btilly

48 ms·

661.
by btilly 2y ago
Several other countries also gave them up with better results. Including South Africa, Sweden, Belarus, and Kazakhstan.
662.
by btilly 2y ago
I generally don't test comprehension directly. And the kinds of questions that I've seen for it on speed reading tests didn't impress me.
663.
by btilly 2y ago
I do. For example I'm currently following around 50 actively updating stories on Royal Roads.
664.
by btilly 2y ago
Except that I do digest. Just not necessarily while my eyes are occupied with the book.
665.
by btilly 2y ago
If you think of it as a bra burning arc, you won't get the historical context. The most jarring for me was some of the childhood scenes.
666.
by btilly 2y ago
What he did is classic speed reading - trading off speed for comprehension.
667.
by btilly 2y ago
That's a healthy attitude. All that I have to say about it, is that in a place like Hacker News, you do encounter the top 0.01% on a fairly regular basis. Particularly among those who were here early on. Being too skeptical of it when
668.
by btilly 2y ago
No. My eyes pull in several words at a glance, and I just have a series of glances per line. I've seen advice about continuous eye movement for fast reading. That is BS in my experience.
669.
by btilly 2y ago
No. Speed reading is explicitly trading off speed and comprehension. It takes advantage of the fact that we need to see a lot less of the text to pull out certain ideas than we think we do. I'm simply reading. In full.
670.
by btilly 2y ago
Not on a consistent level. For example when I do a lot of programming, or when I'm studying advanced math, my reading speed will slow down. Just knowing what was intended is not enough - a single letter can really matter. But if I&#x27
671.
by btilly 2y ago
For everything except looking for debugging errors, yes.
672.
by btilly 2y ago
This all sounds very familiar, except that my coordination is not enough for typing quickly. That's because of an unrelated neurological problem though. I'm limited to something like 40-45 WPM. And the 900 wpm minute is simply abo
673.
by btilly 2y ago
I have no particular interest in subjecting myself to whatever testing you think is needed. Reading it something that I do for pleasure. The other person I met with the same speed I discovered by sending her an article, rereading it because
674.
by btilly 2y ago
You aren't finding it annoying? She goes to great lengths to show how non-sexist the society is according to then feminist theory. Then, just accidentally, slips in gender divides that should not exist in her society. Given that I had
675.
by btilly 2y ago
I did a lot of reading for entertainment. Particularly light sci-fi and fantasy.
676.
by btilly 2y ago
Trained speed readers trade off speed and comprehension. I've never heard of any of them doing what I do.
677.
by btilly 2y ago
Here's what's weird. I can read a book faster than I can "digest" it. I first learned my reading speed by accident after I read Clan of the Cave Bear in a single sitting. Immediately afterwards I could not summarize it
678.
by btilly 2y ago
No, that's the speed I'd read Kant. Mind you, I don't agree with a lot of Kant. But that's another story.
679.
by btilly 2y ago
What answer do you wants? I can answer comprehension questions and get a good score. For example I got a perfect score on the verbal section of the GRE when I took it in the early 1990s, and this is the speed that I did the reading comprehe
680.
by btilly 2y ago
What about people who don't just read, but have absurd speed? My brother and I both read around 900 wpm. My children only read at a normal adult speed, but both love to read. If I had a way to have passed on my reading speed, I would h
681.
by btilly 2y ago
No, I'm not doing anything other than tracking it. I'm doing that to show the user, "How much of this success was chance 50% choices, how much was guaranteed?" And so people can see how much of a good or bad result was b
682.
by btilly 2y ago
Exactly right. After you've picked the envelope, you may be nearly guaranteed to be wrong. For example both numbers are large positives and you picked the smaller. Now you're almost guaranteed to guess larger, and be wrong. But be
683.
by btilly 2y ago
How the numbers in the envelopes were picked doesn't matter. What's important is that they exist, and are specific numbers.
684.
by btilly 2y ago
I'm quite sure that if you start at the bottom of page 195 of the PDF, which is marked page 177 at the top, and read for a few pages, my claim will be verified. It gets worse. The reasoning process actually started not with mercury, bu
685.
by btilly 2y ago
Sorry, but you're simply wrong. You can read the answer I gave. You can read the answer Colin Wright gave. You can trust that we both have math degrees and know what we are talking about. Or, aw heck, you can try it with an actual prog
686.
by btilly 2y ago
The two basic facts to be aware of. Momentum is mass times velocity. Energy is m v^2 / 2. Both with adjustments in the relativistic realm, which this barely gets to. The maximum thrust per atom lost is going to be at insanely high velo
687.
by btilly 2y ago
You don't need a uniform distribution to get guaranteed better than even odds. And many nonuniform distributions work just fine. There are no hidden conditions. It is just a shocking result that we don't expect.
688.
by btilly 2y ago
I was dealing with a more general variant of the version that Vos Savant gave. Which is that you were able to look at the contents of the envelope that you got. She claimed you didn't gain useful information. Calling it "informati
689.
by btilly 2y ago
No. That condition holds in all three of the scenarios that I stated. And yet you have 3 different answers. Switching 2/3 win, 1/2 win, and 0/1 win respectively. You specifically need information that we haven't been giv
690.
by btilly 2y ago
Those assumptions are required for the usual explanation. But they are very rarely stated. And so the usual explanation is not logically solid. You can't just sneak in the assumptions. You have to state them somewhere.

More ›