as the author mentions below, this is his effective internal model, and his sharing it simply offers the opportunity for anyone else to read it, think about it, and take and apply what works for him or her.
that said, for me, it's not so easily applicable to interactions with others, such as with Bob and Alice. for issues in my own peabrain, i can try and logically explore the bases for my emotions, my triggers, and possible alternate solutions, which i can apply at any point in a particular journey or task. i have the ability and choice to attempt to alter my own course, in terms of actions and reactions, any time i start to be plagued by and cognizant of my own discomfort. in interactions with others, however, the applicability is limited. unfortunately, it rests on having the ability to understand the complex nuances of someone else's emotional triggers, subconscious or unconscious, and having some sort of reliable heuristic to predict their reactions and digressions.
personally, i don't have an issue with the simplification to positive/negative outcomes. sort of reduces emotional processing and synaptic fires to binary code, or an electrical circuits with switches and AC current.
my only issue with this has to do with the occasional lapse in recognition of the touch ID. if it can't read your fingerprint several times, it asks for your password code. touch ID is of course not theft-proof, but initially it's a slightly greater obstacle than a simple numeric code.
i pictured a kid having swallowed one, and being unusually attracted to the refrigerator…
i think parents will freak out as a general rule, but parents also have the responsibility not to give toys to their children that are not age appropriate, and/or with which, they cannot be sure their children will play responsibly. i'm sure there are a lot of kids for whom this won't be a problem, and they are seemingly punished for what has happened to others. I sort of resent the mindset that a federal commission should make sure that a commission becomes responsible for drawing parenting guidelines, and that rather than parents stepping up and taking responsibility for supervising and being involved with their children and playtime, the alternative is not to have toys on the market that are more mature in nature. Parents shouldn't have to waste their time teaching their kids to have a greater respect for natural things and toys; we should just simply ban them. You know, to avoid confusion.
I didn't say that. I believe that there are psychological benefits that have physical implications, and physical effects with psychological implications… As in depression can result in physical pain, and chronic pain can result in depression.
Wholeheartedly agree. Specific to the actual trial and error, of programming, when I first started learning C++ (a long time ago), I remember the dread of running the debug. Then coming up with a small number of errors in 10's of 1000's of lines of code, and having to comb through to see where I was missing a semi-colon… I think knowing to how to code from ground up is so important. Knowing the fundamentals, and not just knowing how to manipulate someone else's platform. Once you know how to do it, you can make the choice to take shortcuts, but if you start with the shortcuts, and they become unavailable, you're up a creek… I have a web-designer friend of mine that knows how to use Wordpress CSS very well. He can manipulate and research to problem solve. But I'd put dollars to donuts that if I asked him to write a CSS or any other program for that matter from scratch, he wouldn't have the foggiest.
I know this GitHub is geared toward helping students getting ideas up, running, and selling, so toward the latter, it's invaluable, and actually quite generous. I'm still an old fuddy-duddy, and think that it's best to understand how to build the mechanism before buying it off the shelf.
I can't be the only one that did that science experiment as a kid, looking at The Effect of Music on Seed Germination and Plant Growth. I had a control group, a classical music group, and a heavy metal group. Each group of music assigned plants was subjected to an hour of their music per day, and germination/sprouting rates and subsequent plant growth measured. The plants subjected to classical music germinated the quickest, and experienced a statistically relevant greater amount of growth by the end of the experiment period. Clearly, something is there in the response mechanism… Intelligent maybe? (…intelligent prefers classical over heavy metal? ;) )
Or, you can travel in our limousines, which will drop you at the front door, or instead, you may arrange for a cab, which may only drop you off at a designated cab dropping location, conveniently 3.2 miles away from our front door down at the bottom of the hill.
Are we going to treat WiFi according to airspace protocol? Can a company or operation claim ownership to a quasi-physically-contained airspace? Perhaps invoke claims of trespassing by other non-approved, non-financially viable, sources? If you're living/working/visiting under my roof, then my rules, my WiFI.
I never said anything about them not giving money to students who need it. Not once.
I simply stated what was told to me about athletics. There's a difference between financial aid, and academic scholarship. Recruiting for academic purposes occurs much more so in post-undergrad situations. Whether or not you want to believe that athletics play a role in admissions and awards is up to you.
I agree that the AI component is important to understand. Essentially we're talking about putting everything on a computer system, and installing the same OS on every "machine." One of the problems that I foresee mirrors that of Microsoft, in terms of monopoly, as well as the ongoing debate between PC vs Mac usage. Inevitably, the shared OS maker will have the monopoly, though others may try to dethrone it, or there will be a battle between two to three different systems each competing for market share, and proving almost incompatible with one another… until some Hackers develop a patch.
I would disagree. I know a lot of "normal people," and most use their browser to google or search using their preferred engine or a particular website, as well as load links from emails, or visit websites on the go.
Personally, I'm not sure that using a particular company or product's app really saves me any time. Half the time, the app takes forever to load or is so non-properly story-boarded, that I resort to google anyway. Maybe I'm the outlier.
I remember my mother speaking to some college admissions person at a semi-prestigious school in Pennsylvania, many years back when I was in the throws of applying. When speaking to some admissions confusion with respect to my high school, the guy said, "Well frankly, it's not called the Ivy League because of its academics." That's always stuck with me. Athletic scholarships? You betcha. Academic scholarships? What are those?
Heart attack, respiratory failure, and other organ failure to boot.
Tthe math of determining these "average" lengths of addiction are also troubling. When accounting for individuals that may have been addicted for three years, but died at the end of those three years, are we factoring in 3 years as the length of addiction? Are we weighting it in some other way along a point scale? The very title of that statistic is troublesome too: the length of addiction - it is unclear as to whether the lengths being measured and averaged share the same initial and final endpoints: The length of time elapsed between having no drug problem and recovery? Or, having no drug problem and death? Or, as I suspect a combined average, which renders the statistic useless.
I find troublesome that the author of the article (renowned neuroscientist and addiction journalist as cited) suggests that addiction is akin to a habit. The behavior itself is certainly habit, but the addiction lies moreso in the etymology and function of the habit than the actual repetitive behavior. For some, the addiction is distraction, for some escape, for others a sense of identity, and so on and so forth. To prescribe "outgrowing the addiction" as a solution is awfully simplistic, almost suggesting that if an addict could only replace that habit with something else, then all would be hunky dory. Well, in theory, sure. Maybe we can start designing rehab centers like they used to do traffic school - Improv Traffic School, Comedy Traffic School, Bikers' Traffic School - maybe Knitters Rehab: "We'll help you put down that needle, and pick up this one!" or Foodies Rehab: "Stop smoking that joint, and learn to smoke these ribs!" The possibilities are endless. But not likely.
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2011/may/11/terms-condition...
The author cites from the above-linked study that 58% of adults surveyed in 2011 would rather read an instruction manual or credit card bill than online terms and conditions. (I wish that study had clarified whether they had surveyed an equal number of men and women.) That link amongst almost every you read regarding reading contracts and whatnot always advocate reading through word for word, and making sure you understand everything. Two things prohibit this - time and ease of comprehension. If companies could bullet point, we'd all be able to get through it within a reasonable amount of time. Those bullet points would hopefully simplify the language and make clear for those who cite "difficult to understand" as the reason for why they don't read through terms and conditions. I imagine some might need to contact legal counsel for explanations every time they want to sign up for internet, use a new application, or even browse a website. These fees would be quite costly, and it is arguable that the total damages associated with failure to reading terms and conditions would not outweigh the expenditure for ensuring clarity and comprehension through legal counsel. However, despite the theoretical advocacy for thorough reading, companies do not actually want us to do this. If they did, I believe they would make it easier. Lawyers like convoluting things; they like leaving loopholes, and making language just abstruse and ill-constructed enough to deter even the most erudite from fully reading anything they've written. (I sound like I hate lawyers, but I don't. I took the LSAT's thinking maybe I would like to go to law school to learn that school of thought. But I digress…)
The article about the Londoners is just sad all around. Are they to blame? Are the companies writing these wandering tomes of terms and conditions? Surely there has to be a better way to outlay and convey the constructs of these user agreements.
I would be curious to know how many of you use these, and which you find most useful. Some of these seem odd as the top 25. I can't imagine many that have missed Google Drive, Pinterest, Buffer or even Audible. Meetup wouldn't be my go-to, but maybe I should reconsider this. Wix is not the newest or greatest for simplistic website building, and many platforms offer comparable and equally if not more simplistic interfaces for design.
HelloSign is new to me. I hadn't heard of Fiverr either, more familiar with the more currently popular crowdsourcing sites. I've only recently discovered TalkWalker, so I'm still seeing how that fits into my social media plan.
At the risk of seeming like I'm just tearing down the author, I must admit that I'm hard-pressed to come up with a better list of "must-have" tools. I use Google Drive religiously, but not sure what I would tell someone else I couldn't live without...
Let's hope that the competition between Amazon and PayPal results in some significant value for the consumer/user/business users. Years ago, when I first built my e-commerce site, the only viable payment method that could be easily integrated was PayPal. Unless I wanted to pay a significant premium to have a payment gateway before I was ready to take on those initial sunk costs, PayPal was the most attractive and likely solution.
Hopefully, the industry will shift as more options become available and user-friendly. PayPal has the advantage of name recognition, but Amazon shares the same, and frankly, I personally regard Amazon more positively than PayPal. Hopefully, the industry continues its trend, now a quasi-oligopoly and eventually monopolistic competition.
Like others have mentioned, I too wonder how they are going to divvy shares.
I presented Conway's Game of Life in a classroom this summer of 10-12 year olds. They had no issue understanding it, were fascinated by the very simplicity of the concept that has immeasurable applications.
that said, for me, it's not so easily applicable to interactions with others, such as with Bob and Alice. for issues in my own peabrain, i can try and logically explore the bases for my emotions, my triggers, and possible alternate solutions, which i can apply at any point in a particular journey or task. i have the ability and choice to attempt to alter my own course, in terms of actions and reactions, any time i start to be plagued by and cognizant of my own discomfort. in interactions with others, however, the applicability is limited. unfortunately, it rests on having the ability to understand the complex nuances of someone else's emotional triggers, subconscious or unconscious, and having some sort of reliable heuristic to predict their reactions and digressions.
personally, i don't have an issue with the simplification to positive/negative outcomes. sort of reduces emotional processing and synaptic fires to binary code, or an electrical circuits with switches and AC current.