So if I understand right, this image of a T-Rex [1] would be wrong, because its palms are facing downward, while this image of a T-Rex [2] would be right because its palms are in a "clapping" posture?
But I'm still a little confused. Most quadrupeds have their front toes facing forward, right? If the first T-Rex did a belly-flop and caught itself on its palms, they'd be facing forward like a dog's. If the second T-Rex did a belly flop, its toes would be facing outward, like Charlie Chaplin's feet.
It used to turn them off on the iPhone, but not these days.
A lot of planes have WiFi, and people are also using Bluetooth headphones. So when talking about being a passenger on an airplane, this seems like a rather practical choice.
Not for my Android phone, at least not by default (Pixel 9a a/ GrapheneOS). It leaves Bluetooth and WiFi on in airplane mode. I doubt this is specific to GrapheneOS and may say more about AOSP.
Not if you were connected to either when turning on airplane mode. Both can also be turned on manually in airplane mode. A physical block avoids any uncertainty or mistakes.
I played it with my wife on the couch over many winters evenings, and then ten years later played it with my daughter. Good times. Reminded me of playing Sierra games as a kid.
I also love the soundtrack so much and have listened to it thousands of times, especially By The Wall, my favorite song. PS: Thanks for posting the composer’s solo name, Floex, because there were (are?) two people with exactly the same name working at Amanita Design, bizarrely!
I have a big old analog radio-controlled clock in my classroom, and it's always about 4 minutes fast, which would drive me nuts except most of my students can't read analog time so they're never confused by it.
Regardless, I'm excited to try this out next time I'm in the classroom. I'm a little confused by time zones, however. My clock has no controls on the back whatsoever (at least that I can find, I haven't opened it up), so I assume it doesn't know what time zone I'm in.
So do I need to set the time zone on the station emulator? There's an "offset" setting, but it says it's only for correcting "minor errors."
Ah, hunting the serial number led me to discover that the clock is part of a centrally-synchronized wireless clock system. The company is discontinued, so who knows how old these are. So I'm going to hunt down a wireless transmitter somewhere in the building that is setting my clock four minutes fast... Oh well, I don't get to try out OP's cool tech!
These days the vast majority of the (at least, English-speaking) web is only on a few dozen websites. The 80-20 rule would get you pretty far for most users' daily interactions.
As a science teacher and former software dev, I find this totally cute, and I understand exactly why the creator chose to make it a physical card game.
That said, I do think the translation into a physical card game means that kids aren't getting the experimentation and near-instant feedback that they'd be getting if they were doing this digitally.
In order for a kid to "win," they either have to already know, or explicitly be told using words, what all of the commands do. Then they have to hear the parent analyze their solution, and tell them where they went wrong. Picture, however, a different game, played online: A kid has no idea what "sort" does, but when they link the "sort" command to a blob of text, all the lines are sorted in order. Now no one has told them what this command does, but they've discovered it. By playing the role of a scientist discovering these commands, they might actually gain an intuitive understanding of them.
I'm thinking of the board game "robot turtle," where kids needed to create a "program" of commands to move a turtle to a goal. When they did that, they had near-instantaneous feedback: the parent moved the turtle. If the kid mixed up their left with the robot's left, the failure was obvious. But if the game has been re-made so that there was no board, and the parent and kid just needed to talk about whether the turtle would actually end up seven paces forward and three paces to the left -- i.e. doing it all verbally -- it wouldn't have been nearly as powerful.
So I'm not raining on this, I can see this as very cool. But I am having a hard time imagining it's the best way to learn to pipe together commands.
As a young Linux user I always hated the experimentation aspect because usually it meant just straight up getting the command wrong 5 times before trying to read the man page, thinking I understood what the man page meant, trying again another 5 times and then giving up.
This idea of experimenting and getting instant feedback is just survivorship bias for a certain type of person, not “the way we ought to teach Unix shell”
This view is corroborated by the research summarized and presented in the programmer’s brain by Felienne Hermans.
> usually it meant just straight up getting the command wrong 5 times before trying to read the man page, thinking I understood what the man page meant, trying again another 5 times
I think that is a developer's superpower. The poncy term for it is grit. I tell others that the secret to leaning computers is frustration and persistence.
> and then giving up.
Knowing when to stop or change direction is hard.
I've definitely wasted years of work failing to solve something that I eventually had to give up on (most memorably depending on nasty Microsoft products).
But I've also been paid very nicely because I've solved problems that others struggled with.
I've been a sysadmin for a quarter century and I've always said my only real superpower is that I read error messages when they appear, something none of my non-admin coworkers can do, for some reason.
A smart, and by no means technically incompetent friend of mine struggled to get a software product to run. He would reinstall it, try different configuration, uninstall plugins, yet every time he tried running it, the program gave the same error message. I asked him to read the error, and it very simply stated that it was failing to create symlinks because the the disk was formatted with ExFAT. Had he just piped this message into ChatGPT, he would have avoided hours of debugging.
I consider myself a fairly good developer, and I think that's in large part due to knowing, "doing this should be possible, and the reason it's not working right now is just due to stupidity (my own or the developer of whatever I'm using's)". But yes, in a few (thankfully rare) cases it just plain isn't practically possible. Even then, I've given up on problems just to have it nagging in the back of my mind and then randomly coming up with a beautifully simple solution weeks later. That's sort of the essence of what I like about programming (and math too).
Grit is something you gain once you already have an intrinsic motivation, such as already having a belief you can do this. Something has to spark in people that they’re capable in the first place.
People forget that struggling is part of the learning process. It's great that people want to make things easier to learn, but struggling is essential. You want to ensure that people don't struggle so much they get stuck (one extreme), but you don't want to make it so easy people don't struggle at all (the other extreme). There's balance, but that balance requires struggling.
I think this is one of those statements that sounds reasonable on the surface but if you read it over a few times it doesn’t say anything concrete enough to pin down anything that could be refuted, even though I think the vibe is off.
So in return I’ll share my vibe, which is that my point was a small amount of struggle can be good once people are already determined to learn something, perhaps because they have found a spark for it. But before they’ve found their spark, all it does is turn people off. And in general, I don’t think struggle is essential at all. In fact I’ve learned a great many things successfully without struggling.
You must have a different brain than mine. I'm finding (and increasingly as I age), that the act of learning feels inherently uncomfortable. Like my brain really wants to use its existing toolset instead of learning something new, and is saying so quite loudly. A similar discomfort happens with exercise. If there's zero struggle to lift the weight, then your muscles aren't really developing. I think this is pretty well-known and well-documented.
So how do you learn without struggle? Are you being spoonfed the material on a learning happy path so you happen to never make a mistake and thereby have to redo your work? Do you not experience effort and mistakes and frustration as 'struggle'? After you're "done" learning a particular skill without struggle, what happens when you have to apply that skill at a higher level than you learned it at? Is it just joy and rainbows all the time?
When you read a novel, you’re learning the plot, the intricate relationships between the characters, forming opinions about the current and future state of the fictional world, that sort of thing. Does this feel like a struggle to you? It’s still learning, but I don’t find it a struggle, mostly because I’m enjoying the process and the experience.
A great many things can be learned in this way. Not everything I’ll grant you, I haven’t found a way to learn a language or complex mathematical topics without struggle yet. But even in my software development work if something is a joy to learn I still learn it, no struggle required.
Kids learn a lot through play, and play isn’t a struggle for kids.
I don't think it's just age, and I think the comparison to working out is apt. To gain muscle you need to get tired. To restate my previous comment in this framework: to gain muscle you need to struggle; you can go too far and injure yourself but neither is there exercise that is effortless.
I'm not sure how the gp even reasons like they do. What does effortlessly learning a new skill look like? You're just instantly good at it? The logical conclusion here is that either: 1) they're so galaxy brain that nothing is hard or 2) they're incrementing so minutely that the progress is so smooth sailing that they are able to fool themselves into not believing there ever was a struggle.
If the first option we have to consider their morals as they could save countless lives and thrust humanity generations ahead technologically, due to their ability to solve problems us mere mortals struggle with.
Personally I'm much more believing of option 2 as it makes the most sense if we consider the computational requirements for increasing precision along with our current understanding of human psychology to create these types of mental defenses as remembering the struggle can deter us from doing it again. But mostly I'm sold on option 2 because if they were so galaxy brained they'd be cognizant of the fact that the rest of us aren't and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
But hey, maybe I'm the one fooling myself here. Maybe the gp is just god. They could just be omnipotent and not omniscient. Which in that case we've answered the AGI super intelligent problem.
Effotless and without struggle are two very different things. Walking a kilometre or two to the shops isn’t a struggle, but it’s not effortless either. It takes effort but it’s pleasant and not a struggle at all. Running would be a struggle. Effortless would be having someone drive you there. See what I mean?
I think comparing math education to programming education is quite apt here. After all, programming is math[0]. Both are extremely abstract subjects that require high amounts of precision. In fact, that's why we use those languages![1]
One of the absolute most difficult parts of math is that you don't have feedback. Proving you did things correctly is not automated. You can't run it and have an independent (not you) mechanism tell you that the output is what you expect it to be. This leads to lots of frustration as you sit there thinking very hard about what you've done wrong. It is frustrating because you're often blind to the mistakes as that's why you've made them in the first place! But the upside is that you quickly become attentive to details and learn those pitfalls very well. This also means you can abstract very well (the entire point of math) as you learn to abuse things on purpose. The struggle is real, but the struggle is important to the learning process. You learn very little if there's no struggle. Your mind is made to remember things that are hard better than things that are easy.
In programming we typically have the opposite problem. You get instant feedback. This makes iteration and solving your specific problem much faster. You can experiment and learn faster as you poke and prod seeing how the output changes. BUT there is a strong tendency to leverage this too much and use it to outsource your thinking and analysis. Iterating your way to success rather than struggling and analyzing. This doesn't result in as strong of neural pathways, so you don't remember as well and you don't generalize as well. Having taught programming I can tell you that countless students graduate from university[2] thinking that because the output of their program is correct that this means that their program is correct. This is a massive failure in logic. Much easier to see in math that just because 3+3=6 and 5+1=6 doesn't mean that the process is equivalent[3]. The correctness of the program is the correctness of the process, not the correctness of the output.
While that's the typical outcome of learning programming, it isn't a necessary outcome and there's nothing stopping anyone from also using the same approach we use in math. Math is only that way because we're forced to[4]! Both have their strengths and weaknesses, but neither is strictly better. The strictly better learning path is the combination and that is the superpower we have. It's just easy to abdicate this power and only do the easy thing.
[0] We can really say this from Church-Turing but if you really have concerns with this statement you'll need to read more up on the theory of computer science and I suggest starting with lambda calculus.
[2] and even graduate degrees. You'll also see this idea prolific on HN and I'm sure someone will respond to this comment countering the point
[3] You can abstract this, I'm not going to do some long calculation here but I'm sure most people have done a long calculation where they got the right answer but the process was wrong and they had a professor still mark them wrong (and correctly so).
Maybe I am wrong about this but I think a lot of recent research has shown that trial and error is a great way to learn almost everything. Even just making an educated guess, even if it is completely wrong, before learning something makes it much more likely that you remember and understand the thing that you learn. It’s a painful and time-consuming way to learn. But very effective.
Maybe Linux commands is a little different but I kinda doubt it. Errors and feedback are the way to learn, as long as you can endure the pain of getting to the correct result.
Needs qualification. Research shows trial and error learning is very durable, but it’s not the most time efficient (in fact it’s relatively poor, usually, on that front). The two concepts are a bit different. Yes, trial and error engages more of the brain and provides a degree of difficulty that can sometimes be helpful in making the concepts sticky, but well designed teaching coupled with meaningful and appropriately difficult retrieval and practice is better on most axes. When possible… good teaching often needs refinement. And you’d be surprised how many educators know very little about the neuroscience of learning!
At the university level in the US, few faculty get any kind of training before they are expected to start teaching. And the teaching requirement is more or less “do no harm.” If you’re at a research university, which includes many publicly funded universities, then your career trajectory is based almost exclusively on your research output. I could go on, but it suffices to say that it’s not surprising that the teaching could be better.
That said, most institutions have teacher training resources for faculty. I was fortunate to be able to work intensely with a mentor for a summer, and it improved my teaching dramatically. Still, teaching is hard. Students sometimes know—but often don’t know—what is best for their learning. It’s easy to conflate student satisfaction with teaching effectiveness. The former is definitely an important ingredient, but there’s a lot more to it, and a really effective teacher knows when to employ tools (eg quizzes) that students really do not like.
I am frequently amused by the thought that here we have a bunch of people who have paid tons of money, set aside a significant fraction of their time, and nominally want to learn a subject that they signed up for; and yet, they still won’t sit down and actually do the reading unless they are going to be quizzes on it.
> the thought that here we have a bunch of people who have paid tons of money, set aside a significant fraction of their time, and nominally want to learn a subject that they signed up for; and yet, they still won’t sit down and actually do the reading unless they are going to be quizzes on it.
How often have they put down the money, as opposed to their parents?
How often do they actually care about learning the subject, as opposed to be able to credibly represent (e.g. to employers) that they have learned the subject?
How often is the nominally set-aside time actually an inconvenience? (Generally, they would either be at leisure or at the kind of unskilled work their parents would be disappointed by, right?) My recollection of university is that there was hardly any actual obligation to spend the time on anything specific aside from exams and midterms, as long as you were figuring out some way or other to do well enough on those.
I suppose I should have said “nominally want to learn” etc, but I think you are right: most students simply want the credential. I maintain that this is still a strange attitude, since at some point, some employer is going to ask you to do some skilled work in exchange for money. If you can’t do the work, you are not worth the money, credentials be damned. On the other hand, I routinely see unqualified people making a hash out of things and nobody really seems to care. Maybe the trick is not to be noticably bad at your job. Still, this all strikes me as a bad way to live when learning and doing good work is both interesting and enjoyable.
Trial and error is necessary and beneficial, but not after the student becomes frustrated or anxious/bewildered by the complexity. The research shows that striking a balance between teacher intervention and trial and error is the optimal approach. If a teacher notices that a student is way off course but they keep persisting in one branch of the trial-and-error search space, it’ll be best if they intervene and put the student on the right branch. The student can still use the knowledge of what wasn’t working to find the solution on the right branch, but just persisting would be ineffective.
Gaining true understanding/insight is necessarily trial and error. Teachers cannot teach insight. But they can present the optimal path to gain insight.
Trial and error was the root of what became my IT career. I became curious about what each executable did from DOS and with that did my first tweaking of autoexec.bat and config.sys to maximise memory.
Years later I was the only one who could investigate network (and some other) problems in Windows via the command line while I was the junior of the team. Ended up being the driver of several new ways of working for the department and company.
Ditto. I found that people whose attitude was “let’s just try it” tended to be a lot more capable and effective. Nevertheless the prevailing wisdom when I was in IT was that if you had a problem that didn’t have an obvious solution, you had to purchase the solution.
I'd add nuance to Hermans' work. Its not all experiment blind, but also not feedback-less. They advocate for "direct instruction", not just rote learning.
> As that is not a surprise, since research keeps showing that direct instruction—explanation followed by a lot of focused practice—works well.
There’s a pretty rich literature around this style of pedagogy going back for decades and it is certainly not a new idea. My preferred formulation is Vygotsky’s “zone of proximal development” [1], which is the set of activities that a student can do with assistance from a teacher but not on their own. Keeping a student in the ZPD is pretty easy in a one-on-one setting, and can be done informally, but it is much harder when teaching a group of students (like a class). The. Latter requires a lot more planning, and often leans on tricks like “scaffolded” assignments that let the more advanced students zoom ahead while still providing support to students with a more rudimentary understanding.
Direct instruction sounds similar but in my reading I think the emphasis is more on small, clearly defined tasks. Clarity is always good, but I am not sure that I agree that smallness is. There are times, particularly when students are confused, that little steps are important. But it is also easy for students to lose sight of the goals when they are asked to do countless little steps. I largely tuned out during my elementary school years because class seemed to be entirely about pointless minutiae.
By contrast, project work is often highly motivational for students, especially when projects align with student interests. A good project keeps a student directly in their ZPD, because when they need your help, they ask. Lessons that normally need a lot of motivation to keep students interested just arise naturally.
I actually feel like the Unix/Gnu CLI is quite nice (yes I'm used to it already). I feel like it provides a lot of consistency through community standardization and standardization through POSIX and libraries. For example it's quite difficult to find a program that breaks the "-o --option" long/short options and if you do the "man command" or "info command" pages will tell you how to use a program. In my experience this is quite different on for example Windows.
Learning it is a step but once you've learned the basics you can read 90% of the commands.
I’m curious: what do you see as unnecessary about the CLI? Or, to put it another way, in what way should the CLI be changed so that the only remaining difficulties are the necessary ones?
I'm not qualified to give a complete answer, but I think two main issues are the proliferation of flags in standard tools (e.g. ls has a lot of flags for sorting behavior) and the extreme preference for plain text. Text is very useful, but a lot of semantic information gets discarded. Representing structured data is painful, stdin/stdout/stderr are all in one place, window resizing makes a mess sometimes (even "write at end of line" isn't given), and so on. I'm definitely not qualified to describe just how to fix these issues, though.
I think you hit the nail on the head. Plaintext is universal in a way that nothing else really is. Outputting structured data means that consumers would have to process structured data. That definitely raises the difficulty of the programming. It’s not an easy problem, but I also do not have any good ideas.
I'm trying to remember being a young Unix user but it was four decades ago, so the details become hazy. Nevertheless the proper go-to after the manpage fails to clarify matters is the same as it ever was, that is, one reads the source code, if you have it, and this is easier today than ever.
Getting a pipeline wrong 5 times is common. The normal process is: write a couple of steps, right output! Add a grep, bad output! Fix it, again, again, right output! Add cut -bM-N, adjust the boundaries a few times. Sort the output. Oops, sort -n
> But I am having a hard time imagining it's the best way to learn to pipe together commands.
To be honest, it is very strange how hard it is to teach programming concepts, for some reason almost all humans use computers but only 0.1% or so can program them.
I am not sure we have the 'best way' to teach anything computer related.
People develop world model for physics quite early, they know they can pull with a rope but cant push with a rope.
And they get intuition, things that are thrown up, go down, and they can transfer this intuition in the math, because math is real.
For some reason its hard to do that with code. People keep trying to push with a rope, even after studying for many years.
PS: I am trying to teach her neural networks now and am working on this RNN board game https://punkx.org/projekt0/book/part2/rnn.html to fight the "square" dragon. I want her to develop good world model for neural networks, so that she understands what chatgpt is. I just keep experimenting, sometimes things click, sometimes not.
> almost all humans use computers but only 0.1% or so can program them.
This is nitpicking but I was curious: there are 4.4 million software developers in the US (https://www.griddynamics.com/blog/number-software-developers...). The population is 340 million, 0.1% would be 340,000. You’re off by over one order of magnitude.
Yea, and I think it is amazing, but in the same time it will work for some and not for others
The same way scratch works for some, redstone for others, and https://strudel.cc/ for third
I think the truth is that we are more different than alike, and computers are quite strange.
I personally was professionally coding, and writing hundreds of lines of code per day for years, and now I look at this code and I can see that I was not just bad, I literally did not know what programming is.
Human code is an expression of the mind that thinks it. Some language allow us to better see into the author's mind, e.g forth and lisp, leak the most, c also leaks quite a lot e.g. reading antirez's code or https://justine.lol/lambda/, or phk or even k&r, go leaks the least I think.
Anyway, my point is, programming is quite personal, and many people have to find their own way.
PS: what I call programming is very distant from "professional software development"
I’m wondering whether it could be played with a Unix box connected to the big TV in the living room so that with each command added to the pipe you can see the result. That’s my instinct for what to do with this, although it does feel like it is a play once kind of game.
I’d been thinking more just typing the commands into a terminal window on the big screen, but something like this could be really helpful for seeing the intermediate steps.
I came to say the same thing: I love the idea of the quick escape, but some of the sites take way too long to load. They should prioritize sites with the fastest loading (smallest footprint) over some of the jokey-er websites like "43 Gifts for Every Type of Boss."
I really disagree with the label brainrot. Brainrot is low-quality garbage with no artistic merit, and very little thought behind its creation, which does nothing but make you briefly pause while scrolling, before scrolling away with no lasting impression being done to your mind (besides increased boredom and inability to focus).
This is clearly an artistic statement, whether you like the art or not. A ton of thought and time was put into it. And people will likely be thinking and discussing this video for some time to come.
I think I have a different definition of brainrot than you. I think of attention grabbing visuals that have no meaning, just something to keep your eyes glued to the screen.
A good example are those Subway Surfers split screen videos, where someone is babbling about nothing in one frame, but the visuals in the other keep people watching.
Another example is AI-narrated “news” on YouTube. Nobody would normally listen to an AI voice read AI slop, but if there are some extreme video clips quickly switching every few seconds, people don’t immediately click away.
Brain rot shreds the attention span and uses all kinds of psychological tricks to keep people engaged. In the Helicopter video, every second is packed with visual information, not to contribute to the narrative but to capture attention. The backgrounds are full of details. The camera never stops moving. The subjects depicted are even attention grabbing: police lights, dancing people, guns, car crashes, flamethrowers! Hey, does that guy have pink curlers in his hair?
It’s not that I don’t like it (I kinda do), but a media diet of that kind of content is bad for the brain.
Long before the racism thing, I remember how grossed out I was by him complaining that he only got to have sex when his girlfriend wanted it, therefore his girlfriend, and women in general, were the "gatekeepers" of sex.
Completing failing to recognize that consent is a two person affair.
Sure sounds like Adams was consenting to sex and the person gatekeeping the sex and making the consent not a two person affair was his girlfriend, which is why Adams was complaining to begin with.
You're entitled to feel grossed out by this I suppose but your feelings have nothing to do with whether Adams was correct or reasonable or not.
The weird part is, calling women gatekeepers of sex. When it is also men who gatekeeps.
The gross part is, that this reminds of older times, when men had the legal right to have sex with their wife whenever they wanted (it is a quite new thing, that there can be rape in marriage, the current chancellor of germany famously opposed this legal change). In short, patriarcharical BS that women are objects owned by men and that this is the natural order.
I would guess that Adams probably wanted to have sex more than his girlfriend did, which meant that he had lots of personal experiences of his girlfriend not wanting to have sex when he did; and few if any personal experiences of not wanting to have sex when his girlfriend did. From his perspective, this looks like women (his girlfriend in particular) being the gatekeeper of sex. And this is what he was complaining about.
On a society-wide level, men are systematically more interested in having sex more often and in more contexts than women are. So lots of people in heterosexual relationships have experiences similar to Adams' (sex not happening in cases where the man wants it and the woman doesn't), which is why the rhetorical trope that women are the gatekeepers of sex exists.
But I'm still a little confused. Most quadrupeds have their front toes facing forward, right? If the first T-Rex did a belly-flop and caught itself on its palms, they'd be facing forward like a dog's. If the second T-Rex did a belly flop, its toes would be facing outward, like Charlie Chaplin's feet.
1. https://geppettostoybox.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/trex....
2. https://s3.envato.com/files/471149443/Realistic%20Trex%20Din...