6,789 karma · joined October 6, 2014
* The current generation could not invent the internet. They don't have the attention span or the culture for it.
* People who spurn well thought out technologies like SQL or relational databases, are doomed to re-invent them, badly.
Whether you define it as working on yourself, on your relationships, fixing up the house, the car, washing the dishes.
I guess I sort of lived as if there would be some kind of 'over the rainbow' someday when I could retire and just chill, but this year when watching 'Stutz' on Netflix, where he states that there are three inescapable things in life: "pain, uncertainty, and constant work," the work part really sunk in for me.
I've been watching my mother try to create a kind of peaceful cocoon with her new house and her manicured lawns and list of friends curated down to only the ones which don't ever challenge her etc, only to find that even nearing her eighties she constantly has surprises and challenges intruding on the peace she is trying to cultivate.
The tldr; of it is that I've been looking at work the wrong way, i.e. I've been trying to avoid it or push it away, but I feel I should embrace it. Some recurring tasks can even be sort of comforting in that it creates a routine.
Say your house gets broken into and there is a broken window and you are missing some cash and jewellery.
Would you _also_ say that calling it a burglary—absent any security camera footage—would be correlation without causation?
I mean, for all we know it might have been a bear which broke in and just happened to take only money and jewellery. There might be a blinged out bear partying at the local bar nearby!
It's easy to cast doubt on any theory, and much harder to advance a theory.
Also I see that you did eventually find the citations, but the tone of your comments suggest to me that you might just as easily transpose your doubt casting onto the sources, and the sources sources ad infinitum... But of course my claim is based purely on correlations.
I think on a bike it's fine to push your limits, because the consequences are less severe than for hang gliding, especially if you aren't doing big drops.
Trials riding is technical, but it isn't fast, so one unexpected thing is that you get better at crashing. Kind of like in Judo, where there is a correct way to fall, falling often enough at slow to moderate speeds teaches you how to fall better.
Now I mostly ride cross country, but every once in a while, when I get into a sketchy situation, I fall like a cat, whether it be over the bars, off the back, hopping off the side, I have a deep well of experience from previous crashes to draw upon.
I'd say in mountain biking the enemy isn't falling or crashing, it's falling or crashing at speed. I _know_ it's fun to go fast, but if you switch your mindset from: "I'm going to get through this section faster than you" to "I'm going to get through this section _better/cleaner_ than you." you can keep the fun alive while keeping the consequences down.
So what is 'better,' it could be without putting a foot down, without shifting down to the granny gear, without skidding etc...
This is why I think mountain biking is way more fun than road riding. I don't have to have elite level fitness, or massive quads to be 'good' at mountain biking. Take a roadie out on a mtn bike ride for the first time and they will probably blow all the steep climbs at first, cos they don't have experience in modulating traction through the back wheel. Eventually they would learn to project though the bike and feel where the back wheel is touching the ground at all times, which takes your riding to the next level.
1: Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRZJylpYJec
But I also think that I look angry because I _am_ angry.
Anger allows us to increase arousal and helps us focus on an 'obstacle' and programming presents many obstacles.
It's self defeating however, because working in this way is exhausting.
In working with a close friend, who programs much more patiently and methodically, I'm slowly learning to let go of my 'ADD' (Anger Driven Development).
I think I used to consider the slow and steady approach to be plodding, and using my intense approach I really could get a lot of great work done very fast, but after a few burnouts, I had to find another way.
But coding while angry also has another major downside. Anger narrows your focus of attention on what you consider to be the 'threat' or 'obstacle', and anyone who's done technical work knows that the solution is often found by divergent thinking.
Edit: Many people are saying that they only look angry, and that they actually aren't angry. This may be 100% true, but the facial feedback hypothesis suggests that when you make an angry face, your internal state tends towards anger.
Geez. How cold do you have to be to not understand that being imprisoned or not being able to feed your children might make you 'emotional?'
Learners can get too caught up on adventitious details in the example like the wording or certain irrelevant details.
If the example is a real life example they are familiar with it could lead them away from the essential features the example is trying to reason from.
It's a common trope in movies to have a sassy kid show up the teacher by pointing out how artificial their example is and then proceeding to solve the problem realistically most of the time involving street smarts.
While this can be amusing this is also missing the point. The example is there as a learning aid to learn a particular concept.
At work I have used it in some cases when not given the choice.
If some company I am working for is fine with the Windows CLIs telemetry, then I suppose it is up to them, although I'd argue against it.
I mean the CLI has been one of the last parts of my system that I really still trust is working on my behalf only.
This product made me rethink that assumption.
As for capturing the output from a command line on the mac (and also on linux IIRC) just use pbcopy/pbpaste.
My opinion: It's not worth giving your privacy away for features like this.
The most famous quote, might be from Into the Wild: "Careers are a twentieth century invention."
I'm aware that this quote isn't entirely accurate, but I think it makes a good point.
Most people didn't have careers in past centuries, and those that did were from the upper classes. Careers as diplomats, military officers etc.
I think the biggest mistake that we made as workers is to buy the lie that we must all have a career, and always be moving up.
I think careers are something we got sold on, and it was an easy sell because having a career as opposed to a job is a status symbol.
It seems similar to the escalation in weddings. People used to get married at the church and then have people over at the house for a wedding lunch, and that was it. Low expense, people still got to see each other and celebrate together.
But over time we let ourselves get sold on the idea that upper class weddings are the proper way to do things, with the big expensive reception, the games with the cakes, and the fancy clothes you wear once.
TLDR: People want to imitate the rituals of the upper classes. Having careers and seeking advancement is another example of that. Just like expensive weddings, it can lead to immiseration for no good reason.
PS: If you are in tech, one good alternative to a corporate career is to be a freelancer. You can take contracts, work out their term and either sign up for another term, or leave a gap between and go traveling. As a contractors you can also remain neutral regarding office politics.
He realises that he has to go because, otherwise Shifu is always going to look to him for answers, and he will never find his way until he is gone.
You are very kind. But we aren't special different kind of people.
I wouldn't want OP to think that. We are like everyone else, and have made our share of mistakes, and have endured periods of grief, depression, anxiety and all the rest of it.
Edited: Removed some stuff, because this is about OPs family, and shouldn't be about my family.
* Your son wouldn't want you to spend your life in the cemetery. Think of your son when he was laughing or having fun. He'd want you to find a way to feel that way again.
* Even if you fight and win against the corporation, and win billions, this won't guarantee that this can never happen to another child again.
* It's not your sole responsibility to ensure this never happens to another child again. It is our shared responsibility as a community.
* Despite this being our shared responsibility, it will probably happen again somewhere, at some time in the future. Humans are not perfect, and we aren't omniscient.
* You will move on and you aren't betraying your son by being happy. You will eventually forget the exact sound of his voice, memories will fade and this is ok.
* You will never get over this loss, but you will find a way to be happy again.
I know it's possible because my grandmother lost a son in a very similar way.
My grandmother lost her eldest son when he was ten. He was also hit by a truck. Like you, she was in the cemetery for a year, kneeling in the snow, till the priest came out and told her that it was time to move on, which is what she did.
Unlike you, my grandmother who lived in a small rural village, wasn't offered a settlement, and didn't feel she had the option of consulting lawyers. In a way she had it easier because she had fewer choices.
I do know that my grandmother found her way to happiness again, even after later losing her husband to a grossly negligent medical error a few years later.
Again you have to implant this belief in yourself. You and your family can find your way back to happiness again. Even if it seems like a cruel joke, it isn't. It's true. And I know it's true because I know people who did it.
Now some actionable steps/ideas:
* Make a small space in your home as a shrine to your son. Stop going to the cemetery and spend time with him there instead. If he dwells anywhere it's in your own home, not in a cemetery.
* Find a job you can do from home. One you can do in your sleep. Even if it's just some remote work like two days a week.
Basically photography is about Pentagram, Twatter and Faceborg more than it is about the photo itself.
The medium is starting to alter the aesthetics of the images themselves¹.
Joking aside, a professional photographer needs to be able to get reproducible results. Because the algorithms in the phones are mostly black box, with few parameters, they can't be used in a professional setting.
Even if you have the control over the algorithm, they are still really weak. Portrait mode for example can't reliably separate the subjects hair from the background properly.
Doing this optically does not suffer from these problems at all.
1: For example, vertical videos.
There's nothing to refute because you can't refute tone. Plus it's not my job to be your debate partner for free.
Basically, either don't tell people what to do, or set conditions on how they should debate you, or you will get voted down.
But really, I suspect you are getting just what you want, really, pissing people off and making a stink.
Sure you are. Your comment is a classic example of what I call 'sore winner' literature.
It's characterized by: a superior pontificating tone, a sense of entitlement tell others what to do, a certain intellectual rigidity, a tendency to assign readings, but most important of all, a tone of having been cheated out of something by random strangers on the internet.
Calculate your share, if you really must have it so badly, and I'll cut a penny down and mail it to you then.
To whom shall we make out the check sir?
Sounds like you're the one who's complaining.
[Stopping here because the only thing I really owe you at this point would break the posting guidelines.]
No. We don't.
I am unmoved by your attempt at argument from authority.
I found that when a client has a very specific idea of the image they want, the best thing is to take the shot as they requested, but then also take a few shots that I like.
Most of the time the client will pick one of my versions.
(It helps if you can somehow make them think the idea came from them.)
Randroids probably.
Ayn Rand is piss poor literature, and even worse as philosophy or life advice.
This is a safe space for rationalisation, we can't let 'the feels' creep in and threaten that.
Also it would be way too 'political' if we assigned a moral valence to torture, and political discussions are discouraged here.
Basically I gleaned this impression from the go message groups more than 5 years ago.
Go is pretty nice, but IMHO, it's no masterpiece.
There's a reason we keep copying C like syntax, and it's not just familiarity.
C could be criticized on many points, but in my opinion it was a brilliant case of language design: Only 30 keywords, the stdllib was a separate thing (not common at the time), great as a systems programming language.
If you think of C of the 1970s as a sort of souped up macro assembler, you're not far from the truth, and it was wildly successful, also, because of what it left out.
Go might have had similar ambitions, but the execution was not thought out as well. If you want to design a truly great language, it turns out it's not enough to merely leave things out.
I got the sense that the Go people wanted to be taken seriously on the same level as great achievements like C and UNIX, but the creators quickly saw through the incoming critiques that they hadn't pulled this off.
You know when you create something and then receive criticism? If the criticism is clearly wrong or due to a misunderstanding, you're not upset about it typically. You explain that the misunderstanding, and typically the person critiquing says, "ah ok..." and moves on.
But the critiques which really get to you are usually the ones which you know deep down are right. I think maybe this is why the creators of Go seemed so touchy about it.
EDIT: And for the record I program in Java and Rust mostly, a bit of Python too. I hate C++ (a sprawling mess) and also don't give a crap about Haskell or monads.
Go is really s souped up version of C. It's a design rooted in the 70s with some fixes to make it a good language for writing small networked apps.
Insofar as that goes¹, the language is fine.
However the creators of Go responded to critiques of the language in a patronizing manner and talked down to their own programming community at Google as being unable to handle complex languages.
Basically the Go community got the exchange off on the wrong foot. Personally, I sense egos were at stake. They created a language which is simple by design, but then still wanted to claim a sort of opinionated superiority for it.
If they'd said, "oh go is just a simple little language we enjoy using for such and such, perhaps you will too" then people who don't like Go wouldn't have felt provoked.
1: Pun not intended.
It might not revert to teosinte (maybe how much time have you got?) but it also wouldn't stay as the corn we are used to with eight inch corn cobs either.
But my main point stands. Just because we were able to selectively breed something doesn't mean we 'improved it' we improved it for very specific purposes and to be grown with additional inputs in poor soil.
And we also bred it to match our industrial processes. Etc...
A wild plant wouldn't care about any of that, and it would quickly morph into something that exchanges nutrients with other plant in a community, not in neat rows of green desert.
It would do that because it would be in a community again and not in a mono-culture farm field supported by synthetic inputs.
It's always a privilege to receive such a well thought out answer to an off the cuff post like mine above.
I believe we are both arguing from two orthogonal axes. You are responding from the rational perspective and I am responding from an emotional one.
From my perspective, so many promises like this have been made to fix the world with this 'one simple trick' that it raises way to many alarm bells for me.
I go on vacation at a town where there was a famous protest which prevented a forestry company from cutting a large swath of old growth.
The natives managed to defend their claim and the land is uncut to this day. I spoke to some of them and their leaders said more or less: "The forest has always taken care of us, and we don't know how it works so we should leave it the way it is."
And this is from people who have been observing nature in this one spot for 10 000 years. They might have figured some stuff out along the way but generally the white man won't believe them. Both communities are talking past each other because they don't publish papers, and also because we don't spend much time observing nature do its thing.
I guess all I can say is I wish it worked this way, and that fixing our mistakes would be this easy.
We didn't even understand basic things about trees till like a few decades ago leading to stupidly counterproductive practices like spraying glyphosate all over public lands to create 'free to grow' tree plantations on what used to be forests.
All of this is done by forestry companies on public land.
If trees needed to photosynthesise faster they would already be doing it.
The fact that they aren't using this adaptation (or some other one) means that probably photosynthesis speed is already being traded off against some other factor in their communities (they form relationships with other species which we barely understand).
Edit: About those free to grow plantations? It turns out that they were trying to get rid of Alder which they thought was competing with Spruce. It turns out that the Alder were feeding the Spruce seedlings instead.
To me requirements aren't gathered, they are 'elicited'.