Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | jedimastert's commentslogin

> Probably almost any method is effective at learning guitar, as long as it includes the key factor - time spent practicing.

There are a few pedagogical points here to keep in mind:

first, there are local maxima in terms of learning something like guitar where you get bad habits and the only way to progress is to undo them.

Also, different ways of learning have different values in terms of what goals you're aiming towards and very importantly what kind of practice will keep you motivated in a sustainable way. Sometimes, taking shortcuts in some ways means you might slow down your growth rate but you'll have better overall growth because you'll keep at it for longer


> first, there are local maxima in terms of learning something like guitar where you get bad habits and the only way to progress is to undo them.

I'm not convinced for guitar. Some of the fastest and most famous guitarists had shockingly bad technique.

As long as you're not injuring yourself, practice and determination pretty much overcomes everything.


dont make fun of jimmy page like this he was trying very hard

> Some of the fastest and most famous guitarists had shockingly bad technique.

The universe didn't offer a manual on how to play guitar, so how are you determining that their technique was bad? Given what you say about them, maybe they actually had the perfect technique?


The universe didn’t offer a manual, but mankind has largely arrived at some orthodoxy for the most efficient and ergonomic ways to fret, bend, pluck, tap, strum, etc. In many cases, these are objectively better techniques to use once mastered, but they’re not the only way.

> In many cases, these are objectively better techniques to use once mastered

Given a certain set of quantifiable measures that is no doubt true, but then that only pushes the question to how are the measures determined to be objectively relevant? If the aforementioned fast/famous guitar players had started with a different technique there is a chance they wouldn't have become fast/famous. In that case, given the criteria of reaching notable speed/fame, it is possible their "bad" methods were actually best of all.

But also, even where everyone agrees there is a better way, that doesn't equate to an alternative being bad. So the original question still stands: How do we determine "shockingly bad" as opposed to "different"?


I see this "bad technique" angle expressed quite often when talking about self-learning. I tend to think it is overblown a bit. I started learning piano by myself during covid. Then I went to two teachers. Neither one had anything bad to say about my technique.

Teachers of beginners understand that keeping them motivated and practicing is the primary problem. Cleaning up your technique is simply not a goal. Doubly so if you are an adult learner.

Piano is also a lot harder to have very bad technique than other instruments since it is mostly a discrete, one-to-one mapping. If you want a chord with some particular notes, a lot of the time there is only a single fingering that will do. If you push the key hard enough, you will get the correct note, and it won't be wrong if you push harder.

By contrast, in guitar, if you push too hard, your note will be off even though you fretted in the correct place. Or, for example, everybody in guitar teaches barre chords up near the nut, when that's extremely difficult and likely to injure a beginner who has neither the strength nor control to get that right, instead of teaching barre chords near the body on fewer strings. etc.


Glass transition temperatures are a little bit misleading, but from personal experience even leaving a PLA print in direct sunlight under even a little tension will cause it to warp in as little as 30 minutes if you aren't careful.


First of all, anyone getting scammed is detrimental to society because society is made out of people and those are people getting scammed. Gambling addicts are not less important than wealthy people.

Second, these markets are generating new gambling addicts, which is wildly and provably detrimental to society.


It's been shamefully long since I've updated, but

https://aarontag.com


Why?


I have a personal vendetta against coal in particular because of the way it destroys the entire communities and towns. Coal got an early head start in environmentalism villainy because it has immediate and very visible environmental impacts in the process of getting it out of the ground.


All of those energy providers appear to be public utilities, and not privately owned.


The current administration is actively undermining pretty much any attempt to move towards renewables.


>undermining

:)

That sucks. Coal is the worst IMHO. In NC there have been a number of times that fly ash lakes flooded into rivers, full of wonderful things like mercury.


They do, trains are BAFFLINGLY fuel efficient in terms of pounds of cargo. Once they get up to speed, trains can move one ton of cargo about 480 mile per gallon, vs 130 with trucks


> I'm oversimplifying but this effectively turns the iPhone into a dumb terminal for Google's brain

I feel like people probably said this when Google became the default search engine for everyone...


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: