madeuptempacct

Thanks for the heads up. I have no idea why either, but I appreciate knowing.

Anyone who thinks you can go through BUDS/RASP/RIP/Q-Course/whatever injured and "fight through it" is a delusional fanboy. The reality is that it has very little to do with willpower and everything to do with your physical condition before the course and your genetic potential.

If you get hurt, you are out, and you are checking gates for 12 hours a day or go regular infantry. Yes, there are second chances, but that's another story.

Why would they divest now all of a sudden? As far as I know most of the Chinese money went into Toronto houses anyway, though I am not sure why.

As far as SF - everyone there seems to think they will never lose money on real estate and it will pick back up within a year or two whenever it drops.

SF was weird to me - I expected it to be a huge city, and it's this town with a cool bridge, expensive park, a bunch of overpriced houses, and a scooter app which gives you a distinct map of the "bad" neighborhoods.

I am decent at chess, as in, I will generally beat any casual player and lose to any professional player. I have no feeling of "strategy" in chess. The only "strategical" difference is that I brute-force pressure newer players by moving pawns up in a diagonal and forcing them into a corner. Whereas vs good players I just do the "right" thing all the time and try to force dilemmas. At that point its just tactics the whole game.

I just read all the solutions here, and this seems fair. That way they have no reason to be upset - they can take some profit now, or risk holding.

Same - as said already, not a single one of the characters was memorable, except the comically stereotypical ones (rich daddy tree-hugger fanatic).

As far as scientific ideas - they were all a stretch. He is neither Stephenson in accuracy, nor Gibson in the vague, but accurate, predictions.

In defense of American cars - the Corvette can't be beat for the price, period.

Don't forget that these cars are a huge pain to maintain.

I took this course with someone I was teaching webdev. It wasn't the best course for me by any means because I already knew the material.

But it WAS the best introduction to software development I have ever seen, and I have seen quite a few.

I did see a couple of people quit the course because it was "too complicated" - in reality, it's just complicated enough, and the progression is natural and well-presented.

Let's not forget that the US was buying up USSR tech as much as it could during those times. The US bought the designs for the YAK-141, which helped the development of the F-35. Oh, and the Russians invented stealth.

I was wondering why you were trying to prove your invalid point that the USSR did not lead in innovation in some, limited sectors - looks like the only thing your account does is hate on Russia.

Which is fine, but I am kind of interested in the why.

If you google enough, you might also find that there were experimental elicopter models of targeting helmets as well. In the meantime, you might want to concede that the Russians had a better system in this regard.

Straight from Wikipedia:

VTAS received praise[by whom?] for its effectiveness in targeting off-boresight missiles, but the U.S. did not pursue fielding it except for integration into late-model Navy F-4 Phantoms equipped with the AIM-9 Sidewinder.[5] HMDs were also introduced in helicopters during this time.[citation needed] were fielded by the South African Air Force. After the South African system had been proven in combat, playing a role in downing Soviet aircraft over Angola, the Soviets embarked on a crash program to counter the technology. As a result, the MiG-29 was fielded in 1985 with an HMD and a high off-boresight weapon (R-73), giving them an advantage in close in maneuvering engagements.

Several nations[which?] responded with programs to counter the MiG-29/HMD/R-73 (and later Su-27) combination once its effectiveness was known, principally through access to former East German MiG-29s that were operated by the unified German Air Force.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmet-mounted_display#ZSh-5_/...

The AIM-9 had way less off-bore capability and could not be helmet aimed like the missile of the MIG-29. The US did not catch up on helmet-queued missiles. US pilots were stunned by the MIG-29s ability to win dog fights when they tested the plane in Germany. Hopefully I gave you enough to google.

It's good to hear about wheat production - that wasn't exactly going well for them after losing Ukraine.

"Their oil industry, which used to be towering, is 'only' worth about the annual sales of Apple, or Google + Microsoft. "

This isn't a good thing though. There is no credit to be given here - it causes an over-reliance on oil prices, and any time there is a market crash, they slash budgets. Pretty horrible.

"With their current approach to political leadership, it's hard to imagine where the economic growth is going to come from to enable them to devote a lot more resources to their non-military space industry."

Yea, I actually think Putin did a good thing in cleaning up low level corruption. But for some delusional reason I thought he would invest in education, tech, and small business once he reduced some corruption at the low level. That never happened. Pretty disappointing.

Average expenditure at 30: $45,000

That's strange to me - is everyone living on debt? Factor in median household income for a fam with Bachelors degrees: $68,728, which is $52,000ish net of tax.

How are people spending that much?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United...

It is generally accepted that the USSR/Russia is more iterative in weapons development, while trying crazy one offs now and again (high speed, high depth, double-hull titanium submarines, supercavitating torpedoes, plasma stealth, 3D-thrust-vectoring on fighters, PESA radar on the MIG31, etc, etc). They keep what sticks, for example high off-bore, helmet queued IR-missile targeting on the MIG-29 (it took a while for the US AIM-9 to catch up), but go for the cheaper versions on everything else.

While it is a budgetary necessity now, it simply "worked" in the past.

The same can't really be said for their rockets though, Musk is going to "crush them" to quote our friend Khruschev, and then Russia has no technological lead left, at all. Maybe niches in cybersecurity and new nuclear power generators, but that seems to be about it. Tragic really.

I would love to see accurate cancer, arthritis, and ligament injury rates for shaolin monk. If they are lower than the general, fit population, they are on to something.

Interesting, thanks. I will look into this more.

I will start with the obvious:

1. "Microbreaks" from work - grabbing a snack, browsing random things, checking the news/stocks/how far below $4000 BTC fell, etc. This is mainly harmful because it keeps you from doing work fast. The, arguably, worse part of it is that you get nothing done in a long time and then feel like you "worked all day" for nothing. So you waste time doing something that isn't pleasurable, but you get far reduced benefit, making it seems like the productive task wasn't worthwhile at all. The excuse is that it breaks you out of being stuck in a rut - a lot of the time while coding, I will stare at some problem endlessly, when I should have stepped back and changed my approach. Herein lies the conflict between "deep work" and "stepping away to get perspective" for me. It seems both have merit, and it takes experience to know when to do which. With that said, switching context constantly does NOT give your mind that break it needs, because the mind becomes engaged with something else, rather than continuing to work on the problem.

2. Sleep 7+ (preferrably 8) hours. At this point it's well known that sleep is essential to memorization, concentration, testosterone production, and athletic recovery. "Working hard" by avoiding sleep undercuts your efficiency and quickly starts to have negative effects.

3. Eating sugar. Rots teeth, makes you fat, spikes blood pressure and increases the likelihood of heart disease (https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/eating-too-much-added-su...). All for no nutritional value. The twist here is that "it makes you feel good" and "gives you energy". The "makes you feel good" part is definitely a habit that can be broken. The "gives you energy" part. Well, that's something that I actually think happens. If I drink a KickStart, I can stay awake through sprint planning, which is quite a feat. I haven't found the blood sugar spike & drop to be true in my experience, which makes this a difficult habit to fully break for me.

Hmm, saw this just before heading out. It's not a troll. It has nothing to do with having a boss, it has to do with knowing you are getting a guaranteed paycheck and knowing you need that to survive or maintain a certain lifestyle.

I am amused by how easy I find it to work on corporate drone work 8-12 hours a day + during my vacation, but have a hard time forcing myself to work even a couple of hours on my own stuff.

I think it's because in the end, it's hard to really believe it's not all for nothing.

Sure I have. I am sitting on top of an article right now that I should have had done a week ago. Why haven't I finished it? A ton of reasons:

1. I can't narrow down the scope enough and I am not so familiar with the subject matter that I can make easy generalizations without the risk of them being inaccurate. This leads to a lot of tangential research.

2. I don't care about the subject matter at all, nor do I see a forseeable use for it - this doesn't do wonders for motivation.

3. I am doing this in my "spare" time, which is making me bitter, because I work hard enough at work and "shouldn't have to spend every waking moment trying to further my career."

4. I guess in the end I am just lazy.

5. Edit: Oh, and there is that whole compulsive browsing habit outside of work which I probably need to work on, but again, a life coach isn't exactly going to help me there.

So, really, what would a smart person (but not a life coach) tell me? They would tell me that I made a choice, and I should stick to that choice until it's carried out so that I don't waste my time by stretching this out. Then they would tell me to re-evaluate my priorities.

Now - how can a life coach possibly help me with any of these issues?

Life coaches are a cheaper, less educated version of psychologists* - they can help truly messed up / low IQ people be "normal." They can also serve as a paid "friend" of sorts, who "cares". In the end, it's all a lie and a waste of money. Worse yet, it's self-deception in the sense that you hand over the reins, and I repeat myself, to some idiot conman.

* Just to be clear - psychologists (especially ones who are also psychiatrists) can also help truly sick people when there is a chemical imbalance / injury / etc. I am talking about the sit-in-a-chair psychologists.

"Not everyone can motivate themselves in the long term, and having someone to remind them and keep them on track is worth a bit of money."

As someone here said here - that's an expensive to-do list.

"They can help you choose life goals that suit you without being worried about their agenda."

Having a scam artist choosing life goals for you seems kind of counter productive.

"The benefit of a life coach is independence. They are not your friend, and they are not your partner or parent."

I would argue a life partner should be able to give better advice.

Absolutely this - it's in the same bucket as The Prince and 48 Laws of Power. Lot of hype, zero useful advice. Some books are worth the hype, e.g. The Art of War.

To the OP - in my experience, it's absolutely enough for a dev to be good to move up. That's the beauty of software development. Now, if you ever want to be a manager or a lead, it's definitely a different story.

There is a lot of "don't read the news" comments in typical self-help books/speeches. I am divided. I have "not read the news" before, and I was totally out of the loop in a lot of conversations. On the other hand, 99% of what I read in the news isn't helpful in any way that is directly evident.

Most "rich" people I know are religious, "family", sort-of-upper-class-rednecks. They usually run small businesses worth several million, donate to the Church, and focus on their family life. It's hilarious how poorly I fit in here. Anyway, they do all get intricately involved with the technical details, even if they don't understand all of it.

These people aren't really "rich" though, just very well-off.

Don't know any really "rich" or "wealthy" people. Have never even talked to one.

I didn't read the article, but I feel like we might rapidly get to the point where technology is magic. As arrogant as using "even" in this context sounds - EVEN people on here generally don't understand more than a few fields. For example, when it really comes down to it, the way pain meds work might as well be magic to me, though I could probably sputter some scientific-sounding explanation that I really don't understand. Same with modern computers - I can mumble about logic gates, but the reality is that my electronics knowledge stops at vacuum tubes, just because that's what's accessible without an EE/chemistry specialization.

"Point being, the life of a professional athlete in the making is (mostly) not glamorous or exciting, but rather a very narrow existence comprised of pure persistence and dedication to a small set of very specific movements and activities, repeated over and over."

Same as most professionals. But more reward. More risk. More need for innate qualities.

"...like to watch, even though we have no inclination to walk that road ourselves. In other words, they do it for us, sacrifice themselves for our redemption."

They "sacrifice" for fame and a comfortable lifestyle, just like everyone else.

A consulting company I worked for fired a sales guy who basically built it with the two co-owners. He basically found all the clients to place developers with and found / interviewed a bunch of devs. Then the company grew and they hired a fancy Ivy League / Wallstreet experience guy in his place.

They gave the original guy zero warning. Kind of messed up.

> Military sighting

> Multiple points of observation from reliable sources. Visual AND radar observation

> "Natural" sources ruled out

> Military equipment going out on three occasions

> American military investigators

> US military satellite saw an IR anomaly at the same time on its own

I am guessing most people browsing this are suddenly intrigued by the topic. This is the most interesting incident ever, by far: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Tehran_UFO_incident

Funny, I tried .NET Core with EF at a Hackathon and thought EF really went a long way. Had no idea about the restrictions, thanks for the heads up.

Btw, we use .NET core in prod, but we have weird DB access through a third party API, so I didn't need to think about data mapping.