134 reputation
4
bio website
location
age
visits member for 10 months
seen 2 days ago

The solution is the vertical (i.e. dense) city! In addition to the major nature waster, it solves a lot of aspects of the problem (e.g. forests and heating). What is the problem? Have you ever heard that all your technological advance is based on oil, that is over?

I ask a lot of questions and "I have extreemly low tolerance for the stupid bullshit" (G. Carlin). Yes, beauty is not relative. Particularly, this means that I do not accept bullshit. Circular argument (it is so because it is so) or unrelated details are not arguments. Do you consider this rude? Go fuck. I'd rather offend people than pander to them.

pay especially close attention whenever an idea is being suppressed.

It seems to me that the idiocy is amplified by Fluff Principle here. I consider Stackexchange a best place for challenging the assumptions in popular beliefs. But, I see that people, who are unable to listen, practice ostracism. The bigots from all over the world confer to ignore my argument and preach what they know, the simple minded beliefs. For instance, why don't we have spacedelta in python, why direction makes difference between scalars and vectors, conductor must gain charge when electrons are set into motion, what is the point of accept method in visitor pattern. These are all cases where I ask to argue for the fundamental basics and all are massively downvoted. People hate to know why popular things are like they are! This is bigotry. Or overprotect me(e.g saying that macros are evil).

Stackoverflow: Debugging means localizing the bug. In 99.9% debugging exposes the bug and it is not a subject of StackOverflow. StackOverflow can only be useful if you describe some weirdness and do it very clearly. You say: here is A and therefore must be B. But I do not see it. What is a problem? The code snippet must be no longer than necessary to expose the problem. When user posts his program awhole, he demonstrates that he made no attempt to localize the bug.


Dec
12
revised Are mnemonics by creating associations good for memory?
added 294 characters in body
Dec
4
comment Are mnemonics by creating associations good for memory?
Well, that is interesting. The book that I refer says that its author manages to memorize the hundreds of students that he cursorly met in the seminars and advises these methods to be used in the daily life. Also, Idriz Zogaj proposes these techqniques to fix the world education system at TED talk.
Dec
4
comment Are mnemonics by creating associations good for memory?
Wait, I do not how to reconcile the memorizing with forgetting. Might be we should not memorize them in the first place?
Dec
4
comment Why don't people read instructions?
What is intellectual? Intellect is a combination of your biological giftedness plus cultural lessons. You say that the degradation is in their nature, they were born like this, which means that the factor in question is biological rather than cultural. Intelligence does exist alone, without biology and training as computer programs do not appear without programmers and computers.
Dec
4
asked Are mnemonics by creating associations good for memory?
Dec
4
awarded  Supporter
Dec
4
comment Why don't people read instructions?
Biological degradation of people by virtue of civilization? I have created a question to ask for the decay speed, biology.stackexchange.com/questions/7686
Dec
4
awarded  Commentator
Dec
4
comment Why don't people read instructions?
They have no time
Dec
4
awarded  Editor
Dec
4
revised Why neural architecture is not hardwired for N-dimensional vision but hardwired for abstract math?
memory athletes: you can remember only pictures, not abstract thoughts
Jul
15
comment Why neural architecture is not hardwired for N-dimensional vision but hardwired for abstract math?
@anon Yes. Your answer lacks the contrast with the visualization capacity. For me, the intuition is something like visualization. Intially, the picture of studied subject is blank. But, any subject, if it is not a mess, it has a structure. As you gain intuition, the picture starts appearing. You start seeing some contours of objects, their relations and ways to pass from this point to that point, similarly to orientation in 3d space with only exception that in abstract subject you have something like graph instead of 3d sweep. So, I wondering: what is the difference with visualization?
Jul
10
comment Why neural architecture is not hardwired for N-dimensional vision but hardwired for abstract math?
You could say what he meant to say, whether his words have meaningful interepretation rather than claiming that visualization of 3d has nothing to do with visualization of 3d.
Jul
10
comment Why neural architecture is not hardwired for N-dimensional vision but hardwired for abstract math?
Nothing makes sense. All words are useless because they do not mean what they mean. That is why Susskind came up with n dimensions and visualization. Only abstract thinking is reality.
Jul
10
comment Why neural architecture is not hardwired for N-dimensional vision but hardwired for abstract math?
Why students can develop the abstract thinking but not 1d sensory system? Why do I need 1d sensory system for visualizing 1d space? Which kind of sensory system is needed for abstract thinking?
Jul
10
comment Why neural architecture is not hardwired for N-dimensional vision but hardwired for abstract math?
Adaptability just explains that you can learn both abstract thinking and visualization. It does not explain why you can learn first but not the other.
Jul
10
comment Why neural architecture is not hardwired for N-dimensional vision but hardwired for abstract math?
Ok. I just cannot understand why people, who are both hardwired neither for abstract thinking nor n-dim visualization, can do the first but not the second, according to Susskind? How susskind be right? Is he right? Why are we slaves of our neural architecture w.r.t visulalization but not wrt abstract thinking? Why we can penetrate the abstract thinking barrier but not the n-dim visualization?
Jun
25
comment Why neural architecture is not hardwired for N-dimensional vision but hardwired for abstract math?
That is not question, what. "Visualizing the abstractions" may be off-topic here since neither I nor Susskind concerned that. You hardwire the abstractions, you do not visualize them. Meantime, you cannot hardware the n-dim space visualization. The question is why you can hardwire the abstractions but fail to hardwire non-3d visulization?
Jun
24
comment Why neural architecture is not hardwired for N-dimensional vision but hardwired for abstract math?
I ask why you can see the abstract ideas but not N-dimensional space. I do not say that you should deduce the image of N-dimensional space from the abstract description of it. I care only why you can grasp one but not the other. If grain is flexible to learn whatever it should be able to start visualizing non-3d spaces. You was born without the capability to process abstract algebra. You developed this capacity. Why you cannot develop the capacity to see 1- or 4-dimentional lines?
Jun
22
awarded  Student