I assume you're asking in jest, but having experience in the matter:
Any information you give to someone/group, where you know or have good reason to believe it will be used for terrorism purposes (including training), does put you liable for providing material aid to terrorists.
> For a lot of math departments, that is exactly why they teach this.
Depends on the course. That's why some departments have separate calculus courses for math majors - because otherwise the whole class will be full of non-math majors (engineers, etc) and focusing on their needs does a disservice to the students in their own department.
> The degree requires the class. The student taking the class may not even be old enough to drink alcohol yet, and they can't possibly be expected to know of all the applications.
If I'm a CS major, and the degree is requiring a class outside of the CS department, you shouldn't expect the professor of the class to know why the CS department is requiring it. It's on the CS department and its faculty to explain it.
I read stuff like this and think I must be an idiot because I'm so bad at circumventing the AI safety for fairly benign queries. And here you have folks making bombs...?
> I complained in the group chat, that our didactic materials, specifically tasked with providing motivation and concrete examples, did not contain a single application, of this most richly applied field.
> I was promptly pilloried, and shunned.
Heh. In my day I may have participated in the pillorying.
I do think that there is value/merit in professors mentioning real world applications, where they exist.
What they're sensitive about are the theorems where there aren't real world applications. They don't want to (and shouldn't) justify them.
So even when there are real world applications, the posture is "Who knows if someone is making good use of this in the world somewhere? I don't care. It's not why we learn or teach this!"
> It would be fundamentally wrong for you to ask what's the value of solving the Erdős–Hajnal conjecture; the value is that it's solved.
No, the value is that Erdos's name is attached to it.
Lots of mathematicians prove things they don't publish, or their manuscripts get rejected - not because of a flaw in the proof but because no one cares about the theorem they proved.
And I'm sure it'll be the case with LLM models performing proofs. It'll be notable only when the theorem is a known one that people have had difficulty proving.
I can somewhat sympathize - I guess the debatable aspect is to what extent should you teach?
If someone knows no development tools, then yes, it is good if someone in the team knows Visual Studio Code and can guide them. In my previous job, another senior person knew it and helped out (VSCode was not mandated, and they were free to use some other tool).
I tend to focus on training people on the concepts (code navigation, debugging, version control, etc), and tell them that they're free to use whatever tool they like, but it's on them to learn how to use those tools to apply those concepts. I usually recommend VSCode and tell them there are plenty of videos/sites that explain them.
Then if I see them doing something very inefficiently, I do a quick Google search to see if the more efficient approach is supported in their tool and send them a link.
It's important to hire people who can learn on their own (with guidance on what to learn).
> For example, if I'm teaching a new hire to set up their vscode it is not very helpful to tell them "now you need to activate the python venv". It is much more helpful to be able to tell them "Now we're going to activate the python venv. To do that, open your command palette and search for 'select python interpreter'".
Inspired by a submission some years ago on HN, I came up with a different approach in my last job.
Everything the team did (including onboarding), had to be done via a just[1] recipe. No longer did we rely on outdated docs. just recipes, by definition, cannot be outdated because then we wouldn't be able to do our work.
For onboarding, we had recipes that automated as much of the configuration as possible. For things that required manual work, the recipe would print instructions, and prompt the user to press Enter when they had completed the task.
Sure, onboarding stuff can go stale as people don't onboard often, but we had a policy that if any senior team member had to help a newbie because the recipe was broken, then the senior member needed to fix the recipe and check it in.
I left the job, but I still talk to some of the folks there. They still love the recipes.
> Their argument is that all team members should use the same tools, and I guess that is a valid point.
Not really. If they mandated all team members use telnet instead of ssh, would you say their position is valid?
Anyway, the important thing to learn is "You're not supposed to ask if you can use Emacs. Just use it!"
Incidentally, do they have a mandated general text editor? And if they do, will you get in trouble for firing up Notepad?
Do they have a mandated TODO tool (for your own tracking of work, not something like Jira meant for the whole group)? I've yet encountered a place that did.
Basically, find some category that Emacs does that they've not mandated, and then install Emacs and tell people you're using it for that category :-)
> IMO you want to be actively trying to map the new concepts to things you already understand, and constantly working to update your mental model.
It's not an either-or.
Where SRS comes in handy is when you have to take long breaks between your study sessions (due to job + family). Have you ever tried learning an advanced math topic where you get to work on it for a few days, then may have to stop for a few weeks (or even months), then resume, and repeat over and over?
Chances are, no matter how intense you study during those few days, you'll likely forget important definitions/theorems in the periods you don't.
SRS takes care of those gaps.
Case in point - many years ago I put a lot of my intro to statistics course in flashcards and actively reviewed them. I hadn't done actual statistics for over a year, and then made a (false) claim here on HN. Someone gave me a counterexample using the chi-squared distribution. And it was amazing that I could recall the basic properties of the chi-squared distribution, and enough other theorems to verify what he said without consulting any book.
I've never used the chi-squared distribution for anything before or after.
(Sadly, I stopped using those cards years ago so I've forgotten the material!)
Same caveat as in the article: Spaced repetition is just one (minor) part of learning math/physics. It alone won't get you anywhere.
For math - particularly higher level math, the most obvious use case is definitions. There are so many!
You can put theorems in there, but it is a bit challenging on how to phrase it. A single theorem could result in several smaller flash cards.
I think what works better is taking a theorem, finding a representative problem that is solved via that theorem, and make the problem statement the question. The downside of this approach is each card takes longer to process as this is not just plain recall, but actively solving a problem. For this reason, I keep such cards in a separate deck and review them only when I have time I can dedicate (e.g. spending well over a minute per card).
Consistently not replying when you say "I need this information by X" is also impolite.
Crappy teams lead to crappy strategies.
Incidentally, people are reading too much into this. No one got upset at me for doing this. They knew I was trying to solve a problem. And they knew the bottleneck was themselves.
Either by being a former Apple employee, or polling former Apple employees.