mopedDreams

Example: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/24/barack-obama-...

thanks, guy.

> Don't get me wrong, I like watching his coding stream as much as the next person

Can you please post a link to his streams? I bet it'd be fascinating to watch.

If you do try the tutorial, i'd love to see what you create! :)

I've created a tutorial for making a 2D version of Minecraft using Python and Pygame. Obviously the end result is a _much_ simpler game than Minecraft, but it is useful in teaching things like 2D arrays and dictionaries.

http://usingpython.com/pygame-intro/

I didn't say it violates PC, I said it isn't inclusive. And aiming for 75% engagement is an awful teaching strategy.

I do however agree that a required class does pose an engagement challenge. Computer Science will be a compulsory subject for UK school kids from September.

I don't think the issue is political correctness... I think it is more about creating an inclusive, gender-neutral curriculum that doesn't marginalise girls. I agree that this game looks amazing, but would not be engaging to 100% of students, in the same way that a football game wouldn't be.

As for complaints, I think it's important to respect some parents' wishes for their kids not to play games that include killing. Although most parents wouldn't complain.

How about a megaphone icon?

>The Windows icon looks too much like Ubuntu to me

The definition of "Ubuntu" (from wikipedia):

"...is often used in a more philosophical sense to mean 'the belief in a universal bond of sharing'..."

Also, I love the circular sharing icon if you see it as an overhead view of 3 people holding hands.

Print("If you're reading this, that means the program got to this point!")

Best HN comment ever.

I once went for an interview for a PhD where The interview was just a load of puzzles. You either knew the answers or you didn't, and I'm not the sort of person that remembers trivia.

A good (but unfortunately not free) Python resource is usingpython.com. It's meant for GCSE students, but it is concise and teaches the basics.

I agree. And isn't the idea of a test to find the people that are best a doing something. It doesn't really matter how much preparation goes into it.

So maybe someone that works really hard to be better than others at something is more valuable than someone who is naturally bright?

For example - a naturally bright lawyer isn't as good as a 'good' lawyer that tries really hard to be the best. Being good at a test shows that you'll be good at whatever the test is trying to find - no matter how this is achieved.