><USER5> No, that's not true. Cooking for yourself is _easily_ cheaper than eating out. You pay heavily for the luxury of having someone else prep your food.

You can go to the grocery store once a week, cook a few meals to last through the week, and eat for $3 a meal without trying hard. Frugal people can eat for $1 a meal easily.

<comment><USER6> This can easily depend on what you eat. Both when eating out, and eating in. As such, strawmen and assertions without data will be tough to argue against.

Specifically, I'm sure there are folks that spend more than I do. In either category. Numbers would be interesting to see, and I'm sure someone has them.

<comment><USER7> If you compare the same meal and don't account for the time you spend cooking it, it will be cheaper to do it yourself every time. If you go to fancy restaurants it's not even close.

You just have to compare the price of a soda, ~$3 and up (usually $5), to its price at the supermarket and you'll have your answer. Wine is also an easy one, with at least 300% markup even on cheap bottles. Everything is marked up like that (maybe calling it 'markup' is not really fair as they provide other things and not just a meal, but you get what I mean.)

I've been cooking for years and not even trying to save money meals are less expensive.

<comment><USER6> You can't skip on the time. It is one of the main reasons to do fast food, after all. And it has been a long time since I bought soda.

Still, I feel it is impossible to list ingredients and recipes without building a straw man. Research on average amount spent eating out and eating in would be nice to see.

My point is it is easy to save money doing either. It is equally easy to spend more than makes sense doing either. My gut would be that eating in is cheaper. My gut is also that it is easier to waste food at home. Is amazing how many times we let something ruin in the fridge.

And again, neither of those gut checks are data.

<comment><USER7> Wine bottle prices and beer prices are available everywhere. It's not that hard to compare them.

<comment><USER6> And when I'm eating out, I'm not ordering those... When I'm having a night out, beer. Maybe.

That is, since most eating out is at fast food locations, wine and beer are irrelevant.

<comment><USER7> They are not irrelevant as _' hard data'_, which is what you requested. If you want to have only anecdotes and personal experiences then by all means stay with what _you_ order when _you_ go out.

<comment><USER6> Sorta. That is hard data on price of some things. My question is data on what people actually spend.

Consider, many people buy dollar beers at the bar. What I buy at the grocery isn't even that cheap. So, again, straw man.

I'm not asking what people _could_ spend. But what they do spend.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Disgusting choices. I'm American (born and raised) and found almost nothing edible on any of the pages. As others have pointed out, this seems like a thinly-veiled fluff piece marketing prepared/packaged foods. I do indulge in a Snickers bar myself once in a while, but come on - can't we do better than salami on Wonder bread washed down with Coke for lunch?

</comment><comment><USER9> The article says "Challenge: Construct a day's worth of eating, from items at a typical supermarket we visited, that meets the guidelines for added sugars." ... then proceeds to let the reader build meals entirely composed of brand name packaged foods.

This article is a pointless straw man, unless the point is a covert attempt at making the reader realize they should skip the food with the brand names on it and eat real food instead... but that seems way too nuanced for the NY Times.

<comment><USER10> 8 packaged trash foods or an apple. I would literally die if those were my choices. You know how hard it is to get 2500 calories from apples?

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> The dinner choices were the worst. Where's steak or grilled chicken? Basically, the only meat options were a hamburger (with bun) or kosher hot dogs.

</comment><comment><USER12> Is this seriously the kind of food that Americans eat? If this is at all realistic, then I don't see why anyone is surprised at the obesity epidemic.

<comment><USER13> It's not, of course. But it takes a lot of awareness to eat well in the US, especially if you follow traditional nutrition advice such as that taught in most high schools (if you were lucky).

Recently I had a friend complain about his weight so we went shopping for groceries together. After he loaded his cart with the usual stuff we went through the labels and he was shocked at bow many empty carbs and sugar he was eating (he had plenty of canned fruits, instant oatmeal, apple sauce, bananas and grapes, all stuff that's usually considered "healthy").

Helped him pick out some chicken, fish, vegetables, nuts and real cheese instead.

<comment><USER14> Lots of people don't realize that fruit in excess can be just as bad as candy in excess, due to the sugar.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Pretty awful choices on everything but breakfast. Where are the whole foods. The only fresh fruit was blueberries with low fat yogurt and an apple listed twice.

</comment><comment><USER16> Orange juice for breakfast is really without added sugar?

<comment><USER17> Yes, but the juice itself is a sugar bomb.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> What was really surprising is that there's sugar in every single deli meat. Even beef has sugar in it.

It's still cheaper than an equivalent amount of beef jerky though. Speaking of jerky, I've noticed that cheaper brands are actually pork jerky.

</comment><comment><USER19> What's important to remember is that everything is okay in moderation.

If you're looking to improve your health/diet then don't buy in to "good food", "bad food", "sugar is evil", etc mumbo-jumbo. Count your calories. Health articles usually make me really angry, and this one is no exception. I totally agree with what it says, though "that still lets you make good decisions".

<comment><USER20> The article stresses that everyday foods can contain a ton of added sugar without people realizing it. So read the labels when you buy and evaluate all your options, there's more than just soda to keep your eyes out for.</comment></comment>