My friends and I once argued about the primary reason top schools "produce" overachieving students. She thought that at least a part of it is from better staff and student to teacher ratio, whereas I argued that most of it is a self fulfilling prophecy. Families that cares most about education will sacrifice the most (time, money, opportunity cost) to get kids into elite schools, and those kids will work harder and devote more resources to test-prep.
This article states that failure-rate went from 8-9% to 25%, but I'm curious how that compares to the regional average. If say 35%-40% of 9th graders failed in surrounding regions, it would be an argument to keep the lottery based system.
I wonder how much of this is a self fulfilling prophecy due to racially weighted admission. i.e Many Asian parents are painfully aware of how much the deck is stacked against their kid, and therefore allocates extra time and resources accordingly to overcome the difficulties.
I’ve always been taught to spend >50% time practice hand separate first, increase tempo one hand at a time, and only combine after much practice, which seems to differ than the post. Does anyone have a view on how soon to jump into two hands when learning a new piece?
What interests me most about the FI community on reddit is how they split into two very different subgroups(leanfire and fatfire). Part of it is a difference in frugality, but part of it is is a fundamental difference in modeling risk.
Give that pg is someone who can walk away from running YCombinator to work on other stuff for fun, he probably doesn't care about maximizing utility or impact at this point.
I agree with a few of the points, but it lost me at Tesla. I like my Tesla a lot because it’s a really well designed product, not because of some Elon Musk story.
I really like the system and it seems there's also a temporal order to the learning path:
1) Tutorials <- starting point
2) How To <- intermediate
3) Reference <- comes back to it regularly
4) Discussion <- final step to understanding
However as the video mentions, it's all connected in a circle, as perhaps having some discussion up-front(why, context, alternatives) is useful for newcomers to evaluate whether this project is worth diving into.
Curious as to whether the author(and everyone) thinks on how much "discussion" should be put into the "Getting Started" page.
I personally alternate between taking courses and doing projects.
Doing all MOOC is bad for some of the reasons the articles covered. But doing all projects is also sub-optimal because sometimes it is hard to know what you don't know. Balancing theory and practice works the best for me.
In other industries for example gaming and desktop tools, people eventually just ship a new version that existing users have to buy again. For continuously deployed web products a repricing is the only way to frame it in customer's minds.
That sounds interesting. Out of curiosity does AWS have streamlined support for vendor deployments? (I don't work in large organizations so have never seen how non-saas deployments work)
posthog looks like a great product. But it's interesting that a product offering with "open source" and "on your infrastructure" still has "cloud" as the first tab in the pricing. (Not a criticism at all, just pointing out the interesting dynamics of the open core business model)
That figure includes the gains, and represents approximately how much college will cost in 13 years if trends continue. My point was that $600k for going to college sounds so ridiculous that the trend shouldn't be able to continue.
This article states that failure-rate went from 8-9% to 25%, but I'm curious how that compares to the regional average. If say 35%-40% of 9th graders failed in surrounding regions, it would be an argument to keep the lottery based system.