• Deckweiss@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Very nice blogpost, thank you!

    But this one part really grinds my gears:

    I’ve learned through a never-ending process of building mental models, proving them to be wrong, and then adjusting those models to reflect new knowledge.

    Is that not the definition of learning? It sounds weird to me to explain it redundantly like this, akin to: “I’ve walked 10 steps forward through a process of my neurons firing signals which cause contractions in the muscles of my body in a particular rhythmic way”

    Or am I misunderstanding something?

    Cheers

      • Deckweiss@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Do some people need to read a definition of learning to learn how learning works?

        I thought the process is intuitively understood by everybody who has ever learned anything.

        • ___@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          If that were the case, the scientific method would not exist.

        • codemonk@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Unfortunately this is not the case. A lot of people leave school assuming that scientific discoveries are eternal, unfailable truth that we just know to be true. Few ever understand how we acquired our knowledge and how to lewrn to understand it. Many assume you ‘just have to learn it’. Those your play around with computers or other stuff have an advantage. They know how to gain understanding not just how to learn facts.

  • N0x0n@lemmy.ml
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Heyy thank you very much for sharing your thoughts and knowledge with us !!!

    Very interesting and the write up is easy to follow up ! That’s the kind of cool blogpost we will be missing when the internet will be dead brained and flooded with AI shit…

    Will you integrate an RSS feed to your blogposts? So I could get your feeds directly into my RSS feeder? 😁

    • Phrodo_00@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Yeah, they’re mostly bits of hardware that turn ttl/serial into a USB device. Then you can use minicom or dterm to connect to the host. Mostly used for embedded development, but also useful for debugging servers that are not connecting to the network without having to lug a keyboard and screen.

      After they’re connected, if they speak vt110, your terminal emulator can display everything properly

        • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          7 months ago

          hahaah. Ok sure you win. Linux TTY’s are absolutely not terminals. Sure they are called terminals, they are for all intents and purposes modern-day terminals with a long and storied history that directly links them to terminals from the 70’s but since they aren’t a physical piece of hardware that electro-mechanically connects to a mainframe, obviously they aren’t really terminals and they should be be called something else.