Quality over quantity. I often worry that I write too much on this blog. After all, the world has a lot of text. Does it need more? Shouldn’t I pick some small number of essays and really perfect them?
Arguably, no. You’ve perhaps heard of the pottery class where students graded on quantity produced more quality than those graded on quality. (It was actually a photography class.) For scientists, the best predictor of having a highly cited paper is just writing lots of papers. As I write these words, I have no idea if any of this is good and I try not to think about it.
Yeah, strong disagree with this. This is not subjective or a matter of personal opinion, but quantity does not always lead to success; not at all by a long shot. Quantity helps after you have already built a brand or reputation, but quantity alone won't do that. If you look at the most successful people at any endeavor, they often had a break-out hit or success of some sort, which led to additional acclaim. The author's blog became such a big hit the first place because his earlier articles went viral, not because he wrote a lot of articles. If the necessary ingredients for virality were missing, no amount of quantity would have helped.
Assuming that someone is capable of producing high quality results ( and that there is a population of people who are not capable), should that person make one thing for a long time? Or make one thing and put it in the world, and then make another thing.
I don't think you are interacting with a good faith interpretation of the claim here.
Assuming that someone is capable of producing high quality results
then this would make quality necessary but insufficient, which he did not specify, nor can this be inferred. He clearly presented a dichotomy of choosing between quantity or quality.
Imagine, if you will, a creature with the intelligence of a toddler, and an incurable urge to remove everything that walks on two legs from its territory. Now give that creature the strength to lift an adult human.
Written instructions / explaining board games. In both cases, your best bet is a good tutorial. "Do X and Y will result" gives you instant feedback. If Y didn't result, you have probably failed to do X correctly. Versus "Do X1. Now do X2... Now do Xn. End." The latter is decontextualized and hard to follow, while a well-illustrated tutorial takes you a long way to success, having actually _done the thing._
Most recently released board games have a quick start setup "mode" (where some random things are chosen for you), combined with a tutorial, along with summarized rules, more detailed rules, and a glossary.
I have found as suggested by the article that the best thing to do is to start playing the actual game as quickly as possible, and answer questions progressively using any of these forms of instruction.
They're all happy path, like framework tutorials. For any game with complexity, they're not going to touch the odd edge cases that will have a pause while people argue about the rules for half an hour.
I stopped agreeing when reading nr 7.
Einsteins notation (X_n Y^n being defined as sum over ‘n’ of X_n times Y^n) is one of the most elegant and simple solutions that really work.
If if you need x_n = y_n * z_n, you would write just that. Only when you write y_n * z^n would the notation imply summation over n.
> Einsteins notation (X_n Y^n being defined as sum over ‘n’ of X_n times Y^n) is one of the most elegant and simple solutions that really work.
Yes, but that notation still includes the indexes being summed over, which I think is the point that no. 7 was trying to make. What doesn't work is a notation that just says XY, without any indexes whatsoever. The ordering of indexes and the specification of which indexes are being summed over matters, so a notation that leaves those things out doesn't work.
As I understand it, If you have a even a moderately varied diet, multivitamins and supplements have little effect. If you have a hole in your diet, or you have a condition that prevents eating certain foods, supplements are needed to keep you healthy. It is also worth mentioning that although things are labeled in a 'daily recommended' intake, it takes months or years for symptoms to develop.
I don't like people labeling them as 'ineffective', because they definitely prevent very real and life destroying conditions like cretinism and rickets. This is mostly because people think 'if I need this to be healthy, then having too much of it should make me super healthy', which is not the case. If you get enough (which most people in developed countries do) then your body can do its various functions. I've heard the metaphor 'giving a mason more bricks than he needs won't make him work faster' or something like that.
Sometimes I try, when it seems plausible, to see how much common ground it's possible to find. Maybe you say 'h' and I say 'm' but if we can still agree on 'n' I've learned something from the interaction.
My goal when I'm debating someone is never to change their mind. Sometimes it's to make sure that the audience hears a counterargument, but usually I have two goals: to understand their point of view, and for them to understand mine.
The author argues that calorie /counting/ does not work. This is true. If you want to lose weight, it's theoretically simple: Eat less, possibly combined with becoming more active. But counting calories is not the best way to achieve this.
Successful caloric restriction means consistently letting yourself get more hungry than you are comfortable with. Typically this requires a shift in mentality: You need to eat because you are hungry and stop eating when you are no longer hungry, as opposed to eating because you are stressed/bored/etc.
It worked for me for what it's worth. I found that staying under 2000/day means i do not gain weight. this is easier than having to prepare special meals or other things. ymmv
> The author argues that calorie /counting/ does not work. This is true.
No, it is not. The misconception behind is that you have to be calorie-perfect. That is not what calorie counting is for: it's for ballparking and educating yourself. One should always count calories, measure weicght, and if the direction is going up/down adjust accordingly.
You are not measuring fuel for a plane to fly, you are eyeballing caloric input for one sack of salty water that may or may not burn it all, and that is not supposed to be a perfect calculation.
Besides, below they state:
> The only way to lose weight permanently is to permanently change your food environment. Or, you know, drugs.
Drugs are not the answer and fools' gold for those that hope to make zero change in their lifestyle, take the magic pill and voila.
You don't have to be hungry to lose weight, nor is it about being uncomfortable. Counting calories teaches you which things are lower in calories and therefore can eat without feeling hungry while losing weight.
Yea, its obviously based on opinion. I enjoyed it though. I guess if you want to be more objective, then "things that lack firm evidence" may be a bit better.
I personally follow a calorie counting diet, but for most people, it is not an effective way to lose weight. Obviously it is because they have issues adhering to it, not some kind of free energy power source.
Counting calories. Say your weight is stable and you start eating a single extra piece of sandwich bread every day. After a year, you’ll gain 3.8 kg (8.3 lb) of fat. Almost no one counts calories that accurately.
This depends if your metabolism adjusts. It's not like you automatically convert all surplus to fat. For some people , TDEE goes up to account for the surplus, resulting in no weight gain. Counting calories is hard though , but if the scale is going the wrong way, then this means adjust downward.
I got a lot of mileage in trying to persuade people (especially those that write) that other people don't read by showing pictures of people ignoring the signs right next to them. Don't sit here. Don't park here. No swimming.
I can't remember the company, but I heard about one that started every meeting with 20 minutes or so of silence for people to read the material that they were supposed to have read before they got to the meeting. That is genius...
> Counting calories. Say your weight is stable and you start eating a single extra piece of sandwich bread every day. After a year, you’ll gain 3.8 kg (8.3 lb) of fat. Almost no one counts calories that accurately.
I'd argue that one big benefit of counting calories is that it teaches you that a single piece of sandwich bread contributes a surprisingly high amount of calories to your diet. This potentially empowers you to minmax your plate with the things that will get you the most enjoyment/satiation for your calories.
A bit presumptuous - many of the items on this list work for many people, even above the threshold of 'most'. It throws into doubt the author's credentials, and is probably more of a failing on their part that these items don't work for them.
44 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 101 ms ] threadArguably, no. You’ve perhaps heard of the pottery class where students graded on quantity produced more quality than those graded on quality. (It was actually a photography class.) For scientists, the best predictor of having a highly cited paper is just writing lots of papers. As I write these words, I have no idea if any of this is good and I try not to think about it.
Yeah, strong disagree with this. This is not subjective or a matter of personal opinion, but quantity does not always lead to success; not at all by a long shot. Quantity helps after you have already built a brand or reputation, but quantity alone won't do that. If you look at the most successful people at any endeavor, they often had a break-out hit or success of some sort, which led to additional acclaim. The author's blog became such a big hit the first place because his earlier articles went viral, not because he wrote a lot of articles. If the necessary ingredients for virality were missing, no amount of quantity would have helped.
I don't think you are interacting with a good faith interpretation of the claim here.
then this would make quality necessary but insufficient, which he did not specify, nor can this be inferred. He clearly presented a dichotomy of choosing between quantity or quality.
Using the context of previous articles by the author, I assumed Bayesian reasoning, so I was thinking about priors and outcomes and probabilities.
Nice.
It works if you accept some degree of duplication but I have seen many people screech over this
Yeah, after reading about Travis, that sound about right.
I have found as suggested by the article that the best thing to do is to start playing the actual game as quickly as possible, and answer questions progressively using any of these forms of instruction.
I get where the article is going, but the way it's written is not correct at all. If you don't read the rules first, you can't try anything.
If if you need x_n = y_n * z_n, you would write just that. Only when you write y_n * z^n would the notation imply summation over n.
Yes, but that notation still includes the indexes being summed over, which I think is the point that no. 7 was trying to make. What doesn't work is a notation that just says XY, without any indexes whatsoever. The ordering of indexes and the specification of which indexes are being summed over matters, so a notation that leaves those things out doesn't work.
Rather than take a multivitamin I take a high dose of some specific supplements every few days. I wonder if they have been shown to have any benefits.
I don't like people labeling them as 'ineffective', because they definitely prevent very real and life destroying conditions like cretinism and rickets. This is mostly because people think 'if I need this to be healthy, then having too much of it should make me super healthy', which is not the case. If you get enough (which most people in developed countries do) then your body can do its various functions. I've heard the metaphor 'giving a mason more bricks than he needs won't make him work faster' or something like that.
"If you find yourself speaking with a person who does not make sense, in all likelyhood, that person is not real."
If your goal is convincing your debating opponent it seldom work but what about the audience?
Go see a therapist? (A good one, not all of them are actually useful.)
Yeah, thermodynamics do not apply to you.
Also, this "article" is full of opinion.
The idea that dieting is a temporary change to your food habits is why most "diets" eventually fail.
No, it is not. The misconception behind is that you have to be calorie-perfect. That is not what calorie counting is for: it's for ballparking and educating yourself. One should always count calories, measure weicght, and if the direction is going up/down adjust accordingly.
You are not measuring fuel for a plane to fly, you are eyeballing caloric input for one sack of salty water that may or may not burn it all, and that is not supposed to be a perfect calculation.
Besides, below they state: > The only way to lose weight permanently is to permanently change your food environment. Or, you know, drugs.
Drugs are not the answer and fools' gold for those that hope to make zero change in their lifestyle, take the magic pill and voila.
I personally follow a calorie counting diet, but for most people, it is not an effective way to lose weight. Obviously it is because they have issues adhering to it, not some kind of free energy power source.
This depends if your metabolism adjusts. It's not like you automatically convert all surplus to fat. For some people , TDEE goes up to account for the surplus, resulting in no weight gain. Counting calories is hard though , but if the scale is going the wrong way, then this means adjust downward.
I can't remember the company, but I heard about one that started every meeting with 20 minutes or so of silence for people to read the material that they were supposed to have read before they got to the meeting. That is genius...
I'd argue that one big benefit of counting calories is that it teaches you that a single piece of sandwich bread contributes a surprisingly high amount of calories to your diet. This potentially empowers you to minmax your plate with the things that will get you the most enjoyment/satiation for your calories.