Multi-Paradigm Design for C++ by James O. Coplien. Twenty years after reading this, the core techniques are still with me. These are commonality analysis, where the purpose is to identify families of systems, and variability analysis, which focuses on capturing the domain parameters that vary. In essence: the foundation of great software design.
that child who learns about what you say kitty cat would not have the chance to download the internet of images of cat. They likely have seen three cats, 10 cats at most, but yet they're able to identify that tail as a cattail instead of a fox tail through a different kind of learning pathway.
the other piece of advice I would have is try to identify what is the what is the exponential in the world that has both the steepest curve and will go the longest. And you know many decades ago this curve was was Moore's law and that probably was you know that was at the time like clearly the right thing to invest on. I think right now it's AI progress
However, there's an increasing body of literature that shows that by engaging older adults in novel cognitive activities, you see improvements in function. So that can be language learning. Uh that can be uh complex like coordinative movement or exercise. You see the same things with um like musical training like people learning a new musical instrument or learning um musical theory trying to identify different patterns in music. And you see in randomized control trials improvements particularly in executive function that seems to be most common across those different interventions.
It's not always pleasant. It's not a pat you on the head and you're going to be fine. It's a It's a don't like no, you're screwing this up. Go try this thing. Tell me how that works. Oh, you didn't try the thing. Oh, you don't want to work on this? Okay, we're done. Quite uncompromising. uh I say coaches are are there to identify and induce productive discomfort
I- I can relate that if you very deeply identify that you are a programmer, that it's scary and that it's threatening because what you like and what you're really good at is now being done by a soulless or not entity. But I don't think you're just a programmer. That's a very limiting view of your craft. You are, you are still a builder.
I don’t think this is very productive (expert users of a piece of software are notoriously bad at being able to tell if an explanation will be clear to non-experts), so I needed to find a way to identify problems with the man pages that was a little more evidence-based.
there's also a flip side to this or a dark side, a shadow side to identity, which is the tighter you cling to an identity, the harder it becomes to grow beyond it. And so once you have started to identify as a certain type of person, once you adopt that label, oh, I am a member of this group or I am the type of person who believes this thing, it becomes hard to stretch and grow outside of that.
And the idea here is that for important decisions, you should be able to identify one one reason that on its own supports the decision. And it's based on the observation that all too often we rely on a collection of weak reasons to justify decisions.
I think life obeys universal principles. I think there is some deep underlying explanatory framework that will tell us about the nature of life in the universe and will allow us to identify life that we can’t yet recognize because it’s too different.
Burnout is the ultimate agency-killer. This is so true that I’ve learned to identify a reduction in agency as one of the first signs of burnout, one that shows up even before I consciously realize what’s happening.
Whether one does find a good spouse or not depends more on one's orientation towards actually building relationships, and whether they can identify non-trivial traits in a partner that would contribute to that.
Tyler Cowen will often praise a book by saying it is interesting on every page. Together with Daniel Gross, he has written a book that very much matches this description.
But perhaps the biggest question of all isn’t being asked insistently enough: Why is anyone trying to teach the world how to make viruses that could kill millions of people?
The way I see this is that reviewers can identify what's obviously not great and what is obviously great (Perhaps identifying the latter is easier than the former). But there is a "messy middle" where it is unclear what to fund.
A korrent is a belief a person has stated in their own words: one
sentence stating the claim, backed by a quote and a source, kept at
korrents.com.
Under a name here, the quoted block is what they actually said.
The korrent beneath it is the claim those words support, in
korrents' wording — tap it to see the record, its source, and who
else holds it.
Nobody here wrote their own korrents. They are compiled from public
statements, and a person can change their mind, which is recorded too.
About the English under a post
Some people here publish in a language other than English. Where they
do, this site shows a machine translation beneath the post, in
this typeface — the site's own, not theirs.
The post itself is never changed, moved or hidden: what is set in the
serif above is exactly what the person published, and it is what to
quote them on. A translation can be wrong in ways that matter,
especially about tone.
Only the post's own words are translated. A quoted post, a linked
article and a belief on korrents.com
are left in their original language.