Do you feel the moderation over there is enough though, even on the "nicely moderated places" that you mention?
Compared to other communities where admins/mods delete users' comments to a much higher frequency relative to Reddit and freely edit or move unfitting submissions & comments, I've always felt the lack of moderation on Reddit for the most part has been the reason for attracting trolls and users making hateful comments.
And the thing is, Reddit looks to be a very hard place to moderate as large number of Redditors seem to become very mad when heavy moderation happens (seeing from the large # of "I thought this site was all about freedom of speech"-type comments when r/jailbait got banned few months back).
When the lack of moderation attracts all those characters who post "shit", filtering via voting just becomes useless as you mention in your other comment.
To add to this, it also feels as that in most cases, for every topic that a niche subreddit (or multiple similar subreddits) covers, there usually exist better online communities dealing with the same topic elsewhere on the Web.
For example, let's say you're interested in airplanes and aviation. Relevant subreddits such as r/aviation just doesn't compare to communities like airliners.net with its sheer amount and high quality of content.
Quality of content aside, other communities in such instances also seem to have better organization, more strict moderation (although some subreddits do have very good, dedicated moderators), and certain culture that's not prevalent on Reddit (e.g. compared to some other communities that I visit, there doesn't seem to be a culture of searching before posting on Reddit, ultimately resulting in a lot of reposts), leading me to go to those places rather than the subreddits that cover the same topic.
This blogger aggregates "Best of 2011"-type book lists from all types of sources you can imagine (well, English-based ones anyway); thought it might be of interest to some of you here.
I'm not sure if the same term is used in the U.S., but few British journalists have spoken out about what you've mentioned - the race to get the story out first without applying strict fact-checking standards, all happening in an industry where resources are being cut all over the place and making matters worse.
As for the post-it/to-do lists, what helps me is to develop a point system (scale of 0~5 or whatever) and assign a point next to a criterion at the end of the day, depending on how well you think the task was accomplished. It works even better if the tasks are something that's repeated weekly (e.g. organisation of your living space), as you'll end up with a collection of points.
While easy and non time-consuming, it's powerful in a way that it creates a feedback process. Of course, there's bunch of different reward systems people use besides scoring high points, like earning oneself a cigar, for example. So you can develop one that suits you for more fun.
Just as an additional note, MIT came up with a set of OCWs for introductory courses back in January that are specifically intended for independent learners (IIRC, one of the MIT's original aims for the OCW project was to provide materials for educators rather than learners). These 'OCW Scholar' courses contain complete course material, and I'm guessing we'll have more of these as time progresses.
Bias put aside, you get to detect certain patterns about the articles after you read BBC's online news service for a while. Most of the time, they seem to lack depth as well.
If you're familiar with their articles, you've probably seen a pattern where articles of ~4 paragraphs come up on the site when a breaking news occurs. You get the sense that they're only concerned with speed rather than accuracy - contents in those 4 paragraphs will change throughout the day, while they'll add about 10 more paragraphs containing some background information and/or interviews. So unless you don't read the "finished version," it's likely that you didn't read the most accurate information.
The way the BBC writers work gives them hardly any time to check facts as well. They're expected to write news tickers, e-mail the news desk about newly written stories, and make a post on Ceefax service as well (hence the 4-paragraph rule). Then they are also expected to harmonize their articles with news from other BBC outlets (e.g. BBC Radio services, BBC News Channel, etc.) so the writers multi-task and constantly have to keep an eye on those services.
I cannot agree more with this. Perhaps this might apply to almost all discussion-based sites, but often at HN (especially Ask HN posts), it's sometimes frustrating seeing how new conversations regarding a specific topic - most likely as a result of a frequently asked question - keep popping up.
It's not that I find presence of FAQs frustrating, but has more to do with how useful information contained in different discussions tend to get increasingly decentralized. Furthermore, depending on the topic, the nature of discussions might change as time progresses, and those who might want more "classic" advices on that topic could really benefit from this proposed style of wiki.
For example, "recommend materials for learning higher maths" type of questions keep appearing consistently. Each time there's a new discussion that contains unique advices. If I were to refer a newcomer to past discussions right at this moment, I could come up with at least 5 of them (which I have done in one of my comments few weeks ago). A HN Wiki that centralizes gems from different discussions in this situation would be highly beneficial, a time-saver for many.
I suppose alternatives are tagging and improved search functions which are common elsewhere, but a somewhat-active wiki community (whether official or unofficial) where people are willing to organize useful information would be just fantastic.
I highly recommend them, if you can get one for your home office (or if you work in a office that allows desk of your preference). Some people go even further and get a treadmill underneath the desk, but I like to switch between sitting & standing personally. Standing up while working gives me an active feel to it, and I find myself avoiding procrastination since my legs would get tired if I were to spend hours surfing the Web (sure, I could adjust the height so that I can comfortably sit again, but the decision becomes more 'conscious' in a sense).
May be you've seen these HN threads about self-learning maths already... if not, hopefully you'll find these textbooks useful. Here's a little HN link dump, in the order of time at which the discussions took place (from the oldest to the most recent):
One caveat is that many of these textbooks do not come with a solutions manual. So, in terms of practice, I think that's where the dearth of uploaded lecture materials could come in. Sometimes, there might be no e-learning/opencourseware material for the topic you're interested in. In such cases, I found that if you look through universities' Websites closely enough, professors upload a lot of course materials on their personal pages. You can do this by finding a random university's math dept. page, then searching from course/faculty listings.
Last of all, I'm pretty certain you've heard of this site already, as it's being circulated quite a lot lately, but many have professed that videos from khanacademy.org to be quite helpful when grasping basic mathematical concepts.
A dedicated site (rather than personal blogs that are already in place for this purpose) would be great.
At the moment, I keep a Delicious account to index learning material and look for additional content using relevant tags or looking through others' accounts hoping to find other users like myself - time consuming/inefficient task however.
If you've had this idea for some time, I'm just curious as to whether you've thought of a way to search for (& gather) such material.
Dude, asking out of curiosity, could you elaborate on your experience?
Did your health literally get worse? Did you miss out on a lot occasions/opportunities during the time you read heavily? Was it too much of an information overload than one could handle?
Personally, I'm mainly curious about how another individual's brain reacts when dealing with intake of such huge quantity of data.
In case you're unfamiliar with the IAmA series on Reddit (which I see is getting positive feedback from HN readers, needless to say), a 'starred' post such as this one means that the OP has verified his/her identity with a subreddit moderator.
Just wanted to point out since this new process was implemented only few days ago.
-edw517, mechanical_fish - Due to frequent sighting of their comments
-tokenadult - You'll always find him in threads that contain discussions about human intelligence/alternative education
-potatolicious - U.S. immigration discussions + Canada vs. USA issues
-markbao - Entrepreneur, 16 years old
-mahmud - A technology nomad (originally from the Washington DC Metro, now in Australia)
These are the ones I can recall from top of my head. I do recognize many other usernames, of course. Also, I would like to point out I have no inclination to upvote the individuals mentioned above. I think it's more about frequency, since most of them tend to partake in discussions that cover a wide range of topics.
Just because they're experts in one area doesn't mean I'll find their opinions insightful no matter what. Each posting/comment is taken into consideration.
For some reason, I've heard the exact same thing from residents of Chicago, Washington D.C., Philadelphia, etc.
So does "average" exclude major (maybe East Coast) U.S. cities? Should I look at cities of smaller scale... say Oxnard, CA? Which criteria should one consider when deciding a city is "normally" segregated? Just want to know how things are different in the average American city with a significant number of ethnic minorities.
Compared to other communities where admins/mods delete users' comments to a much higher frequency relative to Reddit and freely edit or move unfitting submissions & comments, I've always felt the lack of moderation on Reddit for the most part has been the reason for attracting trolls and users making hateful comments.
And the thing is, Reddit looks to be a very hard place to moderate as large number of Redditors seem to become very mad when heavy moderation happens (seeing from the large # of "I thought this site was all about freedom of speech"-type comments when r/jailbait got banned few months back).
When the lack of moderation attracts all those characters who post "shit", filtering via voting just becomes useless as you mention in your other comment.