Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Math from Three to Seven

thepsmiths.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 225 posts

Re: Math from Three to Seven

#161

Post by LarsDu88 »

throw_pm23 wrote: post #107
LarsDu88 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The truth is, the Soviet bloc consistently made lower quality stuff or had much poorer training. There's are a persistent set of myths that both the Soviets and the western arms manufacturers like to perpetuate. The t-34 tank was the greatest tank ever (sometimes had 10:1 losses offset by 14:1 manufacturing) The ak-47 is the best due to is reliability (poor tolerances made it both reliable and astoundingly inaccurate…

Even Napoleon's weapons were vastly superior to the Russian ones at the time... oh, wait :)

You need to look at the casualty figures from the actual battles, not the attrition figures from Napoleon's march back to French allied territory. Russian soldiers under Russian (very often not ethnic russian) generals suffered staggering losses.

But the Russian Empire in 19th century is not the Soviet empire in the 20th century. This topic is about Soviet math and engineering, not 19th century Russia

Re: Math from Three to Seven

#164

Post by bdjsiqoocwk »

shepherdjerred wrote: post #65
philosopher1234 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know any definition of actually educating yourself that would exclude reading fiction. And why are you focused on the purpose of producing scientific talent?

The article is trying to explain why the Soviets were so good at keeping up with the US in science/math

Right... tell me you didn't read the article, am I right. That's why I didn't bother replying. I often feel the impulse to reply to "show everyone that this guy is talking nonsense" but if that's obvious other people will see it too, so I say nothing.

Re: Math from Three to Seven

#165

Post by generationP »

noemit wrote: post #81

USSR was feminist in some regards. Women had women-only spaces to learn math and science. There is a lot more equality of performance in STEM in former soviet populations.

Also a huge drinking problem that is not entirely but mostly concentrated in men.

Re: Math from Three to Seven

#166

Post by generationP »

Illniyar wrote: post #38

Regarding Soviet prowess, I always considered the fact that going to higher education considerably shortened and made easier your military draft term to be a main factor. Everyone who could went to university, because why wouldn't you? This incentive pressure and selection bias we're probably insane.

That and even better: it opened the doors towards a lot of the better jobs, both in terms of working conditions and offering some amount of breathing room.

Education was a more significant social elevator in the East than in the West, first and foremost because the ground level was much lower.

Re: Math from Three to Seven

#167

Post by munificent »

redundantly wrote: post #50
munificent wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's also narrow minded to insist that only passion for engineering itself can produce high quality results. It's like claiming famously wealthy musicians can't and don't make remarkable, impactful music. I think you're making a logical fallacy, or at least you seem to be implying that the set of "famously wealthy" people is disjoint with the set of people who are passionate. Sure, famously wealthy musicians can ma…

I never said anything about laziness, so I’m not sure why you’re adding that qualifier. I take it you believe that without pure love or enjoyment in something, a person could only be lazy. Inspiration doesn’t require passion for the art to come first, or even at all. Look at Gene Simmons. He co-founded one of the most successful, influential rock bands ever, driven by the goal of becoming rich and running a successfu…

I was looking for an antonym for "passionate". You're right that "lazy" doesn't quite capture it.

> Look at Gene Simmons. He co-founded one of the most successful, influential rock bands ever, driven by the goal of becoming rich and running a successful business, not by an unadulterated love for music.

This is a good example because while Kiss certainly has popularity, few of their songs are really loved for their musicality. Kiss' music is more about being a good time than good music per se.

Sort of like how Garfield is an effective comic product but not actually really funny in the way that other comics are.

In both of these cases, the creator is passionate about something and working hard at delivering it. They're passionate about providing a certain product experience, and less so about "art" (for however you want to define that).

But imagine a version of Gene Simmons that didn't have the passion to master playing the bass and also didn't have the passion to grind every day at making Kiss a world-known rock band. That person isn't someone you'll ever hear of.

Re: Math from Three to Seven

#168

Post by ykonstant »

sahmeepee wrote: post #78
isaacfrond wrote: post #77

omg, 'midwit teacher deducts marks for failing to write answers in a designated format' this is exactly the math teacher my kids have. So frustrating.

In this country many teachers have been taught that it's important for kids to be able to use a range of approaches to solve a problem. They then force them to use each of the prescribed set of methods even when they are totally inappropriate for the task. Any deviation from the method they are told to use for that question is wrong. No creation of your own adapted methods is acceptable. In other words, the teachers…

"You're all individuals!"

"Yes!"

"You're all different!"

"We're all different!"

"..I'm not."

"Shh."

Re: Math from Three to Seven

#169

Post by 082349872349872 »

tightbookkeeper wrote: post #139
082349872349872 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fascism was explicitly and proudly anti-intellectual, eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achille_Starace#:~:text=On%20o...

I think you’re missing a lot of historical context. If by “intellectual” you mean cosmopolitan university professors and government administrators then yes. This also closely associated with internalization, relativism, and Jewish culture. If by “intellectual” you mean learning, reading, thinking, then no.

That's a novel thesis; do you have historical examples to provide a basis for believing it?

(Starace, above, is already an obvious counterexample)

Re: Math from Three to Seven

#170

Post by 082349872349872 »

komali2 wrote: post #29
bdjsiqoocwk wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Quantify in my opinion requires qualify because, how many is "a lot?" But broad strokes, the USSR was an intellectual powerhouse. Add as many "in spite of"'s as you like, but in my opinion the "a lot" target is achieved. You mention science and I'll get to that, but I want to first target what I feel is a general misconception of the Soviet Union as like, a bleak concrete-ridden, muddy backwater of labor camps (it ki…

> Imagine if the two nations had been cooperating with eachother.

I think Kennedy and Khrushchev, having defused the Cuban Missile Crisis, might have started on a path leading in this direction — but both of them got cancelled.

Post reply on HN