Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | eager_learner's commentslogin

Amazon is the same now. I can't find books on it that I know for sure exist on it. It always pushes something else first.

Search by ISBN works as expected for books

thanks.

this ought to put flat-earthers completely down. :)

meaning what exactly ?


I really love the back-and-forth in this mini-thread, I learned a lot about good thinking skills here. Thanks everyone.


Evolution is questionable science. i am not trying to be contrarian. it's not dogma nor it is established, scientifically proved theory. Proponents, usually when cornered, shrug and say: 'well, this is the best explanation we have so far'. That's not science. Best possible scenario is speculation by a group of people with mediocre thinking skills.

Mentioning this here because just like your comment, this 'theory' is usually slid inside arguments to make it appear as established science or fact. Kinda like this AI debacle.


The "theory" of evolution" stopped being a theory when DNA was discovered and it's role understood. Now it's just the inevitable fact of evolution.


if that's true and evolutionists are so confident then why did my comment get downvoted so much? Knowledge from DNA disproved EVolution-- maybe you should read more. Here's one: 'Philosophical Scientists'-- David Foster, OUP


If someone wrote a book claiming to have a "mathematical proof" that "1 + 1 = 3", and put a picture of god on the cover, would you buy it and promote it?


You know, you should definitely keep writing comments like the one you just did, because it will show the thinking, intelligent readers what kind of people support Evolution theory... Thanks, I guess?

The book you disparaged is written by a real scientist and published by Oxford Uni Press. They are smarter than you, and if it were 1 + 1 = 3, OUP wouldn't have published it. Even if we disregard all this, the fact that you judged a book without reading it says a lot about your critical thinking skills.


I don't imagine that thinking, intelligent readers would pigeon-hole a very large group of people based off of one hn comment. Somewhat ironic.

Actually, this 'very large group of people'--by definition [that they believe Evolution 'theory'] have pigeon-holed themselves as a certain type, hence their existence as a 'group'. I think the irony is that you didn't realize this.

I guarantee you an LLM has already fooled him in this manner lmao


i don't know how old you are, but this does not seem like a mature, thinking person's behavior.

tldr:

- In the 1940s, ~80% of kids were trained by their 1st birthday

-By 2004, the average completion age was 37 months (over 3 years old)

-That extra year of diapers = ~$3.1 billion annually for the industry

-A pediatrician named Brazelton popularized "wait until they're ready" advice in the 60s — and later became a paid Pampers spokesperson, which is... a conflict of interest

-Diaper companies responded by making bigger and bigger sizes (up to 65 lbs!)


Exactly! 12 years of 'knowledge' half of it useless, the other half could be taught in 3 years--if done properly.


to--> latexr: Thank you for the link to Polum's essay in juliusosis. It really is the case that a lot of incompetence is hiding in plain sight. Probably because modern schooling encourages this.

I've lived in China (as a foreigner) and they have a word for Juliuses. They call them the 'cha bu duo xiansheng' = the 'Mr. Almost ok'.


> It really is the case that a lot of incompetence is hiding in plain sight.

It may sound preposterous but I'm going to make the argument that sometimes not knowing how things work is a feature, not a bug.

I would assume most people with a little work-experience has encountered the kind of legacy systems which is crucial to the business, yet for whatever reason doing any sort of work on them involves a tremendous amount of friction.

A technical person who knows how this system works in and out will often claim that certain seemingly simple things cannot be done, because of how the system works.

It might be highly impractical, but if we're honest about things, it's all software. It can be changed if we decide to and the company is willing to put in the effort to make it happen. It's clearly possible, but the skilled worked will often present it as an impossibility.

The Julius, not hampered by such knowledge or constraints, will be see a seemingly simple problem, and maybe even imagine what other things would be possible or even "simple" if that problem was solved.

If the Julius manages to get management approval for these ideas, you may actually end up getting management approval for changing/upgrading the base system causing the friction, something the more fact-based engineers would not.

Chances are it's going to be messier than projected, not being delivered on time... But in the long term it might be a net good for everyone involved ;)


> I'm going to make the argument that sometimes not knowing how things work is a feature, not a bug.

You will probably be interested in the concept of Shoshin, or Beginner’s Mind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_Mind,_Beginner%27s_Mind

But that does not describe a Julius. Julius is not someone with an open mind unconstrained by technical debt, but someone who fakes an aura of knowledge while actually understanding very little.

There is a chasm of difference between an eager beginner who questions the way things work and how to make them simpler and someone who promises things which are impossible. Julius is the latter.


Comments like amluto's above, are the reason my time spent on HN is not wasted.


care to name a few such good oldies?



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: