Yes, Peter, very often less is much more.
It took several million years to develop human mind: even more slowly
and painstakingly than the bullet train. What we lost at the same time
was penile spines: that I'll allow everybody to read about in biology;
but it is another case of less is more, for advanced species.
George ...;~)
On 03/10/2011 04:28, Peter Bienstman wrote:
BTW, I'm a big fan of trying to improve Mnemosyne as much as possible, that's
the whole rationale of the over three years' effort I put in Mnemosyne 2.0 :-)
But at the same time, I also believe that having more features does not
necessarily mean a better program. Sometimes less is more :-)
Peter
On Monday, October 03, 2011 12:55:23 PM George Wade wrote:
That's an interesting philosophy: 'don't mess with what works' ---
Americans say: 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it.' Which is one of the
main pillars of great ancient wisdom that ruined their automotive
industries. The Japanese say: 'If it works well it's worth perfecting.'
They do that by leaving it well alone for daily work and life; then
having a perfecting room or area that is entirely separate, that can't
upset production. When the perfecting cycle has taken one well defined
and measured step forward it is adopted into daily work. That can go on
for ever, and does. Their bullet train was trialled at a very safe
speed: and run at that speed for one year; while all problems were
investigated and fixed. Then 5km hr was added to the speed for the next
year, while the effects were carefully noted; problems were
continuously remedied. That went on for many years without mishap and
the bullet train gained an enviable reputation. It is how they lost
their war, though, 50 to 60 years earlier, as they could not improve
their airforce to keep pace with American ingenuity under pressure.
It is only recently that the spread of American financial
irresponsibility led to lowering costly safety that a few incidents
began to tarnish the bullet train's performance.
George
On 01/10/2011 22:10, Peter Bienstman wrote:
Hi Michael,
There are only minor changes, like trying harder to avoid showing the
same card twice in a row, not scheduling related cards on the same day,
etc...
My philosophy there was also 'don't mess with what works' :-)
Cheers,
Peter
Is there any substantive change in the scheduling algorithm between 1.x
and 2.x, or is 2.x more of a usability upgrade? I'm perfectly content
with 1.x and have no desire to mess with what works right now, other
than the obvious lack of support for an old version. But if there's a
scheduler change, that would change how I think about it all.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"mnemosyne-proj-users" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/mnemosyne-proj-users?hl=en.
