If you know any good resources feel free to add them, so next time someone searches for "existentialism" they will find something more beside the link to wiki.
This is a great idea but lacks the critical concept of a "cohesive narrative". It's not enough just to know that the top resource for Javascript is Elequent Javascript and that the next 3 concepts are promises, ES6 and package managers (if that even is linearly correct in the first place). Each section needs a summary of how it connects to the node before and after it, which obviously should be edited by the community in wiki style.
Summaries of topics are a planned feature we hope to add in the future. We also hope to add user made 'notes' on each of the resources so anyone can see what other people think of the resource or link before visiting it.
And we agree that the branching of one topic to another can be done in a better way. We hope to add features for users to be able to not only add resources but also create new 'nodes' and create and add new topics.
Great initiative, but how it is different from a collection of links for subject X? The mindmap approach is fancy but does it deliver more value than a simple tree-like folder structure (especially on mobile)? Again, I think that's a great idea but I'm not sure about the execution.
Thank you. There is a lot of value in a simple tree-like folder structure as you say. It is easier to navigate and plays well with mobile.
However, one of our goals with the website is not just finding the resource that you need to learn some topic. But exploring all the different topics and travelling from one topic to another. And we think that visualising these learning paths would really help with this goal. Granted that the current visualisation that you see live now on the website is not perfect. We hope to improve and make it better in the coming times.
If you do have ideas on how we can improve it, the project is Open Source and built with React so you can add the features and details that you think are missing to make it more perfect for you and everyone else.
We also provide an API so anyone can build a 'list-view' version of the website if anyone wants to.
I've seen "Learn Anything" links submitted here many times and every time I open them and conclude I don't like this approach -- it seems like a worse Google.
But I dislike even more the fact that now there is a "whitepaper" with "abstract" and "conclusion". I didn't read it, though.
Hey this looks really cool. Are you familiar with Metacademy? (https://metacademy.org/) (previously on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7617683) Looks like you are trying to do a very similar thing, although they are maybe operating on a more conceptual level.
What have you used to build the site and do the layout? I'm always interested in how people are using graph-based UIs since I've been working on one myself over at Thicket.io: https://thicket.io. (you can browse a graph of academic paper citations and then connect papers to policy arguments) It's a real challenge to display lots of information coherently.
Yeah we were partly inspired by it and the idea is similar. Although, they seem to focus on ML and Math, while we hope to cover as many topics as possible. Another difference is that we don't host any content, but just links to resources.
For rendering the maps we're using React and D3. D3 is used for calculating the position of elements on the page and, React for rendering and manipulating those elements. Before we had a ref and let D3 manage everything on that ref, but it got unmanageable quite fast.
Thanks for the link. I'm using D3 + Vue.js, with D3 handling the data, layout and rendering, and then Vue (with Vuex) handling events and state management. I think this example is closer to what you are doing (but using Vue)? https://emiliorizzo.github.io/vue-d3-network/
Interesting. I'm solving the same problem but with a different approach![1] I just finished the initial development yesterday so there isn't much in the way of documentation yet, but I'll give a quick overview as a comparison to this (since they have a similar goal but very different approaches):
I have one course put together so far and that course is still a little rough[2] (again, just finished development yesterday).
I think manual curation of resources by topic experts is required for this model to be effective. An expert on a subject will know where you should focus your efforts so you don't get lost just wandering around the internet digesting all the related information. mgadams3 touched on this with their observation about learn-anything.xyz courses needing a cohesive narrative.
I also think tests are necessary. I have read many articles about all sorts of things and more-often-than-not the information goes in one ear and out the other. My approach involves a series of multiple choice quizzes every few articles and a multiple choice final exam at the end. This way you know that you have actually learned something before moving on. I don't have any tests set up for the course I have made yet, but they are an integral part of the process.
learn-anything.xyz is cool. The tech is very impressive! I'm just not sure that it was made by someone that is actually going to use it for all of their learning, and I would have no idea how to effectively use it for my learning. Impressive work but that's just my 2 cents.
For sure. I wasn't expecting to talk about it anywhere for a few weeks. Keep an eye on that repo; there will definitely be more documentation and stuff coming soon.
I had a look at https://learn-anything.xyz, and for most topics it's just a link to the Wikipedia page, and occasionally also a link to Reddit or StackExchange.
Is this really all there is to it? It reminds me of the hand-curated website directories that were popular in the 1990s, before search engines had really hit the spot. Nothing groundbreaking here from what I can see.
Yes, there are some topics that are quite empty with resources sadly. However this can change with contributions and users using the website.
For example there is a map for learning Machine Learning (https://learn-anything.xyz/machine-learning) which is quite large. There are a few other maps like that in the database.
All together there are over 2,000 maps available currently but this number too will grow with contributions.
A voting system is already in place. Users can upvote or downvote resources according to what they like and think is useful.
Having some kind of reputation system is also a really good idea. You were thinking of having it similar to Reddit where you get `karma` for posting good resources?
Thanks for the responses (to both threads). Yes, reputation is an important factor to the success of all these platforms; Reddit, Stackoverflow, Imgur, Hacker news....
It gives a quantifiable measure of how much you're helping a community. Without it, members can't see the effects of the contributions they've made, and are probably less likely to continue contributing.
I personally believe it's an extremely small minority of people who will contribute to your website for altruistic reasons alone.
I really like this initiative. As others have mentioned, there are similar efforts. One thing I'd like to see is an adaptive lesson plan based on a learners affinity. For example, let's say we have a calculus lesson plan. There could be several modules on limits. Once a learning profile is established it could be used to guide learners to the module best suited for them. There are many ideas about this, but I just wanted to mention something about adaptive learning, because I'm very keen on its applications.
Yes, great initiative.
I tried to do the same with my "Learn Computing Directory" [0] website some times ago...with hand curated links towards websites, books, video courses, etc. all on a github repo
Should have add a way to upvote the links...
I find the "Graph" way of presenting the topics very interesting. I think trying to deal with all the conceivable topics is a dead end, but maybe allowing to install the software, like discourse, in communities websites may be a better strategy?
Wikipedia harnessed the creative commons to create a massive store of knowledge. It created a fantastic resource for topical learning. However, that resource was not created with fast and efficient sequential learning in mind. WikiBooks and Wikiversity were projects I had high hopes for, but as yet have not succeeded in the way Wikipedia has.
The meta of how to learn effectively was not something I recall ever studying in school, and only recently have focused on. It's hard because different techniques may work for some better than others, and what works for an adult may not work as well for a child.
I eagerly await the gamification of education. Books and videos can be fantastic, but are not the end-all of education. You can't just be given knowledge, you must interact with it, and use it. When I studied basic anatomy, one of the most time-effective methods I ever discovered was using anatomy apps on my phone that made a game of recall. When starting to program, I appreciated websites that included input sections and would compile and run them in-browser. I could practice what I was learning and learn from mistakes as I went. Interactivity works well.
Nowadays I use Anki (https://apps.ankiweb.net/) on my PC and phone, following Wozniak's Rules of Formulating Knowledge (https://www.supermemo.com/en/articles/20rules) when creating my own study decks. I really like using decks created collaboratively by the community, that correspond to an external resource like a textbook. There is power in connecting books and videos to interactive methods of learning like Anki and others. What resources can be synergistically used together in a time-efficient way?
I hope this project curates and collates not just books and video sources but also interactive methods of learning. The idea of using the collaborative commons to create an entire system is intriguing. I hope the concept of valuing resources by time spent and efficiency gets more attention.
You are asking for contributions from people and at the same time, you have plans to "monetize" the website by building premium-only features. It feels like exploitation.
I'm really sad you feel that way. Wikipedia also asks for contributions and donations, does that feel like exploitation to you?
No it doesn't, cause there's a massive amount of work that goes in projects like these and there's costs too. Costs that donations don't always pay.
Would you prefer a huge banner while you're browsing asking you to donate and telling you that if we don't meet a certain quota we're shutting down the website, or would you prefer having an additional feature that you may or may not want to pay for? I don't know you, but I'd definitely go for the second one.
Wikipedia is entirely free, and asks for donations to cover its costs. It does not lock any features to paying users only. There is a world of a difference. For this to be the case, on a website made by user contributions no less, is even more upsetting.
And yes, I prefer an unreservedly free website with banners reminding you to donate to a website that makes money off locking certain features to paying costumers only.
It's not about locking features to paying users only. It's about making new features that have enough value to you that you want to pay to use them.
Take the example from the white paper (paid help from experts), I don't get how you'd feel exploited that way, since it's not even related to contributions.
not the parent, but wouldn't contribute on a website that
a) gets its content solely from its users and
b) locks features away behind a paywall
especially if it's for learning. But to each his own and you cannot please everyone. Don't feel discouraged and keep going. The product looks pretty good.
( your simile with wikipedia breaks apart on the b btw, thats why nobody minds it there )
This is just an idea. As we are still not sure what the best way to support this project financially is.
The other option would be to use advertisements but we feel that would actually not help with our goals of providing the best resources available as sponsored content does not necessarily mean the best.
For now, the only support we get is through Patreon but that currently does not cover the costs for the servers let alone justify the time commitment it takes to support the website with new features and improvements.
Absolutely not. Why would I offer to build someone else's castle without reward?
I'll gladly contribute to something everyone owns and has rights to, but under no circumstances will I do this for complete strangers that seek to capitalize upon my efforts. I only do that in exchange for a salary.
Would you then also not contribute to Reddit? You are also contributing content to their website that they then use to serve other people ads. There is also Reddit Gold that you can buy to unlock some perks.
The idea is the same for this website. Although we don't want to serve other people ads as we think there are better business models than that.
Reddit (and others eg; Stackoverflow) has a reputation system. Basically, the incentive for contribution on those websites is to earn points of some kind.
The idea may be the same, but I don't see any point system mentioned for contributors here. So why contribute?
We will have a reputation system for users in the future.
As to why you may want to contribute. If you use the website and you find value in it, you can always make it better not only for yourself but for others. Only here, not only can you add links and resources but you can also directly add features and new things as the entire code base is Open Source and thus anyone can edit/fork and make what they want with it for all other people to enjoy.
I take it you don't use YouTube then. All their content is user generated, you get ads, they capitalize on your "efforts", and you have premium features that you can access only by paying (ie. YouTube Red).
YouTube creators get paid if there are enough people watching them. People watching videos, discussing on comment threads, and paying for YouTube Red don't get paid for their effort.
As a side note, I’m not sure if you’re aware but you’re coming off very argumentative. People are trying to give you feedback and you’re arguing to change their minds. The only thing you’re succeeding at is looking like you’re no fun to work with. If you’re trying to build a community of contributors this is not a good look.
This is not related to your main point, but arguably Wikipedia is raising millions of dollars under false pretenses (that is, they run scare ads insisting that money is needed to keep the servers running) while the Wikimedia Foundation spends most of it on projects users don't know about and wouldn't want to fund. I think if the fundraising was more transparent more people would never donate to them again. It's been a number of years since my last donation and I won't be giving to them again until I'm sure the money will be used responsibly.
You're talking at your customers and/or unpaid contributors here instead of talking with them.
The content you're asking people to create requires a massive amount of work. Pretending it is same social/economic contract as Wikipedia is just going to turn people off if you do add a premium version.
You are better off being direct and transparent about your funding model if you want people to help. What features would be premium and why is that acceptable? The about page looks like you plan on being a non-profit organization, is that the goal?
Our goal is to create a completely Open Source website where we share both the code that runs the website and also all the data that was created and curated with it.
In the white paper it mentions that the 'premium' features will in no way block any curated content. The 'premium' features will simply be extra things that we will build like the mentioned `Experts` that you can get direct help from.
Again this is just an idea and in no way final. We wish the project was fully sustained through donations and we currently run no advertisements or anything in which we in some way profit from so in this way we are indeed a non-profit organisation.
However we do want to find a way where we can support maintaining the website by paying for the costs of the servers and the developer time that goes into making this project as amazing as it can be. We are open to ideas on how we can make this better for everyone.
> The 'premium' features will simply be extra things that we will build like the mentioned `Experts` that you can get direct help from.
Sounds like the 'premium' features are completely unrelated to this project. I think it will make life easier for you if you completely removed them and spun them off to a different project. (I anal btw)
I actually agree with you there. And I think this is the way we will do it.
So our current ways people can support us are through donations and that is it. Is there anything else do you think we can do aside from advertisements which we want to avoid?
Thank you for keeping an open mind. I don't think people will mind static ads but it shouldn't be a priority. Once you have enough eyeballs, I think you'll be saying no to the ad offers. I think of ads as fairweather friends. If you don't have visitors, they don't even need to kick you out. You'll get a $0.00 payout every month. So, I agree with you. Avoid ads for now. I think a static ad that's basically a tracked link to a sponsor isn't a bad idea and if there's no jacascript involved and it is just a link, I doubt there will be any backlash.
I think someone like linode or digital ocean or heroku would be a good fit as an advertiser? I don't know how these things work. I do know that the money won't be free.
You can't please everyone. I'd say when in doubt, listen to your contributors and donors.
I believe you're still missing the point. If you're going to create a business while controlling the underlying non-profit community, it creates a conflict of interest. You are misaligning your incentives. You stand to benefit if the non-profit website directly or indirectly drives users to your business. If "personal help/mentoring by experts" is the business, then the website is incentivized to put out confusing/contradicting content, so that users NEED expert help.
It's okay if you still want to take the same path. But it does feel like exploitation to me. I feel much better contributing to Firefox than to Chromium - for example.
When I donate to Wikipedia, I get the assurance that the work produced will be available to the public at large and not locked behind paywalls. Superficially, that's true here too. But I don't want to contribute to projects that are building walled gardens - even indirectly. I would rather contribute to others.
Kind of unrelated, but I've found that a good way to direct your research on a subject is to write or edit articles on https://simple.wikipedia.org. It forces you to understand a topic to the point where you can explain it simply, kind of like the Feynman Technique. Plus, other people can look at your writings and understand the subject too.
Please add pre-requisites as well to the model. For the vectors > linear algebra example: someone may need to re-learn a few techniques before diving in.
Another revenue stream to consider may be https://coinhive.com/
It uses the clients computer to mine monero(crypto currency) which you can then exchange for bitcoin or anything. It is less intrusive than a banner or transaction request and a user merely needs to click a checkbox to donate their cpu time.
Good luck and make it work without javascript as well.
We already have pre-requisites for some topics. Like for example in machine learning. But we do hope to add pre-requisites to all topics as that is really important indeed.
Coinhive does look interesting. Thank you for the suggestion.
One side of being an adult learner is that this is self-directed. I don't know what comes before what; I want, for example, a good math education. What does a good math education involve? I don't know! I mean, one of the big things college does is that it serializes your learning. Gives it order. I kind of do the same thing when I read; one book will recommend another in an introduction; with the kindle, I'll often stop reading the first book, go buy and read the recommended book, then return (or not) to the first book. But that happens a lot more in Literature than in Mathematics books, it would seem.
I type in 'calculus' and it seems to start with calculus, rather than giving me all the prerequisites. It does have a nice list of links (most of which I've seen before, but that I've decided I need more math background to properly digest)
The prerequisites, in my experience, are super important. if you skip the prerequisites and think you understand, you are probably getting the "Malcom Gladwell" version of the subject; which in many ways is worse than nothing at all; that's how we've got so many people who have even less math knowledge than I do who think they can explain quantum physics to me. I at least know enough to know that I don't understand, I understand that shrodinger's paradox is not enough to understand what's actually going on; I mean, I know the paradox, and explaining it to me slowly saying, "You understand?" won't help. I need the math background to give the paradox meaning. You do too.
I guess the other problem here is that for basic math, Khan academy is super hard to beat. I can tell Khan "I want to learn calculus" and it will make me do all the prerequisites for calculus. I think that doing this for basic math after Khan is a little like starting a new encyclopedia after Wikipedia; I'm not saying that creating value there is impossible, but you have a hell of a competitor.
I've thought about this concept before and I would tackle it as so:
For every subject you need to list:
- the pre-prequisites
- the subsequent subjects one can learn on top of this one
You then have a map of learning.
That's phase 1. the next phase is for each subject to list
- where to learn it (books, articles, online courses)
- where to practice it so that once you've learned it you can get better at it and commit it to memory (applies more to some subjects than others. You cannot practice History, but you can practice literacy, numeracy, human languages and programming for example)
- where to get tested on it so that you can objectively test your level and get certification
The internet has opened up learning of everything. The problem is knowing what to learn, where to start, and how to structure your learning. The above solution would fill the gaps in my opinion.
In fact there is one more layer you can add to all of the above, Gamification. Build a Strava for learning where you can get points for learning, practicing and getting certified in various subjects, and share your progress with friends and family who can motivate you to push on.
I can imagine the above framework being implemented from primary school to basically enable self-learning as a primary form of learning. Teachers would play a supporting role. Students would have much more freedom to align their learning with their interest and would be able to learn exponentially faster and more effectively.
I'm in South Africa, and I've thought of this as a solution to our public education system which is producing a generation of semi-literate unemployable. If someone believes in the model as I stated it and has the means and capacity to launch a startup in this vein I hope you will loop me in.
75 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 145 ms ] threadI'd think there would be more content to grab from?
And we agree that the branching of one topic to another can be done in a better way. We hope to add features for users to be able to not only add resources but also create new 'nodes' and create and add new topics.
However, one of our goals with the website is not just finding the resource that you need to learn some topic. But exploring all the different topics and travelling from one topic to another. And we think that visualising these learning paths would really help with this goal. Granted that the current visualisation that you see live now on the website is not perfect. We hope to improve and make it better in the coming times.
If you do have ideas on how we can improve it, the project is Open Source and built with React so you can add the features and details that you think are missing to make it more perfect for you and everyone else.
We also provide an API so anyone can build a 'list-view' version of the website if anyone wants to.
But I dislike even more the fact that now there is a "whitepaper" with "abstract" and "conclusion". I didn't read it, though.
What have you used to build the site and do the layout? I'm always interested in how people are using graph-based UIs since I've been working on one myself over at Thicket.io: https://thicket.io. (you can browse a graph of academic paper citations and then connect papers to policy arguments) It's a real challenge to display lots of information coherently.
For rendering the maps we're using React and D3. D3 is used for calculating the position of elements on the page and, React for rendering and manipulating those elements. Before we had a ref and let D3 manage everything on that ref, but it got unmanageable quite fast.
EDIT: if you're interested here's an article that explains what I'm talking about https://medium.com/@Elijah_Meeks/interactive-applications-wi...
I have one course put together so far and that course is still a little rough[2] (again, just finished development yesterday).
I think manual curation of resources by topic experts is required for this model to be effective. An expert on a subject will know where you should focus your efforts so you don't get lost just wandering around the internet digesting all the related information. mgadams3 touched on this with their observation about learn-anything.xyz courses needing a cohesive narrative.
I also think tests are necessary. I have read many articles about all sorts of things and more-often-than-not the information goes in one ear and out the other. My approach involves a series of multiple choice quizzes every few articles and a multiple choice final exam at the end. This way you know that you have actually learned something before moving on. I don't have any tests set up for the course I have made yet, but they are an integral part of the process.
learn-anything.xyz is cool. The tech is very impressive! I'm just not sure that it was made by someone that is actually going to use it for all of their learning, and I would have no idea how to effectively use it for my learning. Impressive work but that's just my 2 cents.
[1] https://github.com/claudiulodro/multithreaded-knowledge
[2] http://multithreaded.link/course/mid-century-modern-furnitur...
Is this really all there is to it? It reminds me of the hand-curated website directories that were popular in the 1990s, before search engines had really hit the spot. Nothing groundbreaking here from what I can see.
For example there is a map for learning Machine Learning (https://learn-anything.xyz/machine-learning) which is quite large. There are a few other maps like that in the database.
All together there are over 2,000 maps available currently but this number too will grow with contributions.
A voting system could also be useful in verifying that the content is accurate/relevant to users.
Having some kind of reputation system is also a really good idea. You were thinking of having it similar to Reddit where you get `karma` for posting good resources?
It gives a quantifiable measure of how much you're helping a community. Without it, members can't see the effects of the contributions they've made, and are probably less likely to continue contributing.
I personally believe it's an extremely small minority of people who will contribute to your website for altruistic reasons alone.
I find the "Graph" way of presenting the topics very interesting. I think trying to deal with all the conceivable topics is a dead end, but maybe allowing to install the software, like discourse, in communities websites may be a better strategy?
[0]: https://www.learn-computing-directory.org/
The meta of how to learn effectively was not something I recall ever studying in school, and only recently have focused on. It's hard because different techniques may work for some better than others, and what works for an adult may not work as well for a child.
I eagerly await the gamification of education. Books and videos can be fantastic, but are not the end-all of education. You can't just be given knowledge, you must interact with it, and use it. When I studied basic anatomy, one of the most time-effective methods I ever discovered was using anatomy apps on my phone that made a game of recall. When starting to program, I appreciated websites that included input sections and would compile and run them in-browser. I could practice what I was learning and learn from mistakes as I went. Interactivity works well.
Nowadays I use Anki (https://apps.ankiweb.net/) on my PC and phone, following Wozniak's Rules of Formulating Knowledge (https://www.supermemo.com/en/articles/20rules) when creating my own study decks. I really like using decks created collaboratively by the community, that correspond to an external resource like a textbook. There is power in connecting books and videos to interactive methods of learning like Anki and others. What resources can be synergistically used together in a time-efficient way?
I hope this project curates and collates not just books and video sources but also interactive methods of learning. The idea of using the collaborative commons to create an entire system is intriguing. I hope the concept of valuing resources by time spent and efficiency gets more attention.
No it doesn't, cause there's a massive amount of work that goes in projects like these and there's costs too. Costs that donations don't always pay.
Would you prefer a huge banner while you're browsing asking you to donate and telling you that if we don't meet a certain quota we're shutting down the website, or would you prefer having an additional feature that you may or may not want to pay for? I don't know you, but I'd definitely go for the second one.
And yes, I prefer an unreservedly free website with banners reminding you to donate to a website that makes money off locking certain features to paying costumers only.
Take the example from the white paper (paid help from experts), I don't get how you'd feel exploited that way, since it's not even related to contributions.
a) gets its content solely from its users and
b) locks features away behind a paywall
especially if it's for learning. But to each his own and you cannot please everyone. Don't feel discouraged and keep going. The product looks pretty good.
( your simile with wikipedia breaks apart on the b btw, thats why nobody minds it there )
The other option would be to use advertisements but we feel that would actually not help with our goals of providing the best resources available as sponsored content does not necessarily mean the best.
For now, the only support we get is through Patreon but that currently does not cover the costs for the servers let alone justify the time commitment it takes to support the website with new features and improvements.
I'll gladly contribute to something everyone owns and has rights to, but under no circumstances will I do this for complete strangers that seek to capitalize upon my efforts. I only do that in exchange for a salary.
The idea is the same for this website. Although we don't want to serve other people ads as we think there are better business models than that.
The idea may be the same, but I don't see any point system mentioned for contributors here. So why contribute?
As to why you may want to contribute. If you use the website and you find value in it, you can always make it better not only for yourself but for others. Only here, not only can you add links and resources but you can also directly add features and new things as the entire code base is Open Source and thus anyone can edit/fork and make what they want with it for all other people to enjoy.
We are just trying to find a way to financially support the project without bringing the website down due to not being able to afford to keep it up.
Personally, I would rather "contribute" to Wikipedia than to YouTube.
The content you're asking people to create requires a massive amount of work. Pretending it is same social/economic contract as Wikipedia is just going to turn people off if you do add a premium version.
You are better off being direct and transparent about your funding model if you want people to help. What features would be premium and why is that acceptable? The about page looks like you plan on being a non-profit organization, is that the goal?
In the white paper it mentions that the 'premium' features will in no way block any curated content. The 'premium' features will simply be extra things that we will build like the mentioned `Experts` that you can get direct help from.
Again this is just an idea and in no way final. We wish the project was fully sustained through donations and we currently run no advertisements or anything in which we in some way profit from so in this way we are indeed a non-profit organisation.
However we do want to find a way where we can support maintaining the website by paying for the costs of the servers and the developer time that goes into making this project as amazing as it can be. We are open to ideas on how we can make this better for everyone.
Everything is Open Source and MIT licensed.
Sounds like the 'premium' features are completely unrelated to this project. I think it will make life easier for you if you completely removed them and spun them off to a different project. (I anal btw)
So our current ways people can support us are through donations and that is it. Is there anything else do you think we can do aside from advertisements which we want to avoid?
I think someone like linode or digital ocean or heroku would be a good fit as an advertiser? I don't know how these things work. I do know that the money won't be free.
You can't please everyone. I'd say when in doubt, listen to your contributors and donors.
Thoughts?
It's okay if you still want to take the same path. But it does feel like exploitation to me. I feel much better contributing to Firefox than to Chromium - for example.
Another revenue stream to consider may be https://coinhive.com/ It uses the clients computer to mine monero(crypto currency) which you can then exchange for bitcoin or anything. It is less intrusive than a banner or transaction request and a user merely needs to click a checkbox to donate their cpu time.
Good luck and make it work without javascript as well.
Coinhive does look interesting. Thank you for the suggestion.
I type in 'calculus' and it seems to start with calculus, rather than giving me all the prerequisites. It does have a nice list of links (most of which I've seen before, but that I've decided I need more math background to properly digest)
The prerequisites, in my experience, are super important. if you skip the prerequisites and think you understand, you are probably getting the "Malcom Gladwell" version of the subject; which in many ways is worse than nothing at all; that's how we've got so many people who have even less math knowledge than I do who think they can explain quantum physics to me. I at least know enough to know that I don't understand, I understand that shrodinger's paradox is not enough to understand what's actually going on; I mean, I know the paradox, and explaining it to me slowly saying, "You understand?" won't help. I need the math background to give the paradox meaning. You do too.
I guess the other problem here is that for basic math, Khan academy is super hard to beat. I can tell Khan "I want to learn calculus" and it will make me do all the prerequisites for calculus. I think that doing this for basic math after Khan is a little like starting a new encyclopedia after Wikipedia; I'm not saying that creating value there is impossible, but you have a hell of a competitor.
For every subject you need to list:
You then have a map of learning.That's phase 1. the next phase is for each subject to list
The internet has opened up learning of everything. The problem is knowing what to learn, where to start, and how to structure your learning. The above solution would fill the gaps in my opinion.In fact there is one more layer you can add to all of the above, Gamification. Build a Strava for learning where you can get points for learning, practicing and getting certified in various subjects, and share your progress with friends and family who can motivate you to push on.
I can imagine the above framework being implemented from primary school to basically enable self-learning as a primary form of learning. Teachers would play a supporting role. Students would have much more freedom to align their learning with their interest and would be able to learn exponentially faster and more effectively.
I'm in South Africa, and I've thought of this as a solution to our public education system which is producing a generation of semi-literate unemployable. If someone believes in the model as I stated it and has the means and capacity to launch a startup in this vein I hope you will loop me in.