My guess is that when the kids' faces were right up to the light, their subconscious mind was actually doing the triggering because the light change was noticed in their peripheral vision. At my kung fu school, we train ourselves to avoid focusing our vision on the person we're fighting because acute vision is translated/filtered by the conscious mind; the tiny delays caused by the conscious mind are enough to get you killed. Acute->Conscious reaction times are far slower than Peripheral->SubConscious reactions.
You'd probably see similar results in your experiment if you had the kids stand close to the light but focus their vision just outside the perimeter of the light.
> In fact you can argue, people who are successful inside the system because they have the attributes you mentioned, are the least motivated to challenge the status quo.
Confidence that your contribution is worthwhile goes a long way. Most of the people I know that do not consider themselves to be "creative" are simply unwilling to take the risk that their final product will not be praised/enjoyed. They fool themselves into believing that a work is wasted time if it is not the next Mona Lisa.
I think there is also a "blank page" component. They worry about wasting time and having to redo work. Many people are simply unsure where to start, focused on the forest when they haven't yet created the first tree. They're not comfortable working on different components of the problem and trusting that at some point they'll be able to connect the dots.
Creative entrepreneurs have programmed themselves to see the journey as the reward, learning at every step regardless of outcome and applying those lessons immediately to the following steps. They redo, pivot or do whatever is necessary to get closer to the goal because they've realized (subconsciously) that the current action is already in the past. They can't change the past so moving forward is the only action they are concerned with.
This is a key point. Also, it's easy to "like" something if there is only one button. I feel I'm doing my friends a favor.
When there are multiple buttons, I feel like I'm doing work for the website operator. The only exception would be the case where the content is really so awesome that I feel the whole world needs to know about it.
My first thought after reading about how it works was "How can we consolidate all the vendors into a single 'like' button?"
I dislike interview questions that sound like they were pulled from some industry certification test. What's the point in asking people questions that test their memory?
Today the fact is that we DO have Google and other tools at our fingertips. If it means that we have fewer definitions and facts committed to memory, so be it. It's not a bad thing to look up information on an as-needed basis. The information will be fresher and likely accompanied by recent developments. Even doctors do this when they're about to perform an operation they haven't done in a while.... they'll look up the procedure beforehand and refresh their memory to ensure that they follow the current standard of care.
Interview questions should focus on exposing problem-solving ability and getting to know the person to determine whether he/she is a good fit for your existing team.
Based on the movie, Zuckerberg didn't have the decency to inform the people he was working with that he'd moved on. The moment he stopped communicating with them, a red flag should have gone up and they should have parted ways and hired someone else. Both sides contributed to the end result. The Winkelvii should have been more closely involved with the execution of the project. They should have also formalized the relationship legally before allowing him to work on it.
Easy fix: simply impose a timer on adding comments. If you're only allowed to make one comment per story per 5-10 minutes, you'll choose more carefully where/when you place comments.
Oh, and even if there is a GreaseMonkey script, displaying reminders is still a good idea.
If there is a cognitive universal, I wonder if it is absolute. Does it describe the nature of cognition itself or does it only describe cognition we do it here on earth.
IOW: will sufficiently evolved lifeforms on other planets have similar experiences (and therefore a basis for common ground) or will we be completely unable to understand them? Maybe we're receiving transmissions right now and we just don't see it.
If a cognitive universal exists, then true artificial intelligence must -by definition- "think like us" because that's how thinking works.
If there were a checklist of guidelines about comments and you had to physically check each one to post a comment, it would A) reduce trivial posts by making them more work to post and B) provide reminders -every time you post- about the kinds of content desired for posts.
Agree 100%. The trick for them is to build a compelling application.
I faced a similar problem with delineal.com. Like Color, my groundbreaking stuff is in the data choices, algorithms and data filtering and in my generalized approach to solving problems. I don't lead with detailed discussions of the technology because A) the vision and direction tell a more entertaining story B) The matching and filtering algorithms do not a product make. I need to build products that solve real-world problems to generate revenue.
I like the recognition they're getting for their technical work. It bodes well for me...and provides some nice hints about how to better frame my pitch... because I can say "I have technology AND useful apps".
I would add that I think the Y Combinator application process forces you to leave most of the potential value of your idea on the table (assuming your idea has a moderate or high level of complexity). Since they're more interested in founders, this is probably a wise choice.
I may convert my monthly archive of websites over to snappy; the speed of the compression / decompression will allow me to implement a more consolidated storage scheme than I'm using now.
I've known a couple of examples. There was the hustler who was booted from his own startup because he was a shallow jerk that no-one wanted to work for. The company is doing very well without him.
Then there was the founder/hustler who made promises to customers without even consulting his development team, despite this repeatedly coming back to bite the company in the rear-end. He's still doing it today.
I think it's great if someone is willing to do whatever it takes to make a deal... but the deal isn't over until the product is in the hands of the customer. When promises are made that can't be kept, it lowers everyone's morale (customers, developers, hustlers, etc). Hustlers need to look at the big picture and understand what the real cost of closing a deal is.
I guess that's what I'm getting at... they weren't serious (enough) about it and their users suffer the consequences. Nowhere on their website does it say "beta" or "just for fun" or "this could go away at any time".
The lesson in this is that building projects that depend on third-party data is dangerous; there needs to be some sort of guarantee of access to the data before you commit to the project. Building the project and then pointing fingers at the data provider after your api access is revoked does nothing to relieve the frustration of your users.
Though this is clearly political wrangling, I think Microsoft should be careful about claiming publicly that anything patented by them is "natural"... Natural is very close to "obvious"... which is bad for patents:
"natural ways of interacting with devices by tabbing through various screens to find the information they need"
This one seems to work: http://globalfilesearch.com/
http://globalfilesearch.net/index.aspx?q=.eap&t=Files...