197 karma · joined April 25, 2017
I always assumed this is why the lid on the toilets exists.
I have seen many arguing about leaving the toilet seat up and down but I always felt the only real answer is to put the whole lid down.
Even if you’re not flushing the water still evaporates and brings some tiny particles with it.
Further more, some advanced ideas will stay in minority since the majority will not be able to comprehend them.
Basically the rule of majority will generally breed mediocrity in my opinion.
Lookup letzte generation.
There are probably others, I’m not really following it too close.
That, and a huge load of psychological introspection to figure pit why I had those feelings in the first place.
Wars are dangerous by default, our biggest issue with Ukraine war is definitely not the power plant but the war itself…
- depends how you do it
- not all apps need to be SPA but also you can render fragments if you really want
Sounds exactly like the beginning of that ScFi book The Swarm :)
But just from what I can read seems very very stretched theory. How do you even say with confidence that a person is 100% intro/extrovert and from there all the theories built on top go down the drain.... Even the terms extrovert and introvert were hijacked by mainstream culture to mean outgoing and not outgoing people which don't paint the proper picture of human behavior in my opinion... That's just me though.
One such story, I humbly hope, would be my poem.
Yes the b00bs were all over the place as they are in real life, and in my opinion how they got there is as interesting as real life.
Original people solving the original problem had a good understanding of what they are dealing with.
However with subsequent generations it became a monkey problem https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5QuwPeH9P7Y
When all you have is a DAG all solutions end up with sales person coming at your door problem. But years down the line we didn’t have traveling salesman problem but out of date libraries problem.
The monkeys tried to make their risk taking more safe by introducing all kinda of random constraints not realising that what gave power to the whole idea was actually risk taking.
And no, they didn’t try to manage risk but have completely fail to understand that risk is what made product good in the first place.
And this is how every great idea in human history fell apart, the original people had different view of a current problem however the following generations have only understood the simplified problem and down the line the the solution to original problem had became the actual problem.
I still believe the poem would make greater justice to the whole idea, but what I tried to explain here is that the simple things we have all witnessed actually hide much deeper truths about life in general.
And from there I assume QzDesktop loading times where not the issue at the beginning of this deterministic chaotic system, but simply one of the possible generational products.
I am yet to understand how to solve the monkey issue.
One day I will sit down and write a small poem about the insanity of software development based on my experience with Quartz. It will be an intriguing story of love and hate being told through a sensual dance between sales and engineering. The battles will not be epic but the consequences of one’s actions will be far reaching.
It was indeed and experience worth having.
You don't need math at all to make a computer program. All you need is a computer with some kind of language that is easy to run installed and a tutorial for hello world for it.
But what about programming a program that does some math calculations? Seem like it would be good to know those math calculations that you need to implement...
Or lets take accounting software for example? You need basic math most of the time but it turns out it is quite valuable to know about accounting. Yes, you can write an accounting software without knowing any accounting and just depend on what product manager tells you. But it is much easier to understand what he is saying if you know a lot about accounting... It is also much easier and faster to make decisions without going to product for each tiny detail.
You can expand this to the problem of building teams. You can read few tutorials on agile development and what not, however knowing psychology and having enough empathy to understand people you work with in depth will bring much better results then any so called management book that is taken literally.
And so it goes... The more you know about how world works the better decisions you can make that eventually might lead you to better solutions to the problem at hand.
This is a general thing in life in my experience, but also one that seems to be looked over quite often... The more you know about problem domain the better you will be at problem solving inside that domain. Coding that solution into a computer program at that point is just a matter of knowing how to use that tool (which is a specific problem domain in of it self.)
I've spent 25 years discovering languages and concepts in computer science. I've even played with Smalltalk, Ada and some Algol variant. Even wrote COBOL for short while. What's your point?
If by wikipedia then you think they are exclusive and might even think that introverts are people who just want to sit at home.
Not wanting too much company can also be associated with highly sensitive people and not necessarily introverts. About 30% of highly sensitive people are in fact extroverted.
And there is no single trait or concept that makes someone a good leader but rather a mix of lot different psychological and biological setups.
However I also think that how you look at the language greatly depends on what actual projects you have been working on and with whom plus personal taste. I've been mostly in finance and accounting and personally love code that is very easy to "read" (definition of readable code seems to vary per person).
Example: C++ has so many things crammed into it that I don't see the value of it for doing stuff that are not high frequency trading. It is like using a sledgehammer to drive a nail in the wood.
Cramming in new statements just to check Enums types properly sounds... well wrong... The types don't do anything except make code harder to read. But I know that unpopular opinion here... I guess I just like old simple Python more.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Stamets
I suggest to watch his lectures on youtube, some pretty fascinating stuff.