I don't agree with this - law students still skew more frugal than white collar adults. Definitely less frugal than undergrads - folks coming from the workforce generally have some savings, and I do think there were more students coming from an affluent background than in undergrad. But the spending pattern of the average student was still quite frugal - housing was almost always student housing, many students did not use a car, most were taking significant loans etc.
My wife attended a school ranked ~30th in the US, and was in a leadership position at her school's flagship journal, which was in a dingy room with the only amenity being a microwave.
Maybe it looks different at a T14 school, but the vast majority of journal students I know would have balked at a >$10/month subscription like this
The wide boulevards and huge open spaces in some of the touristy areas can feel empty even when there are a normal number of people there. Common problem with planned cities, they have way too much empty space and feel abandoned even when not.
I think that's the point - "pretty good" isn't good enough for a top school to want to admit you. Second year college/CS is pretty good but I went to a great high school where there were 50+ kids at that level. That's not enough to stand out in a meaningful way.
Whereas if someone was Ramanujan-level, their raw talent would be so apparent they wouldn't have this issue and would clearly stand out.
But he ignored all subjects besides math and lost his scholarship within a year. He later enrolled in another university, this time in Madras (now Chennai), the provincial capital some 250 kilometers north. Again he flunked out.
If you get into the IMO team you'll be accepted anywhere good for maths. Probably a high position in the local competition would be enough. (YMMV as my understanding is coloured by a little knowledge of the system in the UK)
> Second year college/CS is pretty good but I went to a great high school where there were 50+ kids at that level. That's not enough to stand out in a meaningful way.
It is not enough to stand out in the current system.
The parent was saying selecting the 50 kids who can handle it is a much better approach than just taking the highest overall grades.
The average A's across the board high school student can't handle second year college maths. Yet they will be placed ahead of the observably better at math kids.
Imagine if jobs worked like this - "Yes, we know you are a great developer but you don't really understand economics. Sorry".
Being well-rounded and having exposure to a bunch of topics is valuable to an extent. However, in my experience most of the people making a real difference in the workplace and academia are not particularly well rounded.
Thankfully in tech there are alternative pathways. However, for many professions there aren't and these high performers are simply excluded to societies detriment.
Being well-rounded and having exposure to a bunch of topics is valuable to an extent. However, in my experience most of the people making a real difference in the workplace and academia are not particularly well rounded.
You can only progress so much in a field of expertise before hitting diminishing return.
At some point it makes sense to broaden your knowledge and skillset.
>You can only progress so much in a field of expertise before hitting diminishing return.
I suppose how long you can progress for and how far you can progress depends somewhat on the breadth and depth of the field of expertise.
Many fields of expertise are so broad and deep that they have their own sub-fields just to make them manageable.
So you would probably be in a sub-field and then broaden your knowledge and skill-set in a related sub-field of the overall field that you are well suited to.
I'm betting it's likely you can see how your own particular field, as you are on HN, replicates this pattern.
> It is not enough to stand out in the current system.
What I'm saying is in some hypothetical system which places a great emphasis on specialization, people who are a few years ahead of curriculum are a dime a dozen and will not stand out. There were 50 kids in my high school, so how many is that nationwide?
Particularly in math, it is straightforward for an exceptional talent to stand out. Competitive math is a clear pathway/credential. If someone is not able to achieve meaningful results then it's probably just the case that they aren't as talented as they believe
> Imagine if jobs worked like this - "Yes, we know you are a great developer but you don't really understand economics. Sorry".
There are plenty of software devs who are not getting hired to the potential of their raw development skills because they cannot communicate or collaborate productively. There are also plenty of software devs who are not getting hired to the potential of their raw development skills because they don't have as much domain knowledge as other devs.
> people who are a few years ahead of curriculum are a dime a dozen and will not stand out.
I'm not sure what you mean.
High school has a much lower, but broader, bar.
The number who can handle second year college math are a small fraction of those who can get straight A's at high school.
> There are plenty of software devs who are not getting hired to the potential of their raw development skills because they cannot communicate or collaborate productively.
These are behavioural issues and not knowledge issues. We do not address these kinds of issues at high school at all.
Getting an A in English doesn't prepare you in any way to be a team player.
In my ~15 year career the only people I've seen not hired because of a knowledge gap in this space have been non-native speakers.
This resonates with me - I primarily run and lift weights, neither of which require much quick thinking or movement outside of specific patterns. So while it's not my primary focus, I do try to include a few sessions of rock climbing and pickup soccer in my week.
I've definitely noticed an improvement in my ability to "express" the strength/endurance since I started doing that (more agile, coordinated, sense of how to apply force, general feeling of fitness).
In general I feel like novelty in exercise is understudied/appreciated
From some of the other comments, it looks like a rather recent addition by Amazon (around 2021). I got rid of my last Kindle after 2021, but maybe I never got that update.
If it takes some competition for Amazon to finally add some very basic features like this after a decade, I will keep supporting that competition.
I’ve grown frustrated with Amazon in a lot of areas, this was just one small one. I’m looking to divest my dependence on Amazon, and the Kobo isn’t leaving me missing anything.
There is still a certain degree of willpower involved in routines. I wakeup every morning and workout, and every morning I have to fight my brain to get out of bed. I've been doing that for 10 years.
That being said - I do feel like reducing the amount of willpower needed is the key. I love junk food, but if I never buy it at a grocery store it's much easier to cut it out. If I have no chips in the house I could still get some at the corner store, but I need to be much less disciplined than if the chips were in my pantry
Only have the anecdata of being in both Tokyo and NYC, but obesity rates are clearly higher in NYC than in Tokyo. I'm not convinced that relative obesity in Japan vs US is primarily due to walking differences.
As another commenter posted, the amount of walking even a highly active person does is fairly negligible wrt weight loss/gain. As another anecdote - my ambient walking milage is 5 miles/day and I run an additional 20-30 miles a week and still maintain an obese BMI
My wife attended a school ranked ~30th in the US, and was in a leadership position at her school's flagship journal, which was in a dingy room with the only amenity being a microwave.
Maybe it looks different at a T14 school, but the vast majority of journal students I know would have balked at a >$10/month subscription like this
reply