Good example in my math and physics classes I found it really helpful to understand the general concepts, then instead of memorizing formulas could actually derive them from other known (perhaps easier-to-remember) facts.
Geometry is good for training in this way—and often very helpful for physics proofs too!
Too bad this method is penalized most on tests (timed) where memorization is favored. But deriving results reinforce knowledge, understanding and patterns best in my opinion.
I didn't really like the title of the HN post either, but I don't think it needs much change. Just drop the "I'm 17 and" part and do "I wrote this guide on hwo CPUs run progra..."
The "I'm 17" part just felt irrelevant to me in a technical work. I.e. it's either technically correct or it's not. However, I can see a strong argument about why it should be in the title. If you care about meta details of the work, it's certainly different and interesting to be produced by someone so young. I suppose part of this is my own life experience talking, and very likely means I'm projecting. When I was a teenager I hated divulging that to others on the internet because they treated me differently when they found out how old I was.
Well—it could go either way but I do think it is notable that the author is young and helping peers. Based on original post seems important to them. But the exact number 17 not important either way!
I might click through and read an article to see what the youth of today are creating, but not so much care about an adult writing something on CPUs haha
It's not clear whether you're referring to the HN post title or the article title itself ("Putting the You in CPU"). In either case I think your proposed edit makes it much worse.
The HN post title is accurate and describes what they did. It makes a choice to center the writer rather than the guide, which has certain consequences about how readers will approach it, but is perfectly appropriate. Of course, your proposed edit makes the same choice, and is arguably more of a brag than the original.
The article title is cute, which is not what you would want for a dry technical manual but appropriate in this case, where the style is supposed to be fun and entertaining as well as informative.
Except the title wouldn't be entirely accurate - there's plenty of "Senior Engineers" who are really just framework assembly liners who could learn something from this writing :-)
Hacker News automatically removes the word "How" from the beginning of submissions (and then Title Cases them for good measure) - so I believe submitting that title would instead result in this:
I'm Helping My High School Peers Learn About CPUs
I might be wrong though, it might only do this with "How to ...".
I submitted https://simonwillison.net/2023/Aug/6/annotated-presentations... the other day - title "How I make annotated presentations" - and it was automatically re-titled to "I Make Annotated Presentations" - but then renamed back again, I presume by a moderator.
I also believe there’s some value in reassessing how systems like that function. There’s some value in a challenge like: what can you do on older hardware with todays knowledge? Maybe there’s something to be learned and applied to modern problems.
Also, it’s a good introduction to understanding full systems, from the electronics—soldering, voltage, current, etc to assembly programming. The system is simple enough for them to ship circuit diagrams in the developer manual—along with all the opcodes and kernel routines.
There’s a resurgence across all fields in artisanal craftsmanship. Carpenters, blacksmiths, printmakers, cobblers.
Retro-Computing is exactly that—artisanal electronics and programming. There’s something meditative and enjoyable about it.
I think an underappreciated value of growing up in that era, was that the entire machine, top to bottom, was simple enough that a single person could understand it. Without even making it their life's work. There's simply nothing today like that.
So the older machines are an important conceptual building block. And they're not academic exercises taught in theoretical simulation but never experienced, they're real physical machines that did useful things for people who are still around and can walk you through doing the same things on the very same machines.
The other magical thing about home computers of that era, was that they were ROM-based, with very explicit operations to commit data to nonvolatile storage. You couldn't accidentally delete a system file and render the machine unbootable, and that encouraged experimentation in a way that subsequent PCs harshly punished.
Also, while 8-bit home computers weren't really toys, they were _almost_ toys, in that very few folks were running a business on their C64. (And again, even if they did, all they had to do was lock the business disks in a cabinet at the end of the day.) So the consequences of even a major screwup were limited, again in a way that the next generation of PCs dramatiaclly reversed. I knew kids "grounded for life" (actually a few months) in the 90s because they hosed up the family PC that mom or dad was doing the taxes on or whatever. That simply wasn't a thing in the 80s.
All of learning is making mistakes. One hundred percent. And modern machines don't allow it in the same way. We were privileged to learn in a real-but-nearly-consequence-free environment, which today's kids will simply never experience.
So the trouble is these market places allowing third party vendors on there (obviously).
All you need is a system to authenticate reputable sellers. Instead of looking at the stars on a product and clicking “buy now,” folks just need so ask: do I know this seller? Is this the ACTUAL publisher selling me this book?
I’d rather go into a real shop anyway. Unless it’s buying some hard-to-find item there’s no excuse.
You’re assuming that scams don’t make their way into regular distributors as they try to cut corners and maintain competitiveness.
You already see established brands lower the quality of their products after the first round of reviews online. If found out, they just blame manufacturing. Sorry.
True, but it's much less of a problem in physical shops. You can actually examine the merchandise. You know that the item you're paying for is literally the item that you're getting. You're dealing with the shop face-to-face, which reduces a lot of the more brazen scams. And if you have a problem, the shop is likely to do something to fix it -- and if they don't, you have realistic legal options.
In most ways, buying from a brick-and-mortar establishment is a better choice than buying online.
Nordstrom being a third party vendor of course. You want Patagonia, go to Patagonia. :)
In my mind we’re talking about what is a better solution to the problem, and it’s that companies WILL protect their IP. If someone buys fake Patagonia, Patagonia loses out on a sale.
Amazon doesn’t own much of anything IP-Wise on their marketplace in the grand scheme. And they don’t care who buys what as long as products are moving. It’s easier for them to just pay out returns than handle the actual problem.
Marketplaces need to be held liable for products and services sold through them.
And when you have a dispute with a seller that came through a marketplace, your dispute should be with the marketplace and it is then up to the marketplace to recover the value of the goods from the seller.
I've worked on traditional cattle ranches with open pasture grazing and am roughly aware of what goes on in the factory farms, feed lots, and dairies that were nearby us. Even traditional ranching has certain brutal aspects to it - dehorning and castration are quite painful even with some effort to minimize pain. But the cows suffer less and for a much shorter time than they would at the hands of a natural predator or their other natural ends such as starvation or exposure. I'm not sure what lead has to do with anything.
The "suffering equation" is to me the weirdest rationalization.
Whether that is true or not, I think it's more important to keep in mind that it's not our place to judge that, unless you hold some biblical belief that animals were put on earth by god to feed us. The cost of freedom must be taken into account too, it's a value not only relevant to humans.
A lot of the suffering in the world comes about because humans have an inflated sense of moral agency over things outside their scope. We have the tools to affect many beings and many lands, but not the wisdom to see the immediate and long term effects. We just see our current behavior, and then employ all kinds of mental gymnastics in order to perpetuate it. We'll go to great trouble to change the world, just so we don't have to admit we need to change our selves.
> The cost of freedom must be taken into account too, it's a value not only relevant to humans.
In my mind sentience is a spectrum and cows aren't very far along it. I spent my childhood working with cows and I can tell you they're dumb as rocks. They have little memory of the past and zero concept of the future. They were always happy to see us and had no concept of their freedom being restricted or that we would eventually auction them and their offspring to the slaughterhouse. People that are worried about cow rights have usually never spent time with them. Goats are further down the spectrum, but still dumb. Certain other cattle like pigs are said to be quite intelligent so there's more of an argument to be made.
>People that are worried about cow rights have usually never spent time with them.
Well, dub? People who spend a lot of time with cows are presumably working in the meat or dairy industries. It's rare for a person to believe their own actions are wrong.
There are human beings further down the intellgience spectrum than these animals, so this line of reasoning doesn't get very far as justification for their exploitation and killing.
Traditional cattle ranches are much different than factory farms. Cattle that grazes on open pastures are generally much healthier. An animals quality of life determines how healthy they are—and subsequently, how healthy they are to eat.
Factory farms are where most people get their meat in America.
Imagine how healthy you’d be if all you ate was oatmeal, a hormone cocktail (to make you grow faster), and some vitamins. Then imagine living in a cage with dozens of other people, having scarcely three feet between you and the next person. Would you be healthy?
Is the alternative breeding millions of cows and pitting them against their natural predators, or leaving them to starve? If not, then I'm not sure what relevance the comparison has.
I know it’s a depressing thought—but considering that money can be thought of as a “unit of work”, and so many people are tying it up in stocks of large companies, miles away—praying they won’t get hit by a car before that special day.
What about getting units of work to start working right now, instead of hoping some big company will make people’s money “grow” into the future?
Invest in local economy. Invest in people. Folks thinking about retirement backwards.
By investing locally and in people I don’t mean spend all your money. But to that end, neither are the big companies going to come to your aid. But your neighbors and local business owners will be MUCH more likely to come to your aid after supporting them and helping them succeed.
Geometry is good for training in this way—and often very helpful for physics proofs too!