A "Teach Yourself Ventriloquism Kit", given as a random gift,
changed Nina Conti's life:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsnL-h39Wu8>

Has anybody else's life been changed by what might have seemed
like a trivial action? I can think of at least one famous
person.

dougstaples@gmx.com (LionelEdwards) wrote or quoted:
>Has anybody else's life been changed by what might have seemed
>like a trivial action?

Everyone's life is constantly changed by trivial actions.

But to observe causation you need to be able to compare the life
under the influence of action A with the life under the influence of
action B. And we can never do this, because there's only one world.
You cannot observe "the other branch", so you can't really compare.

So it remains a matter of conjecture.

--
But just think of a butterfly. It says to itself:
"Oh, I'm gonna crush that person there with my wings!"
- For the butterfly it's just a triviality,
but for the person it's a matter of life and death!

On 26/03/24 02:40, LionelEdwards wrote:

> A "Teach Yourself Ventriloquism Kit", given as a random gift,
> changed Nina Conti's life:
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsnL-h39Wu8> Has anybody else's life
> been changed by what might have seemed like a trivial action? I can
> think of at least one famous person.

The major factor that changed my life was when I was allowed to change
schools. At that second school, though, I can say that my life was also
changed when I borrowed "Teach Yourself Classical Greek" from the school
library. When the loan period expired after three weeks I asked for a
second loan. The assistant librarian was doubtful. Then the head
librarian, who was also our English teacher that year, stepped in and
authorised a six-month loan, telling me that I could get that extended
too if I needed it.

Meeting a teacher who thought that undirected learning was good for its
own sake was probably the very biggest factor that made me a successful
engineer.

Years later I wanted to tell him that, but by then the school didn't
know where he was, or even who he was.

P.S. I didn't get far in Greek, but at least I got a start. Even
learning the Greek alphabet is an asset for someone studying mathematics.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

On 25/03/2024 23:27, Peter Moylan wrote:

> P.S. I didn't get far in Greek, but at least I got a start. Even
> learning the Greek alphabet is an asset for someone studying mathematics.

The difference however is only a small delta (δ). <smile>

> Meeting a teacher who thought that undirected learning was
> good for its own sake was probably the very biggest
> factor that made me a successful engineer.

I agree with that sentiment 100%. It is probably the reason I do not
consider myself a good engineer. "It works, so it's good. The
fundamentals are for physicists to work out" is how I waded through my
engineering degree.

On 2024-03-25 22:27:04 +0000, Peter Moylan said:

> On 26/03/24 02:40, LionelEdwards wrote:
>
>> A "Teach Yourself Ventriloquism Kit", given as a random gift,
>> changed Nina Conti's life:
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsnL-h39Wu8> Has anybody else's life
>> been changed by what might have seemed like a trivial action? I can
>> think of at least one famous person.
>
> The major factor that changed my life was when I was allowed to change
> schools. At that second school, though, I can say that my life was also
> changed when I borrowed "Teach Yourself Classical Greek" from the school
> library. When the loan period expired after three weeks I asked for a
> second loan. The assistant librarian was doubtful. Then the head
> librarian, who was also our English teacher that year, stepped in and
> authorised a six-month loan, telling me that I could get that extended
> too if I needed it.

I was taught Greek for two years (maybe three). I've never regretted it.
>
> Meeting a teacher who thought that undirected learning was good for its
> own sake was probably the very biggest factor that made me a successful
> engineer.
>
> Years later I wanted to tell him that, but by then the school didn't
> know where he was, or even who he was.
>
> P.S. I didn't get far in Greek, but at least I got a start. Even
> learning the Greek alphabet is an asset for someone studying mathematics.

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

In article <l6fdk9Fph73U1@mid.individual.net>,
Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 2024-03-25 22:27:04 +0000, Peter Moylan said:

> > On 26/03/24 02:40, LionelEdwards wrote:
> >
> >> A "Teach Yourself Ventriloquism Kit", given as a random gift,
> >> changed Nina Conti's life:
> >> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsnL-h39Wu8> Has anybody else's life
> >> been changed by what might have seemed like a trivial action? I can
> >> think of at least one famous person.
> >
> > The major factor that changed my life was when I was allowed to change
> > schools. At that second school, though, I can say that my life was also
> > changed when I borrowed "Teach Yourself Classical Greek" from the school
> > library. When the loan period expired after three weeks I asked for a
> > second loan. The assistant librarian was doubtful. Then the head
> > librarian, who was also our English teacher that year, stepped in and
> > authorised a six-month loan, telling me that I could get that extended
> > too if I needed it.

> I was taught Greek for two years (maybe three). I've never regretted it.

I've even got a Greek O Level. Very useful on holiday in Greece (45 years
later) where many of the signs said 'Exodus' rather than the Latin 'Exit'
used elsewhere.

> >
> > Meeting a teacher who thought that undirected learning was good for its
> > own sake was probably the very biggest factor that made me a successful
> > engineer.
> >
> > Years later I wanted to tell him that, but by then the school didn't
> > know where he was, or even who he was.
> >
> > P.S. I didn't get far in Greek, but at least I got a start. Even
> > learning the Greek alphabet is an asset for someone studying mathematics.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té²
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 26/03/24 18:09, occam wrote:
> On 25/03/2024 23:27, Peter Moylan wrote:
>
>> P.S. I didn't get far in Greek, but at least I got a start. Even
>> learning the Greek alphabet is an asset for someone studying
>> mathematics.
>
> The difference however is only a small delta (δ). <smile>
>
>> Meeting a teacher who thought that undirected learning was good
>> for its own sake was probably the very biggest factor that made me
>> a successful engineer.
>
> I agree with that sentiment 100%. It is probably the reason I do not
> consider myself a good engineer. "It works, so it's good. The
> fundamentals are for physicists to work out" is how I waded through
> my engineering degree.

I have tended to say that technology changes so fast that only the
fundamentals persist. What's important for an engineer -- or, in any
case, for an EE -- is self-education on the job. The undergraduate
degree only creates a foundation -- a way of thinking, mostly -- on
which you can build.

In my classes I sometimes said things like "the practical things you
learn this year will be obsolete by the time you graduate", and "this
subject didn't even exist when I was a student". It was near enough to
the truth. My biggest class was introductory computer engineering. True,
Boolean algebra and a few things like that had been around for a long
time. But stuff like logic gates on a chip, and flip-flops, and stuff
like that, were very new.

Transistors were invented at about the same time I was born, but I was
halfway through my undergraduate degree before my teachers considered
that transistors had enough of a future to be included in an electronics
subject. After that, though, semiconductor electronics took off at a
rapid pace.

A few years ago I was working with a couple of specialists in designing
high-power transformers. Now, you might think that transformers are so
old that Adam was probably using them. But these were the new breed of
power systems engineers. Not only did they understand power generation
and transmission, they also understood things like control electronics
and computers and writing software to simulate the fine details of loss
calculations. (The important _commercial_ aspect of those huge
transformers was that they should be as near to lossless as possible.)
It would be fair to say that they had had a cross-disciplinary education.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

On 26/03/2024 10:30, charles wrote:
> In article <l6fdk9Fph73U1@mid.individual.net>,
> Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 2024-03-25 22:27:04 +0000, Peter Moylan said:
>

Athel wrote:

>> I was taught Greek for two years (maybe three). I've never regretted it.

That is a different sentiment (and statement) to what Peter wrote. I've
never regretted having been taught a subject, even if I regarded it as
pointless at the time. (Religious instruction comes to mind.)

Charles wrote:

> I've even got a Greek O Level.

As did I. To this day, it helps me understand the side-comments my wife
makes when angry at me. But it was via directed learning, not undirected.

>
>>>
>>> Meeting a teacher who thought that undirected learning was good for its
>>> own sake was probably the very biggest factor that made me a successful
>>> engineer.
>>>

Directed learning is what we all go through while at school. It is
undirected learning however that fuels our interests. I wish I was not
so focused on the former during my early education, and strayed more
from the prescribed curriculum.

On 26/03/2024 10:36, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 26/03/24 18:09, occam wrote:
>> On 25/03/2024 23:27, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>
>>> P.S. I didn't get far in Greek, but at least I got a start. Even
>>> learning the Greek alphabet is an asset for someone studying
>>> mathematics.
>>
>> The difference however is only a small delta (δ). <smile>
>>
>>> Meeting a teacher who thought that undirected learning was good
>>> for its own sake was probably the very biggest factor that made me
>>> a successful engineer.
>>
>> I agree with that sentiment 100%.  It is probably the reason I do not
>> consider myself a good engineer. "It works, so it's good. The
>> fundamentals are for physicists to work out" is how I waded through
>> my engineering degree.
>
> I have tended to say that technology changes so fast that only the
> fundamentals persist. What's important for an engineer -- or, in any
> case, for an EE -- is self-education on the job. The undergraduate
> degree only creates a foundation -- a way of thinking, mostly -- on
> which you can build.
>
<snip>

>
> Transistors were invented at about the same time I was born, but I was
> halfway through my undergraduate degree before my teachers considered
> that transistors had enough of a future to be included in an electronics
> subject. After that, though, semiconductor electronics took off at a
> rapid pace.

Good example in case. I was taught about transistors in my undergraduate
course. The 'fundamentals' of how they worked was at best hand-waving
(quantum tunnelling, role of impurities, etc) . However, that they
worked was incontrovertible. So engineers got on with it. The underlying
physics explanations are still changing.

So, my conclusion was the opposite to yours. That technology was
constant (e.g.current flow in a wire) but the physical explanation of it
was ever changing - and will continue to do so.

Did your professors never speak in terms of 'electron flow' or 'current
flow'? When did you realise nothing was physically flowing - at least
not in the sense of flowing water? That it did not matter at all - was
the difference between an engineer's attitude and that of physicists'.

On 26/03/24 21:24, occam wrote:
> On 26/03/2024 10:36, Peter Moylan wrote:

>> Transistors were invented at about the same time I was born, but I
>> was halfway through my undergraduate degree before my teachers
>> considered that transistors had enough of a future to be included
>> in an electronics subject. After that, though, semiconductor
>> electronics took off at a rapid pace.
>
> Good example in case. I was taught about transistors in my
> undergraduate course. The 'fundamentals' of how they worked was at
> best hand-waving (quantum tunnelling, role of impurities, etc) .
> However, that they worked was incontrovertible. So engineers got on
> with it. The underlying physics explanations are still changing.

Of course the EEs had a precedent, being completely familiar with the
way vacuum tubes worked. So initially they viewed transistors as being
similar to valves, with the base as a grid that controlled the current
passing from emitter to collector. Of course the mechanism was quite a
bit different, so that model had to be abandoned, but it provided a
starting point for the understanding.

As a student I got to learn two entirely different explanations of how a
p-n junction worked. The EE explanation was in terms of charge carriers,
electric field, charge carrier mobility, and ultimately the balance
between two motive forces: charged particle movement in one direction
under the influence of an electric field, and against that the
probabilistic movement that is diffusion. It all made perfect sense to
me, and moreover it gave answers that agreed with experiment. Note that
no quantum physics was involved. (We also got an explanation of tunnel
diodes that did not require any quantum physics.)

The physicists explained it in such a different way that you could
hardly guess that they were talking about the same physical phenomenon.
Personally I found it useful to get the two almost incompatible
explanations, but I'm not sure about my fellow students. It did leave me
with the feeling that physicists believe in magic. No doubt I could
overcome that feeling if I deepened my studies of physics, but I never
got around to doing that.

In those days we only knew about pnp and npn junction transistors. Since
those days we have discovered FETs, whose explanation is surprisingly
close to vacuum tube triodes, the devices that were the starting point
of my early education in electronics.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

On 26/03/24 21:04, occam wrote:

> Directed learning is what we all go through while at school. It is
> undirected learning however that fuels our interests. I wish I was
> not so focused on the former during my early education, and strayed
> more from the prescribed curriculum.

In our system, the university entrance score was based on our three best
subjects in the final year of high school. Thus, most of us took four or
five subjects in the final year. (I did six, which turned out to be a
mistake.) That meant that our school day included a number of "free
periods" where we did private study. (Especially so in a case like mine:
I took Pure Mathematics and Applied Mathematics by correspondence,
because the school didn't have enough teachers.)

I took the habit of spending my free periods in the library, where I
happened upon such fascinating topics as non-Euclidean spaces and the
different kinds of infinity. As it happened, the English Literature
class (a subject I wasn't taking) sometimes also met in the library, so
I would get involved in discussions about a book they were studying. The
teacher didn't mind that I chipped in now and then.

Rural schools, with their teacher shortages and other disadvantages,
have their problems, but they also allow more flexibility than is the norm.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

occam wrote:

> Did your professors never speak in terms of 'electron flow' or 'current
> flow'?

I realised it when I read in a popular science book that the electrons
moved slower than molasses in cold winter.

Can I use "popular" in that sense? It means that it was written so it
wasn't too complicated to understand. I doubt that very many Danes read
it.

--
Bertel, Denmark

Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:

> occam wrote:

>> Did your professors never speak in terms of 'electron flow' or 'current
>> flow'?

> I realised it when I read in a popular science book that the electrons
> moved slower than molasses in cold winter.

> Can I use "popular" in that sense? It means that it was written so it
> wasn't too complicated to understand. I doubt that very many Danes read
> it.

You can. That is the "popular" in "popular fiction" and "popular vote",
and it stands for "uneducated", "of the masses".

As I read it though it came across as the other "popular", standing for
"famous" and "fashionable", so it confused me slightly.

On 26-Mar-24 15:01, LionelEdwards wrote:
> Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>
>> occam wrote:
>
>>> Did your professors never speak in terms of 'electron flow' or 'current
>>> flow'?
>
>> I realised it when I read in a popular science book that the electrons
>> moved slower than molasses in cold winter.
>
>> Can I use "popular" in that sense? It means that it was written so it
>> wasn't too complicated to understand. I doubt that very many Danes read
>> it.
> You can. That is the "popular" in "popular fiction" and "popular vote",
> and it stands for "uneducated", "of the masses".
> As I read it though it came across as the other "popular", standing for
> "famous" and "fashionable", so it confused me slightly.

In this context, I think "Popular" means
"We don't expect the reader to do the maths."

--
Sam Plusnet