[deleted]
Playboy Interview: Steve Jobs (1985)
81–90 of 122 posts
Re: Playboy Interview: Steve Jobs (1985)
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a cat who was separated from its mother too early. It shows some vague abilities at hunting, but is quite inept at it. I've also seen a documentary that claimed humans have a unique ability to respond to pointing. Pointing is a big part of teaching. No animal has as lengthy a childhood as humans, and that is to teach them how to survive. It just doesn't make any sense that people are inherently bad at teaching…
> It just doesn't make any sense that people are inherently bad at teaching. Whether it makes sense or not, what is your personal experience with others who try to teach you? Did you have nothing but highly effective teachers in school? If you did, you are in the rare minority.
The negation of:
"Most people are actually pretty bad at explaining things in a clear, concise, helpful way, very often especially people well-versed in the field they are trying to explain. Communicating complex concepts to non-experts is indeed a fairly rare skill."
is not:
"nothing but highly effective teachers".
Re: Playboy Interview: Steve Jobs (1985)
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It just doesn't make any sense that people are inherently bad at teaching. Whether it makes sense or not, what is your personal experience with others who try to teach you? Did you have nothing but highly effective teachers in school? If you did, you are in the rare minority.
The negation of: "Most people are actually pretty bad at explaining things in a clear, concise, helpful way, very often especially people well-versed in the field they are trying to explain. Communicating complex concepts to non-experts is indeed a fairly rare skill." is not: "nothing but highly effective teachers".
Why not?
Re: Playboy Interview: Steve Jobs (1985)
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It just doesn't make any sense that people are inherently bad at teaching. Whether it makes sense or not, what is your personal experience with others who try to teach you? Did you have nothing but highly effective teachers in school? If you did, you are in the rare minority.
The negation of: "Most people are actually pretty bad at explaining things in a clear, concise, helpful way, very often especially people well-versed in the field they are trying to explain. Communicating complex concepts to non-experts is indeed a fairly rare skill." is not: "nothing but highly effective teachers".
[deleted]
Re: Playboy Interview: Steve Jobs (1985)
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
The negation of: "Most people are actually pretty bad at explaining things in a clear, concise, helpful way, very often especially people well-versed in the field they are trying to explain. Communicating complex concepts to non-experts is indeed a fairly rare skill." is not: "nothing but highly effective teachers".
Why not?
Because the negation of 10% is 90%, not 10%.
Re: Playboy Interview: Steve Jobs (1985)
#86Re: Playboy Interview: Steve Jobs (1985)
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
XYZ coords done.
This idea you had, interestingly, has nasty traps. 1. You need to specify an “origin” which is (0,0). This is hard because there is more than one good choice (base or top of a brick?), the structure base may be more than a single brick wide, and you still need an orientation for the base bricks relative to the table, since if they’re at an angle, it isn’t the same. 2. This fails, or at least complicates, on structure…
> there is more than one good choice
I've had to explain to folks many times (and convince myself) that at some point, once you recognize there are multiple valid 'good' options, you need to move forward. There's often little long term benefit to identifying the 'better' or 'best' option for many projects - you just need an agreed consensus on the ground rules.
Also, what seems to be left off of these exercises sometimes is the concept of subroutines. At some point, rather than giving you explicit instructions for PB&J (like, extend hand, move towards knife, curl fingers around knife handle, move arm back to original position, etc), that can be coded as a named macro/subroutine, and we can just say "grab knife". (or... "grab knife by handle!")
Re: Playboy Interview: Steve Jobs (1985)
#88>Playboy: And in the meantime? >Jobs: The developments will be in making the products more and more portable... maybe the merging of the telephone and the personal computer. Hard to believe this was 1984, it almost sounded like the original iPhone was 20+ years in baking
Well the first smartphone was prototyped around 1992 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Simon
Re: Playboy Interview: Steve Jobs (1985)
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the negation of 10% is 90%, not 10%.
Except that we are not talking about numbers, we are talking about human behavior. Applying a formula to that, as you are attempting to do, is not going to give you the conclusions you expect.
FYI he's applying logical operations to sentences as logical propositions, which is valid and precise. Not hand wavey, and condescending like you are doing.
Re: Playboy Interview: Steve Jobs (1985)
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except that we are not talking about numbers, we are talking about human behavior. Applying a formula to that, as you are attempting to do, is not going to give you the conclusions you expect.
FYI he's applying logical operations to sentences as logical propositions, which is valid and precise. Not hand wavey, and condescending like you are doing.
Looks like all three of us are being a bit condescending here.
Here is the actual logic: if people are not inherently bad at teaching, that means they are mostly effective at it, right? Were most of the teachers you've had in your life effective at teaching? Mine certainly were not.
Perhaps you were having problems with the use of my word "nothing" instead of "mostly," which is just a colloquialism. Idioms of language rarely respond to logic in the way numbers do.