Read | Chris Aldrich

How to Curate Better Podcast Feeds

Read How to Curate Better Podcast Feeds (Degreed)

Originally, I just browsed for new stuff by scrolling through the top picks list on the iTunes Podcasts app. But that was time consuming. After trying out the search functionality on the app, I wished I could search a little better. I decided to look for other resources that I could use to further dial in my selections. Turns out there are some pretty good websites/apps out there to help you do just that. Here are a few of the best ones I’ve found.

My thoughts on what the article leaves out:

For podcast discovery, I love using Huffduffer. It has a simple browser bookmarklet which allows you to bookmark audio to listen to later and creates iTunes or other feeds you can quickly and easily subscribe to on most of the major podcatchers.

Even better it allows you to search for topics and people. Almost everything on the site (including individuals and even the lists of people you’re following) has audio RSS feed as well as other subscription services that you can subscribe directly to. Love Elvis? Search, subscribe, and listen.

As an example, want to know what I’ve been listening to? Check out my feed where you can see a list, listen to it directly, or even subscribe.

Continue reading How to Curate Better Podcast Feeds

👓 Using | Jason Rodriguez

Read Using by Jason Rodriguez (Jason Rodriguez | Designer, writer, email advocate & product manager)

Inspired by this tweet from Matt Gemmell, here’s a look at what tools I’m currently using to tackle the projects I’m focusing on right now.

I’m trying to use paper and pencil as much as possible for work. So my main tools are an A5 Leuchtturm1917 notebook and my trusty rOtring 600 mechanical pencil in black. I use a bastardized version of the Bullet Journal system, which has replaced the 3-4 different task management apps I was using previously. I’ve extended the system a bit to fit my own needs, including some elements of Patrick Rhone’s Dash/Plus system, as well as adding in sections for tracking what I read, taking my medication, doing monthly reviews pre-migration, and using it as a commonplace book.

For writing, I use Ulysses almost exclusively. I love writing in markdown, and Ulysses’ combination of simplicity and hidden power can’t be beat. I’m just getting started on some longer form writing, though, so I plan on dusting off my copy of Scrivener for those projects.

I just made the jump over to Atom for my coding needs and it’s working out really well so far. For coding and testing emails specifically, there’s nothing better than Litmus Builder.

For illustration and graphics, I use Affinity Designer and Affinity Photo for damned near everything. It feels nice to get away from Adobe products, and I’ve found Affinity’s tools to do everything I’ve needed up to this point. Although, one of my favorite illustration apps is still Paper by FiftyThree. It’s my go-to for quick illustrations to accompany blog posts here and its color fill tool is one of the most brilliant illustration tools ever made. Now, if only we could get layers…

Most everything else I use is very boring. When I need to do things digitally, I just use Apple’s stock apps: Notes, Calendar, Mail, Reminders, iMovie, and Photos.

As far as smaller utilities go, I couldn’t live without Couleurs, CloudApp, Dropbox, 1Password, and Litmus Scope. For more work-y type stuff, I’m a huge fan of Slack, Google Docs, and all of Litmus’ tools. Instant previews is freaking amazing when you work with email on a regular basis.

For hardware, it’s either my Macbook Air (Pro for work stuff), an iPhone, or an iPad Air 2.

Our comment quiz module is now Open Source | NRKbeta

Read Our comment quiz module is now Open Source by Henrik Lied (NRKbeta)

Our quiz module is now open source on GitHub. After launching our comment quiz module, we’ve received a lot of questions about whether it’s available for download. Now it is.

🔖 What is good mathematics? | Terry Tao

Bookmarked What is good mathematics? (arxiv.org)

Some personal thoughts and opinions on what ``good quality mathematics'' is, and whether one should try to define this term rigorously. As a case study, the story of Szemer'edi's theorem is presented.

This looks like a cool little paper.

Update 3/17/17

Some thoughts after reading

And indeed it was. The opening has lovely long (though possibly incomplete) list of aspects of good mathematics toward which mathematicians should strive. The second section contains an interesting example which looks at the history of a theorem and it’s effect on several different areas. To me most of the value is in thinking about the first several pages. I highly recommend this to all young budding mathematicians.

In particular, as a society, we need to be careful of early students in elementary and high school as well as college as the pedagogy of mathematics at these lower levels tends to weed out potential mathematicians of many of these stripes. Students often get discouraged from pursuing mathematics because it’s “too hard” often because they don’t have the right resources or support. These students, may in fact be those who add to the well-roundedness of the subject which help to push it forward.

I believe that this diverse and multifaceted nature of “good mathematics” is very healthy for mathematics as a whole, as it it allows us to pursue many different approaches to the subject, and exploit many different types of mathematical talent, towards our common goal of greater mathematical progress and understanding. While each one of the above attributes is generally accepted to be a desirable trait to have in mathematics, it can become detrimental to a field to pursue only one or two of them at the expense of all the others.

As I look at his list of scenarios, it also reminds me of how areas within the humanities can become quickly stymied. The trouble in some of those areas of study is that they’re not as rigorously underpinned, as systematic, or as brutally clear as mathematics can be, so the fact that they’ve become stuck may not be noticed until a dreadfully much later date. These facts also make it much easier and clearer in some of these fields to notice the true stars.

As a reminder for later, I’ll include these scenarios about research fields:

A field which becomes increasingly ornate and baroque, in which individual
results are generalised and refined for their own sake, but the subject as a
whole drifts aimlessly without any definite direction or sense of progress;

A field which becomes filled with many astounding conjectures, but with no
hope of rigorous progress on any of them;

A field which now consists primarily of using ad hoc methods to solve a collection
of unrelated problems, which have no unifying theme, connections, or purpose;

A field which has become overly dry and theoretical, continually recasting and
unifying previous results in increasingly technical formal frameworks, but not
generating any exciting new breakthroughs as a consequence; or

A field which reveres classical results, and continually presents shorter, simpler,
and more elegant proofs of these results, but which does not generate any truly
original and new results beyond the classical literature.