I think both factors are important as the goal is generally to help with planning and prioritization. A straight-forward but long task is still "expensive" with regard to prioritization and will take a while even if the cognitive load is not super high. That said, I think the observation that cognitive load is a good thing to watch out for as it introduces more risk to the estimation is very valid.
I recently posted a blog post about CodeYam, which is a software simulator. It creates simulations of every aspect of a software application - basically every function, both in isolation and in the context of the app or other function that import the original function.
We've put together a brief demo demonstrating how the software simulator can benefit a pull request workflow, creating simulations of all changes and making it easy to add/edit simulations and save them as part of a test suite. Would love to hear any thoughts people have on it.
This is all automated. It's a github app that tracks changes as they come in, analyzes and simulates them and creates simulations that can be accessed via the CodeYam website, integrated into a CI workflow, or, hopefully soon, leveraged in developer workflows.
In this way there's no set up or maintenance required (or very minimal). It updates simulations as changes are made so everything is always up-to-date.
It automatically generates a number of scenarios (data that is fed into the simulation), but you can define new scenarios through the website as well (or describe a scenario for the AI to generate).
My team and I have been working on a software simulator. It deconstructs software projects, creating simulations of all components (front-end and back-end) in isolation and in context, so you can easily see, test, and share any area of an application or the application as a whole. The blog post has more details.
It's starting to work pretty well and we're looking for people who might be interested in trying it out. Would also love to hear any feedback or questions people have about the concept.
I was running an afterschool program teaching kids to code and we were looking for a way to have them code that was more social and group oriented rather than having everyone hunched over a computer more or less by themselves all the time. I was also looking for a project to explore Computer Vision and Machine Learning. This ended up being a good fit for both needs. The video on the website shows the students working on it. It's surprisingly engaging for being just paper cards you are writing on...
If you want to try it out and don't want to register via the website you can email me at my first name (jared) at puzzleschool.com and I'll send you the zip file containing the cards and a few sample programs that can be printed out and photographed directly.
1) There are no requirements for students to be "involved in the process of planning their own education". They are only required to be attend school a certain number of hours per year (I'm not sure the exact number), and serve time on the judicial committee. There are no requirements at all around any educational goals.
2) Sudbury Valley School operates on less money per-pupil than neighboring public schools.
3) The only requirement for adults who work as staff members is that they are capable of treating students as equals.
I've thought about it a bit. I realize the title is annoying on Hacker News, but I think the title is ok within the general context of my blog for those who read it regularly.
I'll think about another title, and I'm sorry (sort-of as I've enjoyed the debate here) for the sensationalist title on Hacker News, but I don't think it's a huge deal outside of this specific context...
Ok, so would you predict that most of those who get accepted to college flunk out or are unable to get jobs?
I can certainly appreciate that this might not actually be "mind-blowing", but personally I think even the college-acceptance rates are a surprising result.
The point is that you claim they are successful past college entrance (without qualifying in relation to what they are so) without providing ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER.
Furthermore you just now conflated "acceptance" with merely "going on to" college and in the process ignored the number of those who didn't even try to get in and also ignored the simple fact that getting into a college (ANY COLLEGE) in the USA has literally nothing to do with student ability.
I apologize. I don't have specific stats to share on the college success. The books published by the school have a lot of anecdotal evidence regarding the students having success in college. They don't seem to have universal success or significantly greater success then their peers from other schools, but they do seem to be able to handle and graduate from college and have gone on to a wide-range of jobs.
I should not have simplified the argument to claim that they have universal success.
Cheers for taking my criticism and actually considering it. I hope it will influence your future writing positively. :)
Also, now that i think of it, let me make a recommendation. Please either read, or listen to the audiobook, "What Do You Care What Other People Think?" about Richard P. Feynman. The latter part of the book discusses how even NASA accidentally deluded itself into making gross mistakes in the use of statistics and, if i remember correctly, describes at the very end a general philosophy and attitude towards science that would greatly improve your ability to contemplate and argue scientific matters.
