Scroll down to find the (IMO) more interesting papers. As mentioned in a few comments on the linked page, people tended to submit and upvote very meta articles.
That's a great idea and a lot of people are going to do exactly that. However, think about this: It's a bubble, it will pop, but we don't know when it will pop.
Imagine you want to invest a million dollars and sell when you have doubled your investment. The sooner and cheaper you can buy the stock, the greater your chance to double your million dollars. The longer you wait, the higher the chance that you will be one of the suckers whose investment makes other people rich.
The safest strategy is to buy at the offering price and sell as soon as the stock reaches your target for selling (double in our example). You pay the least and get out the soonest, before the collapse. With every passing minute, the price of the stock rises but the probability of the bubble popping before it reaches your target also rises.
So how do you buy at the offering price? By having a cosy relationship with the investment bank leading the issue, that's how. Do you have a cosy relationship with the investment bank leading the issue? If not, you are playing a game rigged to make other people rich at your expense.
Of course, if you like the fundamentals and plan to buy and hold, that's a different matter. But if you're playing the speculation game, you ought to know that the casino is rigged and that you are not in the business, you are the business.
This is an interesting counterpoint to the OP (from your link):
When I was starting to learn Linux after getting frustrated
and formatting Windows ME off my HDD, I quickly learned how
to ask questions the smart way: go to a Linux-promoter's
forum and say, "Windows does <insert task> better than Linux"
or "Linux is bad because it can't do <insert task>". Every
time I did this, I was flooded with solutions... unless I
was right. Either way, I had my answer. Meanwhile, if I
asked questions the smart way as recommended by Raymond,
I'd be lucky if I received any answers -- I'd have already
done a bunch of research, and this would be clear, so
nobody else would feel the need to do experimenting or
research on their own to figure it out.
If I only need to get one question right it doesn't take many questions before (3/4)^n is smaller than the chance the professor, for whatever reason, avoided C.
I disagree. I'd put that probability at 0 after n=7.
In fact, according to the recent reddit thread, some test designers are encouraged to enforce equal proportions of each option. While stupid, it lowers the threshold to n=3 or so.
I think many readers will be surprised at how accessible "Gödel, Escher, Bach" actually is. I'm not an expert at anything: I have no work experience and maybe two serious computer science courses under my belt, but GEB really satisfies an intellectual curiosity I've had for years. I'm 550 pages in (out of about 750 pages) and with the exception of the two chapters discussing the anatomy of the human brain (a subject I'm just not that interested in), I've torn through this book—I only started reading about three months ago, which means I've been reading GEB much faster than any other book I've ever opened. I highly recommend "Gödel, Escher, Bach" even to those who have seen other people recommend it yet have been reluctant to try it out.
I bought GEB when I was 13, mostly because I liked the Escher paintings. I was hooked after reading the first Achilles/Turtle episode, though, and even though many concepts went over my head at the time. I still haven't read it cover to cover, though, but I still have a hard time not agreeing with this particular recommendation.
+1 Reasons and Persons. The Personal Identity section in that in particular is wonderful! It's a really good book because it kind of stands alone -- you don't need to be very well-versed in philosophy to get the arguments if you read carefully.
