If this response by devindotcom was really "irrelevant nitpicking", then there is an easy solution to that: correct yourself immediately and be very explicit about it. The remainder of this branch could have been avoided completely.
300bps didn't do that though. So did he/she actually mean what was said? Well no, because 10 minutes later your criticisms will be dismissed as [strikethrough]pedantry[/strikethrough] silliness.
>This thread has given me more karma than your entire account has received in its existence.
Oh my goodness! What was the point of saying that, really?
>I think it's clear there is a vocal minority of people who are posting a half-dozen comments each in this thread while the vast majority at least don't find what I'm saying as offensive as you apparently do.
I don't find this offensive. I'm just asking you to be technically correct with what you say, or to at least address the people who are confused by what you're saying. Apparently, that's too high of a standard for you to live up to.
Here's the lesson: if you have a point to make, please don't fit in extraneous claims, which are much debated themselves, into your argument or comment. It's not hard to see that they can be confused as being part of your point.
> This seems to be a recurring theme on HN, where people point out irrelevant nitpicks as if I couldn't do that myself.
I will say this again: there is nothing wrong with nitpicking. If you can't be technically correct, then you're not correct.
What is the functional difference between a handicapped person who can memorize little and a person who isn't labeled handicapped but memorizes just as much? If there is none, then your qualification is useless.
What difference does it make what the source of the problem is? Why do you have to know the type of handicap?
edit: he/she has already given an excuse for him/herself to stop answering questions. :(
As far as I know, light is defined precisely in physics. The light from a light bulb comes from electricity traveling through a highly resistive wire. The particle interactions generate photons.
"The bulb is simply the object which converts the electrical energy to EM radiation, not the origin of the light itself."
If you were to ignore the particle interactions, then yes, the light originates from the light bulb. It certainly does not originate from electricity. Where the electricity comes from is irrelevant.
"It means that you receive the fact as it is."
I have no idea what that means.
"The dichotomy between experiential and physical things is illusory. It's simply that you experience the physical things from your own perspective,"
Oh, I know.
I still don't think you defined awareness precisely enough.
I don't understand what you're saying. Pretend like I am idiot and explain it to me in simple terms.
1. Can you define consciousness? Or is consciousness = awareness? Is that what you meant?
2. You ask "What is the origin of awareness itself?". I really don't understand this question. What is awareness? I can't even comprehend what you mean when you ask "what is the origin of [it]?". Colloquially, physical things have "origins", which is to say that at some point some physical thing was "created" or "crafted". My intuitive idea of awareness is that it is an experience, it's not something physical.
I tend to be dismissive of the philosophical conversation. I think what will resolve the question is scientific (biological) study. Maybe math/cs theorists (AI) will get there first. But I am almost certain that no philosophical conversation we can have will give me an insight about our cognition.
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.
I reread this branch and thought it sounded awful. What I meant to say is that if you optimize for low cost, you're limiting your choices to schools that lack the reputation. I don't know very many schools that have both (maybe some state schools). And yeah, this results in having a burden to defend yourself.
Basically nothing you said actually made a case against anything I said, or for the thesis that it is easy to self teach. Just stating this for the record.
It's unrealistic because I really think you need the social aspect of it: collaboration and criticism. I didn't say you can't learn something on your own sometimes.
Also lots of people have convinced themselves of lots of silly things. You can probably find dozens of papers from people with bachelors in math (or no degree) claiming they have solved P=NP. A lot of these turn out to be completely bogus, but the authors nonetheless thought they were serious attempts.
yeah, so, I was rushing. I edited the previous post: what matters is all the things that go along with cheaper schooling, not that fact that it's cheap.
1. The point was "there is a standard of rigor that you don't experience at every school". I could have used anything as an example. It doesn't matter that I picked community college. If you agree with that statement, then do you disagree with the conclusion: that once you go down that path, you the student, have a burden to explain to everyone how the quality of education compares with the best?
Technically, yeah, I made a generalization: cheaper schooling means shittier quality education (not bad, just worse). Of course, I haven't stepped into every community college classroom. But this is the psychology of the people looking at your application.
Technically technically, what actually matters is all the things that go along with going to a cheaper school, not really the fact that it's cheap.
2. "The rigor was pretty good" - does that mean you kept taking math classes (real analysis, etc)? If not, then how can you make that claim?
About point 2 and point 3: the quality of the undergraduate education is considered in applicants to top schools. Like I said before, there is definitely a standard of rigor that you don't experience at every school. As soon as you decide to optimize for financial cost (picking the cheapest school, doing community college), you've already placed on a burden on yourself.
You spent a significant chunk of your post suggesting self study. For something like math, this is really really really unrealistic. Most pure math textbooks don't have simple problems you can just check in the back. They're multistep proofs that can be done in a number of different ways. Oh, and you encounter plenty of material where you can easily trick yourself into thinking that you really understand it when you actually don't. Additionally, there is a standard of rigor that you don't experience at bad schools (or with no schooling). You could be writing complete nonsense solutions and not even know it.
Also: how are you going to self-study when you don't live at home? Studying is a full time job.
I am actually in a similar situation... except I'm in math. I can program though :/.
And by "similar" I mean that I may have to drop out because I cannot afford it. Loans from the government are not enough. Can't get private loans. Can't get money from the parents.
300bps didn't do that though. So did he/she actually mean what was said? Well no, because 10 minutes later your criticisms will be dismissed as [strikethrough]pedantry[/strikethrough] silliness.