>>The reason is that if you're truly good at something, if you have a real talent for it, then it's easy for you to do it well from the start, so you rarely judge it or realize how good you are.
I've often wondered about this (beyond basic abilities). I'm sure there are exceptional people for whom this is true but in my experience most people start out not being very good at what they later end up being really good at.
Would love to know if there's some sort of data / research on this.
Most things take learning to master. But most people have more of an aptitude for some things than others and find it comparatively easy to become baseline competent at those things.
Like, one of my nephews could dribble a soccer ball almost as soon as he could walk — it was astonishing how good he was at it at 20 months old. At three his ball control skills were as good as his father’s were at 9 or so (a father who was good enough to play in travel leagues in middle school, so no slouch).
No, at age 5, of course he can’t compete with adults who play in rec leagues. He doesn’t have the speed, strength, situational awareness, reflexes, or sense of of his options in a given situation.
But on the other hand, in isolation, he can almost always get the ball to go where he wants it. He’ll never in his life feel like that’s a skill he had to _learn_.
Whereas I’ve never been able to pick up dribbling at all regardless of how many hours of practice they subjected us to in phys ed.
"On Wednesday, Apple released iOS 17.1. Among the various fixes was a patch for a vulnerability, tracked as CVE-2023-42846, which prevented the privacy feature from working. Tommy Mysk, one of the two security researchers Apple credited with discovering and reporting the vulnerability (Talal Haj Bakry was the other), told Ars that he tested all recent iOS releases and found the flaw dates back to version 14, released in September 2020."
prompt: write a short essay as a scientist which is better, celsius or fahrentheit
partial answer which some faulty reasoning about precision:
First, the Celsius scale is based on a more intuitive and logical reference point. The Celsius scale sets the freezing point of water at 0 degrees and the boiling point of water at 100 degrees, whereas the Fahrenheit scale sets the freezing point of water at 32 degrees and the boiling point at 212 degrees. This means that the Celsius scale has a smaller unit interval, which allows for more precise temperature measurement.
Perfect. This kind of junk is going to litter our collective knowledge bases for years. It looks just good enough to be authoritative, but is fundamentally incorrect.
Looking for Mastodon users progress, scanned 366 of 366 users you follow on Twitter. Discovered 0 Twitter users on Mastodon who have previously linked their Twitter and Mastodon accounts by logging into Twitodon.
Was a bit surprised that it found 5 matches (out of 1659 people I'm following). A bit inconvenient that I can't just see these matches though, but have to download a CSV file first.
