> I'm beginning to think that the best way to approach a problem is by either not being aware of or disregarding most of the similar efforts that came before. This makes me kind of sad, because the current world is so interconnected, that we rarely see such novelty with their tendency to "fall in the rut of thought" of those that came before. The internet is great, but it also homogenizes the world of thought, and that kind of sucks.
I think this is true only if there is a novel solution that is in a drastically different direction than similar efforts that came before. Most of the time when you ignore previous successful efforts, you end up resowing non-fertile ground.
But in today’s media environment you just double down, pretend it’s exactly what you meant, and get outraged that the journalist must be a deep state agent for even daring to suggest otherwise.
I do not personally no anybody using VS Code that hasn't also used vim. Granted there's some huge selection bias since so many people in my personal sphere use vim, but there you go.
I paid an average of $0.31 per kWh last month with SCE (which is on the low side, because a lot of that is charging my car, which I have setup to only charge during off-peak). I see under $0.06 per kWh of Non Bypassable Charges. The word "tax" does not appear on the bill, except in a notice about raising rates which mentions a loss (with the word "after-tax" appended to the amount of the loss) incurred by SCE.
IIUC scrappy is just poorly named; it's about taking a minimalist approach, which IMO is distinct from the "baling wire and duct-tape" implied by the MacGyver approach.
The former might be worth keeping around, the latter is firmly in the "build one to throw away" territory.
right, scrappy is about implementing the bare minimum needed, keeping it small and simple, and mcgyver is about using what gives me the fastest results, even if that means hooking up wordpress to mongodb and using excel as the interface to input data.
Indeed, every area that is underserved by retail can most cheaply be incrementally improved by adding a strip mall, but strip-malls area really shitty local maximum to get stuck in.
My second daughter (16 years old) can bake (including e.g. making a 50% larger amount than the recipe calls for). She can beat me at games where reasoning about probabilities and numbers is involved. She can relate exactly none of that to what she is learning in her algebra classes.
Some children read word problems, understand the question and apply math. Most children look for key words, use those key words to guess what operation to apply, then apply it to the numbers in the question (e.g. there were 3 numbers and the word "total" so I'll sum the numbers).
I can't find it now, but there was a blog article from maybe 15-20 years ago where the author, a math educator, lamented how students seem to put math in a "math box" and completely divorce it from reality.
One example given was a word-problem in which a round-trip was involved and the student complained that there was no way to know they had to double the time, but then demonstrated obvious knowledge of how this worked when asked a real-world question.
I think this is true only if there is a novel solution that is in a drastically different direction than similar efforts that came before. Most of the time when you ignore previous successful efforts, you end up resowing non-fertile ground.
reply