I really resonate with this. I've also struggled with perfectionist mindset when it comes to learning, especially in mathematics. Recently, I tried to meticulously add math problems to Anki for better retention, only to realize the time cost was too high. This perfectionist mindset often maximizes one variable (retention in my case) at the cost of all others (time as the most important one).
I've grown to really like this Richard Feynman quote: “Study hard what interests you the most in the most undisciplined, irreverent and original manner possible.” It feels like I've been finally granted permission to embrace my natural, messy way of learning.
Memorization often gets a bad rap as the underachiever's shortcut. However, it's a fundamental component of any learning process! Our ability to reason, solve problems, and innovate is all built upon a foundation of memorized information. In fact, it's precisely the reason humans have thrived for so long; we were able to memorize and pass down knowledge culturally long before the written word, not because we were 100 times smarter than our nearest cousins. Without memorization, be it in our brains or AI algorithms, there's no foundation to build upon for higher reasoning.
Just because the benefits of sharing DNA data appear large, doesn't mean we should take potential drawbacks lightly. Imagine this: a future where a specific gene is linked to hard work. Companies start screening job applicants based purely on their genetic makeup -- if you don't have the gene, you don't get the job. Or even more worryingly, imagine the government starts surveillance on a group of people with a particular gene, claiming they're more likely to commit a certain crime based on some obscure study. It would lead to moral and ethical havoc. DNA data might not seem worth protecting right now, but unchecked, the misuse could be catastrophic.
I've noticed that negative comments often float to the top. That’s a bit of a bummer. No one's entrepreneurial success should make you question your life choices or become a reason for your frustration.
Congratulations Tony! I remember the time you quit your job and set a goal of reaching $10K/mo with a few products on twitter, it seemed crazy. But you pulled it off! Hats off to you.
Math as we know it, due to Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems, is not fully consistent - we can't even prove everything that is true with our current mathematical framework. This means that our understanding of math is indeed limited, not just by our intellectual capabilities, but by the very structure of the math we currently use also.
This makes me wonder, will we be able to develop new mathematical frameworks that bypass these issues? And if so, what will they look like?
Even with heavy licensing in the medical field, research cites medical errors like wrong diagnoses and surgical mishaps causing over 250,000 US deaths yearly [0]. Granted, some studies argue over the exact number, but the core truth remains. Licenses don't eliminate human error.
Well, I don't agree with myself too anymore! I stand correct, and I apologize for the confusion I created with my poor argument. I need to read more carefully.
Great charitable interpretations! I wish you had done this impartially for both parties, but no worries! Now, let's look at the situation realistically. Let's say that instead of Steve's side asking for clarifications, he had agreed to pay Christian $10M when he said "I could make it really easy on you, if you think Apollo is costing you $20 million per year, cut me a check for $10 million and we can both skip off into the sunset. Six months of use. We're good. That's mostly a joke." Would Christian then say, "Oh no, I was merely making a joke," or would he accept the offer?
And do you think if Steve had made this offer, would we have even heard a second of this recording?
I mean, come on guys. He literally said "I can make it easy on you," named a price, and then clarified that he was mostly joking.
edit: Thank you for catching that! I've now changed "Steve" with "Steve's side."
After carefully reading the comments and going back to the post, I take back my argument. It was flawed and did not represent the whole picture. I apologize for that. I think it wasn't a threat, but rather an unsuccessful attempt to sell Apollo before time runs out. I apologize for the confusion I created with my poor argument. I need to read more carefully.
---
I initially clicked on this post fully prepared to be outraged at Reddit and its CEO, but after carefully going through the audio, I just can't share that sentiment. I've listened to the recording multiple times, making sure that I'm not missing any crucial points in the conversation. It is evident to me that this statement, "if you want Apollo to go quiet," did come across as a threat.
Yes, the developer tried to backtrack later in the call by adding "in terms of API usage," but the damage was already done. Steve's side even provided several opportunities for him to clarify his statement, claiming that he couldn't hear him properly. I understand that many members of this community are rightfully upset with Reddit and its actions in recent years (me included), but we cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that it really felt and sounded like a threat.
---
I've grown to really like this Richard Feynman quote: “Study hard what interests you the most in the most undisciplined, irreverent and original manner possible.” It feels like I've been finally granted permission to embrace my natural, messy way of learning.