What really drives me nuts about von Däniken (and Tsoukalos, Childress, et al. …) is that he contradicts himself. (Sorry, I don’t care about this stuff enough to have a recent example.) His position isn’t consistent.

Zecharia Sitchin’s arguments are also frequently not good but he at least seemed to be trying to construct a consistent whole whereas these other guys will just say anything.

Sitchin's biggest defence is that very few people can read cuneiform. Even less than hieroglyphics seemingly. Certainly less than Hebrew, Sanskrit or Greek. That means there aren't a lot of people able to dismiss his translations properly.

Yes. I stopped reading von Däniken, after there were multiple contradictions on the very first page of the first book I tried.

I like fantasy, but it should be at least a little bit consistent.

Willpower is what you use when you’re allowed choice and know you should make the good choice but actually feel like choosing the bad choice. The trick to good discipline is to never allow it to be a choice. There are no excuses. There is no negotiation. It just is the same way the sun rises or the tax man comes. Good discipline is a skill you develop and it is far easier than trying to live via something as temperamental as willpower.

You need some level of willpower to get your legs to take you to another place. Certainly if it involves getting in a car and parking.

If you don't have that, the skill needed to develop it is the skill to get someone to prescribe you amphetamines.

This teaches intervals like Duolingo teaches language rules. You sort of pick them up because you need them to figure out the small melody it plays. But you don't get the concept of a 'fourth' or a 'fifth' and there's never a moment where the actual rules are explained.

That said, I think it's very useful for what it is and highlights that whatever your view on AI, there is a niche here that AI can fill that people otherwise would just not build either because they don't think it is interesting, or because no one would pay enough for it.

I addressed that. You should read a book to learn the definition of intervals. But in addition, there's no substitute for ear training. Grinding on interval identification is just as valid as this. Once you get to a level where you can identify intervals on the keyboard, the skills are pretty transferable. But there's just no way to learn what a fifth sounds like by reading a book. You need something like this. There is probably room to add a mode that says "this is a fifth" after you identify a fifth. Or to choose a named interval or chord quality based on hearing it. But I don't think any of that diminishes the utility of what's here.

FWIW I think it's probably more useful to play what you hear than it is to be able to name it. Although they're both good.

Right, and I addressed all that as well. I doubt we are in serious disagreement here and calls for me to “read a book” are frankly rude. I think you need to be more generous in the interpretation of others words because I actually disagree with the original poster for the most part, but you obviously have a different definition of “teach” than he. Flash cards don’t teach. They assist memorization or practice. Memorizing times tables doesn’t teach multiplication except trivially for the numbers you’ve memorized. It does assist in learning multiplication. Likewise this ear training can trivialize learning and identifying intervals later but is not itself “teaching intervals”.

I'm not asking you to read a book. Sorry for being unclear. The reading a book stuff all started from this in my original comment:

> You can read about music theory (and should) but the only way to [...]

My point is just that "you" (an abstract you) can learn music abstractly and in practice. Some things require book reading. Some things require practice and listening. Nothing intended about the cgriswald "you".

I know how to do long-hand multiplication and have memorized the 12x12 multiplication table. I'm not sure which one is more valuable, but I think they complement each other.

I'm not sure if we actually disagree about anything, except maybe the relative value of knowing what an interval sounds like vs what it's called.

Ah, apologies for my misunderstanding. Maybe I should be more generous in interpreting others words. I don’t think we disagree about that either. To me it isn’t about “What it’s called” but about the concept itself. Intervals are “hidden” in this ear training. You get them for free but you don’t necessarily learn that the pattern is there at all. I can agree that the doing ability is more important than the concept but it’s not just about the name. That’s just what we have to use to talk about it.

It's ear training, not theory training, right?

Yes, which is why it doesn’t teach intervals, but is still useful.

I can solve a mystery novel based on the evidence alone. Assuming an LLM doesn’t already have the answer it will offer solutions based on meta-information like how similar mysteries conclude or are structured. While this can be effective, it’s not really solving the mystery and will fail with anything truly novel.

People more often do the same thing and act like llm’s.

I don’t agree. Yes, every work of art is open to interpretation, but that interpretation has to be informed by the art. There has to be supporting evidence and you have to consume the art holistically.

You can’t, for insurance, conclude that the meaning of The Princess Bride is that Sicilians are dangerous when death is on the line by focusing solely on a single character’s words, ignoring the fact that he is outwitted and dies, and ignoring that the book is primarily not focused on that character. I mean, you can; but then you definitely haven’t understood the film/book.

That’s a massive leap. Recognizing a fact about those things does not equate to being ready to ban those things. The same is true of drugs!

The original poster said “more useful”, not “better”, so you’re already arguing something different than what was said. I might spend more time with something less useful because its time efficiency is one of the things that makes it less useful now.

Regarding your argument of “better” you seem to be arguing by definition.

Edit: I now realize you are the original poster who said “more useful”, so why did you change it?

More useful is one of many ways of being better. What are you talking about?

You vote with your feet. If you can only follow the world would be exactly as simple as you make it out to be.

If you write things for your own website you would make more of an effort and it would ideally find an audience that enjoys your world view or insights into your topics.

It would be great to lure you into that experience. HN is a terrible dating agency. Gathering down votes here is the opposite of making friends. It is however great for discovering authors like Henry.

He could have spend his time complaining on x how bad it is.

If you’re arguing that there are different ways of being better than your argument falls even further apart since you might choose a worse option because it is better in some way…

We usually ended it there, but I vaguely recall a version where Batman slips on it (the pee) and breaks his balls; I don't recall the actual verse though.

Must have been other Grandma, since Santa Claus killed Grandma in a hit-and-run. Revenge maybe?

We were singing this before the The Simpsons, so I wonder if it was the show that made it international or it already was that way.

I recall being 6 years old and singing the "Wonder Woman lost her bosoms" variant at primary school in New Zealand. This was 1982 so definitely sung internationally prior to The Simpsons.

Same. I was singing this in the very early 80's, if not late 70's.