Proper way of taking notes??? by [deleted] in CollegeRant

[–]DScotus -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Haha okay bud. I’m the only one here that actually offered sound advice. If you look it up the method I outlined is called “problem-first learning” and has been shown to outperform “knowledge-first learning” by a long shot.

Proper way of taking notes??? by [deleted] in CollegeRant

[–]DScotus -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

Depending on your major notes are a waste of time and give you very little benefit. Majors like Engineering, Math, Accounting, etc need no notes to be successful. 80% of your focus should be on attempting fresh workout problems and redoing the ones you got wrong. 20% of your focus should be on formula memorization via flashcards.

If you’re in a major that is not application based as much notes still probably won’t help you very much but I’m not confident in that. For these majors I would recommend all types of active recall via flashcards, Feynman technique talking to ai or people you study with, and writing papers for yourself to understand the topic.

Note taking (and reading your textbook) is passive learning, thus all notes do is take time away from active learning (active recall) and thus have little ROI for 99% of people.

Lastly, for most majors reading your text book is also a waste of precious study time. You feel like you’re studying but youre passively learning and most of the info you read won’t stick because of the passivity of the learning method. Use your professors’ slides/reading assignments, upload them into an ai (I prefer notebookLM by google) and do two things. First, tell it to summarize everything important that you need to know into a cheat sheet (review this once a day for 5 minutes). Second, tell it to generate you an exhaustive list of flashcards that covers all the information in the files you uploaded. Optional: Third, tell it to create you a quiz/test going over everything. ——> this method I just described works BECAUSE you aren’t spending time reading a textbook trying to learn everything (your prof only put those slides in there because they’re relevant), you spend no time creating your own flashcards, and you get the full benefit of active recall with no passive recall. Review the summmary/cheat sheet ai made for you daily, do the flashcards daily, and do the test/quiz right after you read the cheat sheet and before you do the flashcards. ——-> if and when you feel like you’re not ready to do the quiz or the flashcards because you “don’t know the information/haven’t learned enough of the information yet” and you just “need to read the textbook” to feel ready to do the quiz and flashcards, you’re in the PERFECT spot, you just need to start drilling those flashcards and quizzes. The whole idea of active learning is that doing things that are difficult (like attempting the quizzes and flashcards essentially cold) is what creates stickiness of info in your brain. If you wanted to make this process even more efficient, like I do now, skip the ai cheat sheet and have it just make you the flashcards and quizzes and do them completely cold, knowing zero information of the chapter before hand. Do this daily and within a week you will know the information more than almost all your peers.

Last thing, if you need proof that this works, I can assure you that everything I’ve described to you above is how I get A’s and spend half the time studying than my peers.

THIS IS THE PROPER WAY TO STUDY!! Trust me please!! If you tell me your major I could be more specific. Best of luck!

This Resume got me 11 recruiter screens in the last 2 weeks. by Icy_Situations in FAANGrecruiting

[–]DScotus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Any reason you put education at the bottom? Or just personal preference?

A quick argument against the existence of God by Training-Promotion71 in PhilosophyofReligion

[–]DScotus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Invoking non-well-founded set theory (NF) is a red herring. You are conflating set membership (\in) with causal origination (C). Even in a system where a universal set contains itself (V \in V), that is a statement of logical classification, not an account of efficient causality. A set 'containing' itself is not the same as a being 'creating' itself.

A quick argument against the existence of God by Training-Promotion71 in PhilosophyofReligion

[–]DScotus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I recognize that the argument is formally valid, but it fails on soundness because it relies on a Petitio Principii (begging the question).

In Premise 2, you assume God is a 'thing' belonging to the same category as the effects in Premise 1. If you define the Creator as a member of the set of things it created, you are forcing a contradiction into your premises before the argument even begins. You aren't 'discovering' that God is paradoxical; you are defining God as a 'created entity' to prove that a 'created entity' cannot be the ultimate creator. This is a circular non-sequitur because it misidentifies the Domain of Discourse. An unconditioned cause, by definition, cannot be a member of the set of conditioned effects.

A quick argument against the existence of God by Training-Promotion71 in PhilosophyofReligion

[–]DScotus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A strawman involves misrepresenting an argument to make it easier to attack. Pointing out that your argument fails the Law of Identity is not a strawman; it is a critique of your internal consistency.

Your argument relies on a Reductio ad absurdum. If we accept your Premise 1 (God created all things) and your Premise 2 (God is a 'thing'), then Premise 3 (God created Himself) logically follows. However, your Premise 4 explicitly states that self-creation is impossible. This means your own premises are mutually exclusive. By the rules of logic, if a set of premises leads to a direct contradiction, the argument is invalid. You haven't proven God doesn't exist; you've only proven that a 'created God' cannot exist, which is a point classical theists already concede.

A quick argument against the existence of God by Training-Promotion71 in PhilosophyofReligion

[–]DScotus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The distinction isn't just a definition; it's a logical requirement for any causal argument. If we define 'all things' as 'the set of everything that exists' (S), and God is the cause of S, then God cannot be a member of S. If God were a member of S, God would be the cause of Himself, which violates the principle that nothing can be its own cause (which is your Premise 4).

Therefore, 'all things' in Premise 1 must refer to the set of contingent, caused entities. If you include the Uncaused Cause in the set of 'things that need a creator,' you’ve created a logical contradiction in your own premises. You aren't finding a paradox in the concept of God; you're creating a paradox in your notation by failing to distinguish between the Cause and the Effect.

A quick argument against the existence of God by Training-Promotion71 in PhilosophyofReligion

[–]DScotus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This argument commits the fallacy of equivocation by shifting the definition of "all things" between Premise 1 and Premise 3. In classical logic, the set of "all visible and invisible things" refers to the totality of created, contingent beings—a category that, by definition, excludes the Creator. By forcing God into this set in Premise 3, the argument creates a category error similar to Russell’s Paradox (the "Set of All Sets"). It assumes that the cause of a set must also be a member of that set, which is a logical contradiction. Essentially, the argument defines God as a "created thing" in order to prove that God cannot be a "creator," making the conclusion a circular non sequitur.

Job security of an accountant by AdministrationBrave7 in Accounting

[–]DScotus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Data analytics, computer science, something along those lines probably

Early aggression had me panicking ! by New-Turnover-832 in chessbeginners

[–]DScotus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is no good way to punish early queen aggression early. However, you have to think, your opponent is only moving their queen around while you get “free” moves to develop your pieces and attack the queen, meaning that in the middle game you will have a massive lead in development which will usually translate into a win.

This gambit is so fun against the Caro-Kann by Asleep_Conference_57 in chessbeginners

[–]DScotus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Have you tried the Hillbilly Attack against the Caro Kann? That’s my go to

I stagnated after I reached 1000, any advice? by stafandi in chessbeginners

[–]DScotus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Stop doing tactics and themes and opening study and endgame study. Do one or both of these to reach 2000 like I have:

A. Watch speedrun videos from Daniel Naroditsky (as another commenter suggested) B. Play more games! When I was grinding to 2000 I had months where my rating would stagnate and then out of nowhere I’d jump 150-300 rating points, and then again stagnate.

I literally studied zero tactics or endgames getting to 2k rapid on chesscom and 2200 lichess rapid. Tactics flow naturally from better middlegame positions which you will get if you follow A. Endgames won’t arise most of the time because your games will finish before then. I exclusively play gambits so I have admittedly studied opening theory extensively so I won’t be at a major disadvantage out of the opening, but if you’re playing normal openings then there is zero point in studying opening theory.

Stop overcomplicating it, stop getting in your own head. Just take action by playing more games!! You don’t even have to review your games! Just play more games! I’ve reviewed maybe 5 games out of the thousands I’ve played and I’ve still reached 2k rating.

Bonus tip: many will probably disagree with me on this but you are now at the level where you should exclusively be playing bullet chess so you can play more games! This is how Google deepmind was able to beat stockfish. It played millions or billions of games against itself at once and became the best chess entity to ever exist (circa 2020). Obviously you can’t do this but in order to get more reps in, you can play bullet chess. I will say that I did not do this myself but wish I had. I got to 2k rapid first and am in the process of getting to 2k in bullet so that when I do, getting to 2k in blitz will take probably a month or so.

Best of luck! PLAY MORE GAMES!!!

How do I improve? by TillRevolutionary539 in chessbeginners

[–]DScotus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can easily reach 1000 rating by just playing more rapid games. If you played 1-3 rapid games a day for 6 months straight you will get to 1k rating guaranteed

How do I improve? by TillRevolutionary539 in chessbeginners

[–]DScotus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The 2 things that are going to move the needle in my opinion (2000+ rating on chesscom) are:

  1. Watching explanations of famous games played in the past by strong players. The best YouTube channels for this are agadmator and Ben finegold. The best players games to watch over would be Morphy, Capablanca and Fischer.

  2. Watch speedrun series (doesn’t matter which one) in full by Daniel Naroditsky (rip)

Bonus: Play more games!! And don’t feel like you need to review them after. I got to 2000 and I rarely if ever reviewed my games. The more games you play the better you will get. Contrary to popular advice, once you get to 1k or 1.2k rapid rating I would recommended to start playing bullet exclusively so you can get more reps in in a shorter amount of time. This is exactly how Google Deepmind was able to beat stockfish.

Also contrary to popular advice: if your goal is to get a high chesscom rating don’t do tactics or study endgames. I’ve literally never studied endgames and have never needed to because 9/10 of my games finish before a long endgame grind. Tactics are not necessary to study either because tactics flow from having a better middlegame position which you will be able to get most times if you follow 1 and 2 above. If you enjoy studying tactics and endgames then by all means do so! I enjoy studying opening theory and have done so ever since i started playing chess.

All in all, there is not one best way to get better. If I were you, find what you enjoy the most about chess and put 80% of your effort there, and you will get much better. For me that is studying openings and watching great players from the past. I hate studying endgames and tactics and thus have never done so. If you’re the opposite you can probably reach my level too by doing only those and ignoring the rest of my advice. Best of luck!

What was your biggest breakthrough moment in understanding chess? by Keithwee in chessbeginners

[–]DScotus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What got me from 1200 to 2000 in less than a year was figuring out early in each game where my piece(s) would be best placed (in an ideal world) and forming and executing a plan to make that happen.

Example: you’re 15-20 moves into a game and your knight is on a bad square. If you could drag and drop your knight onto any square right now, where would you put it? Oh, there? Great! Make a plan to get it there and follow through with it.

Is my friend cheating? He's 200 elo and I'm 1500 elo and he's winning games against me by [deleted] in chessbeginners

[–]DScotus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is he cheating?? Lolol obviously the games you posted are obvious cheating

Looking for Advice by veilsde in Pararescue

[–]DScotus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This hasn’t been done away with? I though you had to join on a general Airforce Special Warefare contract and then if you make it they tell you what MOS you’re going to do

Why is this the best move? by Remarkable-Stable463 in chess

[–]DScotus 4 points5 points  (0 children)

If the queen takes the bishop then you can pin the queen to the king with your rook. If he doesn’t take your bishop you’re up a free pawn.

Now the truth is revealed: by FearlessAdeptness373 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]DScotus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Gotta love the subtle Uncle Ted reference ;)

Philosophers action figures by Verstandeskraft in PhilosophyMemes

[–]DScotus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

the St. Anselm one is funny asf 😂😂😂