Live data from Hacker News

Too Clever by Half

epsilontheory.com

191–200 of 261 posts

Re: Too Clever by Half

#191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Schools are really failing their students by not helping them realize just how difficult university and "real life" can be.

Actually university is fairly easy if you seize the learning opportunities that courses give you; many students attend neither lectures nor tutorials/exercises nor tutoriae and then complain how difficult it is to pass the exam . This still happens even though older semesters will tell any freshmen that they need to attend courses and do exercises to make it. What kinda works are mandatory exercises.

[deleted]

Re: Too Clever by Half

#192
post #80
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also realized this which made me game the whole schooling system. I didn't study and had a poor attendance but still got an award for the being the school's best student. Pretty crazy when I think about it. Suffice to say, my strategy didn't work very well in university.

I would like to go back to university and take notes this time. We had past years' exams available in our library if you knew where to look, so I learned to cram before tests and exams instead of learning to take notes.

[deleted]

Re: Too Clever by Half

#193

Reminds me of when Andy Dufresne thought he was protecting himself when he told the warden he'd never tell anyone about cooking his books.

what scene in shawshank are you referring to

When Andy's trying to get the warden to let Tommy tell them he's innocent

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_IrCgt-Bt1I&t=3m53s#

Re: Too Clever by Half

#194
> The coyotes know exactly where the invisible fence begins and ends, without the benefit of ever wearing a shock collar. How do I know? Because they intentionally leave their scat on their side of the invisible fence, creating a demilitarized zone as precise and as well-observed as anything on the Korean peninsula. Occasionally a coyote will try to test our dogs by leaving its scat juuusst over the line on our side of the DMZ.

My question is, why does the human think coyote scat on the other side of the line was precisely placed and scat on his side of the line is an intentional provocation? A more reasonable explanation is that the coyotes don't know exactly where the invisible line is.

Re: Too Clever by Half

#195
post #141

I read the entire article. My take: don't bother unless you have some time and are looking to be mildly entertained (very mildly IMO). It's fluff. The central analogy is a little amusing but doesn't even roughly fit reality. In chasing its premise the article ignores a key dynamic of "financial innovation" schemes, which is that the schemers largely avoid the negative consequences of their schemes. Well, the money sp…

Yeah, basically nobody went to jail, and yet, he considers Bear Sterns losing its independent existence to be the equivalent of a coyote getting shot? Sloppy thinking there.

Re: Too Clever by Half

#196
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All day? I guess I'm making an assumption here about the internal desires of a dog but I think she'd prefer to roam several hectares, even with the risk of an electrical shock, rather than be tied to a stick.

Maybe she would prefer to roam free behind an ordinary fence and not have to risk an electrical shock? The reason this is used instead of a fence has nothing to do with the dog's preferences (which of course we can't know), safety, or convenience. Instead, the reason seems to be cost. I don't see how it's possible to justify avoiding the cost of building a fence by mistreating your animals. If the man who has this fa…

I'm curious how much firsthand knowledge you have of these systems.

1) The electrical shock is not truly painful. It's startling and highly unpleasant, but it's not painful, for short bursts. I can't speak for all systems, but for the ones I tested (albeit holding the collar in my hand, not on my neck), it was no worse than typical electric fencing, which is widely used.

2) These systems have the benefit of not affecting other animals, and dogs and other animals cannot get stuck in them. We had an electric fence around a duck nesting ground growing up, and I'll never forget the morning we found a whimpering fox that had somehow gotten tangled in the wires. I guess it had jumped at the shock and pulled a wire off the fence? I don't know. But it had the electrified wire wrapped around a back paw. At least it was a pulsing fence (rather than constant current); so the fox didn't appear to have a bad burn, though I'm sure being stuck in it for hours was terrible (and truly painful).

2b) They also do not impede the traffic or cut off travel corridors of other wildlife, which can be a real problem in some areas.

3) Ordinary fences are (often) less effective. Given enough time and a large amount of fence that cannot be thoroughly checked & repaired regularly, dogs will find a way to escape. They'll dig under, they'll jump over, they'll climb, they'll chew holes in, etc. We had a super smart lab who figured out how to climb a chain link fence. Depending on the risks of escape, this can be highly dangerous.

4) The risk of shock is typically very low. When these systems are installed, they are typically buried along natural boundaries, and when they aren't, you put temporary flags in the ground to show the dog where the boundary is. So the dog very quickly learns the boundary, learns what the beep means, and rarely gets a shock after the first couple of days.

Overall, I don't think these systems are signficantly less humane than other types of fencing – probably more humane if you're comparing them to traditional electric fencing.

That said, these fences aren't perfect either. I have another friend who installed one to keep his husky from leaving his ~3 acre yard, because the dog was breaking into a neighbor's chicken coop. It worked for a while, but eventually that husky realized she could just get a running start, jump over the boundary, take the brief shock, and then be free. The drive to get those chickens was just too compelling. Of course, the drive to return home was not quite as strong. So she'd sit at the edge of boundary, whining to be let back into the yard.

A traditional fence might have been more effective in that case, though I think that husky would have found a way out. She was relentless and clever. They had to get rid of her eventually, when their neighbor threatened to put out bowls of antifreeze – now that's disgusting! (To be fair, this was in rural Alabama ~15 years go, and that neighbor depended on the chickens/eggs for food. Still disgusting, but the frustration is understandable if a dog is literally taking food out of your kid's mouth.)

Re: Too Clever by Half

#197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Maybe try to figure out how to make the work fun? > I don't think this is the right approach, because you need the ability to focus on work even when it is not fun. this is just coming from my personal experience, but i think it is very important for a kid to have a job sometime in the high school years. my parents are fairly well off and they "protected" me from this need by just giving me spending money (sometim…

One way to control unnecessary spending is to put the price in terms of how many hours you had to work to get that money. Then it becomes easy to put the item back on the shelf.

i agree, and i often think things out explicitly that way. i actually take a step further though. some fraction of my expenses are fixed (rent, insurance, food to an extent) which leaves me with some percentage of disposable income, call it 25% for this example. so if i get paid $20/hr, a $20 item that isn't absolutely necessary doesn't cost me one hour of work, but rather four, because three quarters of that money is "already spent". suddenly it doesn't seem like i need the shiny new gadget that badly.

Re: Too Clever by Half

#198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Talking with a friend recently about how "wild" our pet dogs are. In the local area, dogs get out at night and form packs that hunt calves and lambs and simply kill them and leave the bodies. There is a good business in hunting feral cats and dogs that were pets and have been left to fend for themselves in the wild because they were no longer wanted.

It's changed as the demographics shifted and the county urbanized but thirty years ago the local sheriff still issued deputy animal control papers to hunters, farmers, woodsmen, etc. who reported dog packs. There are fewer farms, greater housing density, more posted land, revised laws, and different attitudes toward animal control (generally, better) but the problem still occasionally comes up. Feral dogs aren't just…

Yup, many dog owners I know are shocked to find out that it's legal in most states to kill a dog that's harassing livestock(hasn't yet done physical harm).

Re: Too Clever by Half

#199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue with all of this is most people are rule abiding citizens, that's why it's so easy to game the system and get away with it. (Thinking about businesses & politicians)

I think you're missing the point of what GP is saying. My interpretation was that rules are only an approximation for what the rulemakers actually care about, and if you understand that, optimizing for what they want and not what they say will be a lot better for you than doing what they say but not what they want.

I think you're missing his point here.

Yes, those of us that question and break rules can optimize for what is actually desired vs what is 'proscribed' and have better outcomes.

But many/most people rather just follow the rules/directions in the first place rather than break the rules or attempt to find optimal ways around them.

Post reply on HN