= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Pretty much everything I have to say is in EDIT http://www.gwern.net/Spaced%20repetition
In response to
SRS advice
Link unavailable, new one seems to be: http://www.gwern.net/Spaced%20repetition
But not everything is the way it was. Before he made any wishes, he had three.
She missed the chance to trap him in an infinite loop.
Probably true at a lot of universities, although it might still be true that you'll have a better hit rate at university than at most other places.
Yes.
I think I found quite a few groups where the group topic was barely talked about outside of formal events. To some degree thats normal and good. It just irritates me when the rate is extremely low.
In response to
What are useful skills to learn at university?
Some universally important skills that I wish I had been a lot better at in college:
- Networking and selling yourself. None of the other (professional) skills you develop will matter if you can't get a job where you use them.
- How to collaborate effectively.
- Setting priorities and time management.
Beyond that, it's very important to know what your goals/values are. What do you want to get out of an ideal career? Why are you majoring in physics? It's hard to optimize before you know what you're optimizing for.
Self-organization, efficient working are not actually taught. Neither is planning. Often you have voluntary courses on university work. But you do get pressured into either doing it or fail. The scientific method might be taught, but you don't have to get it. to succeed.
Often one learns systematic working and math. Somewhat scientific working, quoting right.
I think university teaches some things indirectly that are hard to explain explicitly and hard to become aware that they actually matter.
In response to
What are useful skills to learn at university?
For most people, college is the last chance you have to interact with smart, ambitious people in fields outside your own. You should take advantage of that diversity while you can, as it will pay off both in rewarding friendships and intellectual stimulation down the line.
Not my experience. (Sadly). Most students I interacted with at university were less than interested to talk about subject matters at all.
In response to
How to get cryocrastinators to actually sign up for cryonics
I'm wondering if there is any selfish reason to want procryostinators to sign up, other than hoping that more participants would improve the odds of your favorite cryo outfit surviving until the time revival becomes feasible, or that more research would go into it?
Scaling effects. Both in social stigma, infrastructure in cases of emergency, actual costs, research and what not. With the current low amount of people who are signed every additional person actually improves the condition.
In response to
How to get cryocrastinators to actually sign up for cryonics
If anyone else dislikes Rudi the way I do (and doesn't need his help to get signed up at all), my life insurance company is pretty okay; they're called New York Life. I picked them off a list of cryo-friendly insurance companies Alcor provided in an info packet (even though I went with CI) and they have been very responsive and are willing to conduct all relevant business without the use of telephones (which criterion is part of how I narrowed down said list).
I like phones. (for me skype call is basically the same as a phone call). But i mostly use loud speaker. I could imagine a few more reasons why someone wouldnt like phones. It seems odd to make this an actual criterion, but good if companies can deal with it.
In response to
comment
by
on
On the Care and Feeding of Young Rationalists -- Revisited[Draft] [Request for Feedback]
The study you quoted only seems to address if signing helped the child learn spoken word labels about certain toys.
The (possible) benefit of signing is that the child can communicate with you about whether they are hungry, thirsty, cold, hot, have a wet diaper, etc.--not about whether the child can name different toys. The study doesn't address whether or not sign language reduces frusteration in children or whether children can learn signs for how they feel faster or slower than they can learn the same spoken words.
In response to
comment
by
on
On the Care and Feeding of Young Rationalists -- Revisited[Draft] [Request for Feedback]
== removing some frustration from the early childhood experience
In response to
comment
by
[deleted]
on
On the Care and Feeding of Young Rationalists -- Revisited[Draft] [Request for Feedback]
Sometimes children are bullied by children of the same age, so separating children by exact age does not help with this. It may reduce the frequency, but I can imagine other ways of solving this problem; for example having adult people near, or using cameras in schools, in case of problem looking at the evidence and actually punishing the bullies.
I only have anecdotal evidence, but it seems to me that the biggest problem with bullying is that the bullies are never seriously punished, simply because the bullies are children too, and there is always someone there to protect the child from any harm, even if that child is actively trying to ham another child. And every time the bully gets the "second chance", the victim gets a lesson in helplessness.
In response to
comment
by
on
On the Care and Feeding of Young Rationalists -- Revisited[Draft] [Request for Feedback]
Sometimes children are bullied by children of the same age, so separating children by exact age does not help with this
I wonder which way the causation goes here. It might be that bullying occurs because they do not interact with each other that much, or because being seen with a different-aged person is considered uncool.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Re: talking about problems in the biochemistry field in general:
I'm sure that there are lots of problems, and I don't mean to invalidate anyone's points, but on the bright side, genetic sequencing has been getting faster and cheaper FASTER than moore's law predicts. http://www.forbes.com/sites/techonomy/2012/01/12/dna-sequencing-is-now-improving-faster-than-moores-law/
We're ALMOST to the point where we do full-genome sequencing on a tumor biopsy to adjust a patient's chemo drugs. The results unfortunately haven't been reproducible yet, so it's not quite ready for clinical practice, but by golly we're close. It currently costs about $4,000 per genome, and we're less than 10 years after the Human Genome Project which was 13 years and 3 billion dollars for a single genome. One company claims its soon-to-be-released machine will do it in 4-5 days for $900.
Thats mostly engineering, not science.