It's the fallacy found first in the list the causes the issue:
>- Calories are a lie. The model is incorrect (true) and should therefore be completely ignored/rejected (false)
>- Fats are good. Nuts are healthy.
>- 'Grazing' food all day is good.
Good fats are good for you and nuts are a source of such fats. For some, eating more frequent, smaller portions makes it easier to hit a reasonable caloric intake for the day. However, add in that calories are a lie and ignore the fact that nuts are calorie dense, and you get people eating 3000 kcal of nuts in a day by grazing on healthy foods.
In another thread, the mention of weighing foods for a while seems to counter this. It's just not that intuitive that a small bag of nuts can have enough calories for a meal (at least is wasn't always to me). As a child of the midwest, it took some time to deprogram my concept of healthy portions, so I can admit to falling into some version of this trap for many year, and still do on occasion.
Also consider a license like JetBrains old "personal purchase for professional use". I've carried Resharper around with me from employer to employer as my own "hammer" resulting in multiple new enterprise licenses when other people see me use it. I imagine this is exactly that kind of software. Scratching an itch the business doesn't yet realize is there.
I'd offer that accessibility is a huge part of the beauty of Euler's identity. A few weeks into your average Calculus 2 class and it almost feels intuitive.
If this was framed as charging twenty bucks less for those willing to endure the hard side of the cushion, people would be proclaiming anyone sitting on soft cushions as stupid.
The informal language and entertainment value of the letter seems to me to be a direct nod to the value of the Streisand effect in matters like this. The Oatmeal manages to make them look even worse in the most easily digestible format possible.
You really need to provide a means of at least browsing a pre-filled wishlist without supplying an email address first. You've got to earn my email address.
It just distills down to "Don't let people tell you that you can't frame with your trusty roofing hammer. Just get to work and switch tools when you must."
I agree that 'hidden' isn't exactly an accurate description, but that is a pretty good list of keywords that commonly get reinvented by less experienced C#-ers. It would be more accurately described as a list of underused idioms, but the title doesn't really detract from its value.
No. Get the degree now while it's relatively easy. The longer you're out of the education system the harder it is to fall back into the student mindset. If you're 'not afraid of working hard', work on your startup while pursuing your degree. As an added benefit, I've got to think that your classes would be a great place to find that co-founder you're missing.
I always picture sacks with '$' on the side rather than suitcases, but I always have difficulty shaking the feeling that lobbying is basically a cash transaction. I constantly have to talk myself out of this. The following is a great, brief string of reasoning that helps: http://volokh.com/2010/01/24/money-and-speech-2
^Like everything else, writing a really excellent assignment is an iterative process. After two or three offerings, you finally have something your users (ie, students) really value: an assignment that teaches well.
New assignments should be just that, another iteration on the original, excellent assignment. I had a few assignments in undergrad for which even solutions to previous versions were essentially useless unless you understood the underlying principles. The professor made this quite clear from the beginning. Minor changes in input/intermediate/output structures and changing constraints on the expected solutions easily confound the copy-pasters. I think this method even enhanced the learning experience for me by highlighting early on how a subtle difference in an algorithm can make all the difference in the world.
I've always made sense of it all as follows:
Science describes reality with theory.
Applied science moves science into practical application.
Engineering composes/commercializes applied science.
Just to continue this thought of 'avenues you could pursue which don't involve a direct application': there's always graduate school. Prove your aptitude at a school that will take you for your BS and then apply to GT for the next step.
>- Calories are a lie. The model is incorrect (true) and should therefore be completely ignored/rejected (false)
>- Fats are good. Nuts are healthy.
>- 'Grazing' food all day is good.
Good fats are good for you and nuts are a source of such fats. For some, eating more frequent, smaller portions makes it easier to hit a reasonable caloric intake for the day. However, add in that calories are a lie and ignore the fact that nuts are calorie dense, and you get people eating 3000 kcal of nuts in a day by grazing on healthy foods.
In another thread, the mention of weighing foods for a while seems to counter this. It's just not that intuitive that a small bag of nuts can have enough calories for a meal (at least is wasn't always to me). As a child of the midwest, it took some time to deprogram my concept of healthy portions, so I can admit to falling into some version of this trap for many year, and still do on occasion.