I will tell you why I use Gnome. Gnome/Fedora was the first distro that played nice with my 4k XPS display AND the various 2k and HD secondary displays I use. I switched from Ubuntu/XFCE about five years ago. As I get older, I look for applications and DE's that require as little mouse use as possible. In Gnome 3, it's super+space, type application name, enter and use. Super+arrow to snap around the screen. A minuscule top bar gives me the perfect amount of screen real estate. The only application that I like to tile is a terminal and tmux works just fine. So for my use, Gnome just seems to stay out of my way.
The smoke comes from the chaff of the bean and steam as the beans release moisture. The actual bean never gets hot enough to produce smoke. Unless you over roast, but then your coffee is undrinkable.
> 1. The things you learn by yourself stick; the things that are “taught” to you do not stick.
This is called Active Learning and there are decades of work that have gone into demonstrating it's effectiveness. Also see: Constructivism. Although the majority of k-12 education still emphasizes passive learning, constructivist approaches to learning are being taught around the world and in the U.S. (Papert's work is a good resource for those who are curious)
> 3. Schooling mostly fails at giving you this deep understanding.
I think calling 'schools' (so many, not sure what type this person attended) a failure is a bit harsh. The type of freedom in learning that the author is arguing for is HARD at scale. It requires smaller classes, more engagement from teachers, and an entire re-evaluation of how academic achievement is measured. We humans are still evolving...we'll get there. A good start would be to pay teachers more. A better start would be to prepare parents to support active learning in the home.
> 4. Video games will become a core component of education.
The general sentiment of this article is fair, but if you are going to make a statement about education you should reference educators rather than bloggers and biographers.
Edit: One more thought about the PG tweet...
"you'll surprisingly often have to teach yourself. I had to teach myself Lisp, how to write essays, and how to start a startup. I had examples to work from, but no teachers or classes."
First, I would argue that school provides us with the ability to teach ourselves. Paul taught himself Lisp, but did he learn how to program at all in school? Probably. He had to teach himself how to write essays, but surely school taught him how to write? Also, there are plenty of schools that offer writing classes...usually electives. Startups, well...that's silly...that's why we have MBA programs. Actually, I am not sure what PG's point is with this tweet. Is it a critique of the educational system in the U.S. or a reflection on missed opportunities from his youth?
That's a fair question. If the website was accessible, we might be able to learn the answer:) From the perspective of HN, the usefulness of the linked content is far less important than a person's ability to participate in the discussion. The product might not be useful for a blind user, but there is no reason for the content that explains it to be inaccessible.
While I agree with your sentiment, I would argue that translating digital information for physical consumption (paper, e-ink, etc.) does lead to improved access for people with disability.
Digital textual encoding is only universally accessible if the context it is situated within is also textually encoded. The lack of context (i.e., poor accessibility compliance) across digital mediums is the single largest inhibitor for the visually impaired community. Once digital information is prepared for print, the source of output is simply a matter of changing peripherals (printer, braille embosser, braille display, text-to-speech).
The authors may not have intended to directly address the needs of disability, but I do not think that their use of "universality" is misplaced. We should applaud any effort that encourages society to think beyond the constraints of the graphical interface.
This is me. I am 43, entering my fourth year of PhD. If you have money saved and want to challenge yourself in new ways a PhD is a worthwhile goal. A couple of thoughts:
1) Many of my 20 something peers are struggling financially, 20-30k a year is difficult to live on in CA. I made good money in my 20s and enjoyed life, having less now does not bother me.
2) I don't have children. My peers with children face a much different set of challenges than I do. I suppose it comes down to the support structure in your life, but I am not sure I could do this with school age kids.
3) I cannot stress enough the importance of a top tier school and a strong advisor.
Yeah, by the time I plan on heading back to school, I'm going to have a six year old and a seven year old, and I don't think money will really be a problem (I'm effectively coasting and working on random side projects now anyhow, going to school won't really change anything).
I suspect that a lot of the stress of grad school goes away once money isn't an issue, and your progress in school isn't an existential issue. I really do wish mature grad students were more of a thing.
