Learning based on an individual's development level isn't too common based on my experience. Often times students are grouped together based on age and not whether or not they are actually prepared for something, and often times schools aren't doing enough to combat this inequality.

The idea of thinking machines at the time seems incredibly futuristic even for the 1950s, but the first coder in the world was named Ada Lovelace who was a mathematician, and she lived in the mid 1800s. We're reaching a point where human creativity can be emulated as well through AI drawing programs, and I wonder how much longer it will be before a point where every economic value a brain can do can be replicated by an AI.

I'd actually argue that having text highlight important/quotable parts of a speech increase someone's memory of it. It's similar to painting where null space highlights the painted areas.

Funnily enough, I feel that my best ideas are my impulsive ones. I think that if I focus too long on an idea, I tend to overthink things. However, sometimes an idea just pops in my mind that I think "I'm just gonna do this" and it just works.

This is important because I know many things in the past have proven to be false, so with so much information being easily accessed, it's important to know if what we're learning is true.

When I first heard time constraints, I thought it was going to be regarding the student, not the teacher. I sometimes forget how much more work and effort can be put into teaching, rather than the one getting taught.

Gamification is actually a really good way to get people interested in learning. By creating game like rules (high scores, point and reward system, etc), people become more invested because they have more to get out of learning.