This is exactly the problem. Supplementing x implies complete knowledge of what ideal x is. And what the "ideal" is nearly impossible to assess, since it require complete knowledge of future. I mean, what form of a "human being" will the most optimal through all of human existence? When you supplement without knowing the ideal, it has more chance to do harm than good.
>using these tools is what makes you human, as without them, what's really the distinguishing feature that separates you from the apes?..
Ok. But is it the only thing? What about creativity? We have language. We can create great stories and beautiful poems in them. We can look into the secrets on nature and create immensely powerful tools with that knowledge. Isn't that more of a hallmark of being a human, than mere dependency on our tools?
And is there no limit on how much we are dependent on them. Does it make sense to trade of our innate capabilities in the long term, for minor conveniences in the short?
I had a friend who could easily navigate any complex routes and had all the local routes and short cuts in his head. I respected him for that. Now he cannot find way around a supermarket without GPS. A part of him, that once I respected as a human being, is gone now.
>To me, nothing defines humanity more than the constant improvement of our race, our reach, and our capabilities.
You think our race is improving? Why? Because we have smartphones and have a massive and collective addiction to it?
>and the largest accumulation of knowledge the human race has ever seen..
It is also one of the biggest Ad/propaganda delivery channels.
Easy access to information does not make a difference is the people does not have the drive to consume it. If you give internet to 10 persons 9.5 of them will use it for social media and porn. How many of the addictive smartphone users have you seen consuming wikipedia? I have personally NEVER, not even once, seen someone reading wikipedia on a smartphone.
I once implemented a simple back propagation algorithm in Haskell (without any libraries) that could identify the pattern (one amoung 'A', 'B', 'C' or 'D') represented on an 8x8 matrix...
>they seem to grasp these at a much deeper level than I did at that age..
What real difference will it make in the future? I think none. Some one who understanding recursion when they were 10 will not end up much better programmer than someone who was exposed to it at 20, and have sufficient experience in using the concept. Same with other CS concepts.
The idea of making kids learn this sounds great, because it looks great when kids do stuff with computers. But it is not really giving them and advantage in the future.
Why do you think so? It's a common knowledge early start gives one an advantage in many disciplines: music, ballet, chess. Why are you so sure programming is so different?
I think those things are different. How many people in the world can create music like Beethoven or Mozart? How many people would have been able to beat Deep Blue in chess at that time? I can imagine there would be music that could only be rendered on a piano or violin, by only a hand full of people in the whole world.
In a similar manner, do you know a program that could only have been written by an 'expert' programmer, or only a hand full of expert programmers in the whole world? I don't think so.
The essence of what I am saying is that, programming is not a hard enough thing to waste those precious early years on.
Yes, I can think of programs that can only be designed and implemented by top 1% of programmers.
Regarding "programming is not a [...] thing to waste those precious early years on.", well, this is not something I'd like to argue about, just want to say that learning programming by a kid doesn't have to be (and, of course, shouldn't be) a 8h or more daily activity, like for a professional adult programmer. I think an hour per week of learning programming can be a valuable exercise in logical thinking, creativity and problem solving. It can easily be a lot of fun, too.
> I can think of programs that can only be designed and implemented by top 1% of programmers...
Interesting. Can you share some of those...?
EDIT: Oh, I just noticed that you said top 1% of all programmers. I was not talking about top 1%. I was talking about a handfull of them. Top 1% would be quite more than a hand full. But please share those programs anyway...
I am of the opinion that kids should not be taught to program computers for these reasons..
1. Programming can be too much gratifying, almost drug like, and will keep the vulnerable kids in front of the computer whole day long, building stuff. This will help them blow the socks off mom and dad, but will make little real difference in their future.
2. learning to program early does not make really better programmers. But there are skills vital to life and experiences that SHOULD be picked and gone through, when they are still kids. This should not be sacrificed for learning coding.
So I think kids should not start programming until they are past their teens..
Source: My experience as a kid who used to blow their parents socks off by making games and 3d graphics in qbasic and turboc...
Maybe I'm being overly cynical, but I see the choice of years as another effort to put the 1960s on a pedestal. If I was being even more cynical, it wouldn't surprise me if the article was written by a Baby Boomer.
You could pick any era in the 20th century and find multiple examples of world changing innovation, and there were other periods of rapid change further back in our past as well (the Industrial Revolution springs to mind).
This section from an essay I read recently [1] might be relavent here
>In the 1960s, feminists faced social ridicule, media approbation and violent hostility. Now, mirroring the incremental changes seen in technology, social progress all too often finds itself down the blind alleyways of political correctness. Student bodies used to be hotbeds of dissent, even revolution; today’s hyper-conformist youth is more interested in the policing of language and stifling debate when it counters the prevailing wisdom. Forty years ago a burgeoning media allowed dissent to flower. Today’s very different social media seems, despite democratic appearances, to be enforcing a climate of timidity and encouraging groupthink.
So we are conditioned by the social media to encourage groupthink, and so, we are conditioned to hate "trolls", when their behaviors threatens breaking groupthink.
I see this manifested here in HN in discussions involving Tesla/SpaceX. In those threads, if you are in a position where you are going against the rabid enthusiasm, moderators will step in with a ban threat, if you are even slightly combative or go out of the line. But the other side is given a lot more slack, when it comes to silencing dissenting opinion..
What about being a soldier? Does it seem egoistic continue being a soldier, if you have a family?
We seem to be Ok, with people, risking their life to protect the interests of the country and thus protect our interests, but not ok if they risk their lives for themselves?
Honestly, it does seem sort of egoistic to continue being a soldier if you have a family, at least to me. I'm going to have a hard time explaining it in a way that doesn't seem confrontational, but the most exaggerated example of this is Pat Tillman[1], the professional football player to turned down a $3.6 million NFL contract to enlist in the Army after the Sept. 11 attacks. Two years later, he was killed by friendly fire, making a widow out of the woman he married right before enlisting. Even if you ignore all the absurd, bungled propaganda surrounding his death, he probably did a lot of good in the Army -- but was it as much good as if he'd stayed home and used a couple million dollars to help vets or something?
I very much understand the sense of duty that pulls people toward the military, and I know it's frequently a complicated situation. But I don't think I'll never understand these guys who marry a woman, have a kid or three in between deployments, then just go running back into a war zone.
I wish people think twice before calling troll. That word has so lost it's original meaning, and is now a days used to shoot down any dissenting opinions.
I say this as someone who 100% agree with the first part of your comment.
No one notices when things go as planned/expected. Make media say you cannot do it, then do it.
You bet it will be noticed.
I am not saying that it is what is happening now. But just a thought.
I mean, if the guy is smart enough to do all the things he has done, isn't it too hard to imagine he will have a trick or two when it comes to PR?
I mean, every time, one of this article show up, it gets up voted to top, and people are talking and talking and talking, about it. For a couple of days, you see Tesla or SpaceX every where..It is like walking through a neighbourhood filled with Tesla/SpaceX billboards.
Point is, there articles are generating a lot of conversation involving these companies, which makes them very endearing to people involved. So after a while, people will take it as a personal insult, if you criticise these companies...
You know, all of those are good for the company, right?
This negative press followed by positive press happened to Tesla so many times, I can't help but think that it is just some guys found a way to make a couple extra bucks.
Same here. All those fonts looked same until I found Tamsyn.
If anyone reading here want to try it, you have to use it at the exact size it is made for, or else it will look ugly. So if you are using Tamsyn6x12 font, you can only use it at 12px font size..or it will look ugly.
This is exactly the problem. Supplementing x implies complete knowledge of what ideal x is. And what the "ideal" is nearly impossible to assess, since it require complete knowledge of future. I mean, what form of a "human being" will the most optimal through all of human existence? When you supplement without knowing the ideal, it has more chance to do harm than good.
>using these tools is what makes you human, as without them, what's really the distinguishing feature that separates you from the apes?..
Ok. But is it the only thing? What about creativity? We have language. We can create great stories and beautiful poems in them. We can look into the secrets on nature and create immensely powerful tools with that knowledge. Isn't that more of a hallmark of being a human, than mere dependency on our tools?
And is there no limit on how much we are dependent on them. Does it make sense to trade of our innate capabilities in the long term, for minor conveniences in the short?
I had a friend who could easily navigate any complex routes and had all the local routes and short cuts in his head. I respected him for that. Now he cannot find way around a supermarket without GPS. A part of him, that once I respected as a human being, is gone now.
>To me, nothing defines humanity more than the constant improvement of our race, our reach, and our capabilities.
You think our race is improving? Why? Because we have smartphones and have a massive and collective addiction to it?
>and the largest accumulation of knowledge the human race has ever seen..
It is also one of the biggest Ad/propaganda delivery channels.
Easy access to information does not make a difference is the people does not have the drive to consume it. If you give internet to 10 persons 9.5 of them will use it for social media and porn. How many of the addictive smartphone users have you seen consuming wikipedia? I have personally NEVER, not even once, seen someone reading wikipedia on a smartphone.