I agree that most apps might not be saving lives. I chose YPlan because the Founders used a rigorous strategy of looking for problems rather than looking for solutions.
This is beyond the post, but I agree that value should land where it can deliver the biggest impact. However, making money writing apps for 20-somethings isn't necessarily a bad thing, what matters is where that money goes afterwards. More on that in http://80000hours.com/.
Seconded. Math is one of the most easily self teachable subjects. The field of study is objects of mind (unless you're a platonist.) Literally no materials required except pen/paper, a brain and maybe a straightedge and compass. The point of math is not to do endless worked exercises. It's to understand mathematical objects and prove interesting things about them. You can generate unlimited problems for yourself by investigating some mathematical object at random.
Well. There are no barriers to entry. If you have any inkling of logical ability, you should be able to tell when a proof is right. All it requires is critical thinking. Presumably humans come with that out of the box.
Well, what was his argument? Based on his second reply, he seems to think that because it only depends on your ability to reason that it should be easy. But doesn't that trivialize the matter? As long as we have mathematical models, as we do in physics and in chemistry, then it should be just as easy to learn physics and chemistry.* So then what does he consider hard to learn? Are the social sciences hard to learn? The 'it is of the mind' is a non-argument to me. And I don't think he addressed anything I said.
Anyway, this is almost irrelevant to what I was saying. Even if you assume every person can reason well, I'm saying you could still be in error unless you seek validation and guidance. It's really easy to think you've given a solid argument for something, but actually be wrong. It happens to everyone.
*By the way, there is a definite trend in physics for math, instead of experimentation, to be leading the way towards discovery.
You're right, the above posters generalize way too much. They are either CS or Maths students and as such are already well-prepared for self-study! If you study Maths you already know what all the symbols like epsilon, e etc. mean, you can just gloss over a mathematical text and get the gist of it. Same goes for many (but not all!!!) CS-students, some unis lean a lot on algebra, some don't do much maths after the first two courses.
As such, I think it's ridiculous to go up to anyone and tell him/her to just "study by yourself", I could give a maths book to a biologist and that person would understand absolutely nothing without guidance.
I was addressing the money issue
and tacitly assuming that they
could do the work. For just a
Bachelor's and then just a Master's
in engineering, they have a good
chance of being able to judge
correctly if they can do the work.
I must have missed it. Well, did everybody have a smartphone back then? Having a dashboard for a screensaver I think is something that would click immediately. I would use one on the desktop too, provided it's nice on the eyes and is easy to fill up with relevant things (like HN articles).
Sorry I was referring to iGoogle - and it is still alive, but to be retired after November 1, 2013. Personally I like the idea of a dashboard - I just dont see it as a killer product.
What Yahoo really needs is a GMail, a Facebook, or even a Pininterest - something that will engage with a large proportion or majority of web users every single day. Unfortunately Yahoo has lost on Search, Email, Social, and even managed to screw up Photo Sharing (even after buying the leading site Flickr).
Ah, yes, iGoogle and myYahoo are cases of home page dashboards. Nobody would really use those for financial analysis and the widgets are generally skeumorphic and distinct looking. I would say it's not a strong enough execution of the idea.
I agree it would not necessarily be a killer product for Yahoo. It would, however, allow Yahoo to streamline and combine some existing efforts.
Thanks, yeah that was a bit of shame; I actually discovered logic programming through Clojure's core.logic. Definitely logic and probabilistic programming are some of the most useful DSL's that can be built. The power is there, it's perhaps the case that Prolog compilers have a much longer history of optimizations, so it might take a while to catch up even though core.logic has some convincing benchmarks too.
Another area is functional logic programming. I've played around with Curry, and it's great and it feels even better than just having a logic DSL. The way you can represent strongly typed bi-directional declarative regular expression parsers is simply magic.
Reminding me of that Motorolla Droid add with the guy living with his devices and bed in an open concrete square house. Thoroughly optimal design is neutral, soulless and impersonal, it is frightening.