I think that this emphasis on explicit, built-from-scratch mathematical proofs runs counter to your previously expressed suggestion that learning via pattern matching is more efficient than learning via explicit reasoning.
I’ve found that the emphasis on first principles is often symptomatic of someone who is speaking for their own benefit rather than that of their audience. After all, you’re making the unwarranted assumption that A.) your audience wants first principles rather than a practical application, and B.) your audience is, for lack of a better word, too dumb to derive these principles for themselves. It’s very easy to convince yourself that you are giving the audience the tools they need to understand what you’re saying, when in fact, you’re using the audience as a sounding board to help yourself better understand what you’re actually saying.
(By the way, I’m using the “royal You” rather than specifically singling out you, Jonah. You caution against this very thing in another post of yours. ).
Thanks for the feedback! Some specific notes:
I’ve gotten a few pieces of feedback on this. This is the default for how the chart generator API I’m using creates the legend. I’ll have to go in and update the code on that to reverse them.
Do you mean like when you are looking at Job A, and then move over to look at Job B? If so, would it be more useful if the graph just consistently showed, say, $20,000 a year as the minimum and, say, $200,000 a year as the maximum, regardless of occupation? (Or any other arbitrary min/max)
This is an annoying quirk of how the BLS quantifies different positions (i.e. many positions have two separate ID codes but the same underlying data.) Version 2 will purge any redundancies like this.
I could be more clear on this. “Entry level” means “no degree or bachelor” and “post-grad” means “masters or doctorate or equivalent”.
This has been updated. See below for further explanation:
This currently pulls from 2014 data. Version two will have the option to pull from several years and also will include a timeline to show whether salaries for a job are trending up or down.
The “High Salary” and “Low Salary” from the individual job breakdown is actually the 90th decile and 10th decile, respectively. I just didn’t scale those according to age in the chart itself.
Good point. At one point I had intended to use the category ID to link to the BLS’s definition of the job. But then I forgot! I have updated this. I should probably have the field itself be something more useful than the ID though.
I’ve updated that to be more clear