logari

Thanks, :) the English language has serious limitations in how meaning can be molded to convey multiple-entendres, unlike some Asian/Oriental languages where one line can have at least 4 to 5 differing, contradictory-yet-supporting senses, which in the end causes an intellectual high that makes one stop--you cannot digest more than one line a day--and even so it makes you think about it all day long. :)

Thank you. There is a well-known sociological theory that things that matter cannot be gotten directly because you think they matter; rather because you want them, aside from their importance, then you can get them. Say you want to date a hot girl. You cannot say: "I want to be your boyfriend, because you are hot."

You acquire something important because you like it, you want it for intrinsic reasons.

You will go far in any field if you like it and want to excel in it. The ugliest man with the right amount of passion and intrinsic liking, and enough preparation can melt a beautiful girl's heart.

Taken to a logical extreme, someone very good at nothing, is notable, because he is "very good" first. In other words, the most boring person can also be interesting because of being "most boring".

The future of CS work increasingly looks like truly passionate programmers building things (like at YC). Companies have a shortage because of this, in the main, since the pay and conditions for real programmers is not good enough, and a real programmer can earn (by building stuff) even without doing a 9to5.

The problem can be addressed by removing the "employee mindset" from potential programmers.

If you do it for the money, well, you will neither get very good, nor will you enjoy the money, assuming you become good enough to get any.

Companies that have rubbish HR practices eventually lose out to firms that appreciate that the Japanese hiring system: hire someone who has shown excellence in any field, and they are bound to repeat it.

Simply fishing for talent in existing companies is a failed and flawed strategy. Yes, you will end up with a senior developer doing 5 juniors' work, for less than half of their pay--until another firm offers him more money and he leaves, leaving you out in the open again.

By contrast, hiring a junior and teaching them the ropes on condition of their not leaving for n years is a better and an all around win strategy.

Another word: I have seen most CS program curriculums and with certain exceptions, most are not teaching what would make them marketable employees.

For instance, SICP should be a must in any CS program, but in some, it is not. How can they afford not to teach from the best CS text in the world?

You get a developer with a resume. And a degree. Big deal. How about one with a remarkable portfolio of projects demonstrating real understanding and passion?

I doubt if a company would bin the resumes of someone with interesting projects to their credit. Simply a degree with a few nominal github repos is not going to cut it.

Absolutely nothing. Well except Java. (Just kidding, Java is fine!).

Yes, that was my point, too.

A balanced and intelligent comment.

Although, if Racket is for educational uses only, if you see their main website you will notice that it is actively preparing itself to become the next Python.

Have you tried learning Chinese.

+1 for Lisp. (Common, Racket, Scheme etc).

On Hobby

=========

Roses are pink

Tulips are black

I like to think

That's why I hack

~~~~~~~

On the importance of sleep

=========

In the ev'ning when the sun

Was setting, it went down

Said it needed have some rest

So that it could be the best

Rising fresh again next day

Shining bright all the way

~~~~~

On Friendship

=========

Better hungry than eat rotten

Let this precept not forgotten

Even birds belong to flocks

See them penguins on the rocks?

Better shoeless than in pain

Better be alone, and sane

■ I wrote these impromptu just for you. They may be childish but they certainly make sense (compared to the what the imagists etc write).

Finally, somebody said it. The English also very good, nay, excellent.

I write poems.

You should read "Body by Science" to prevent destroying your bones, cartilage and to waste time. There is such thing as the golden minimum.

The ideas in Getting More, by Stuart Diamond.

And many others...in particular books written in foreign languages, which I cannot share here due to linguistic barriers.

+1 for Racket. It will have excellent potential in the AI world.

Agreed on the dev.to interface. It seems as if it was designed by a child who was late for school.

Is HN really toxic? I haven't noticed.

You are falling into the "build it and they will buy" trap. Supply-side marketing only when the product is disruptive, like an IPad, or smart phone.

Otherwise, you need very compelling reasons than just liking to create customers. This is because when people say they "like" something, they are mostly not sure exactly why. It could be an emergent effect from various causes.

If they use it but don't convert to buyers, the problem maybe that they don't think your product is valuable enough to warrant money expenditure. Either your marketing message is weak, or there are too many rivals offering similar value; or in a less likely case, your product doesn't solve the problem it was designed to solve.

It is hard to know what to do next given limited information in your question, but a general solution would be survey your customers for what would make them pay for it...and if not, why. You could also keep reaching audiences and hodl while improving and tinkering. Sometimes these things take time.

Especially on YouTube, there are quite a lot of people whose opinions are not calculated, fact-backed and experience-baked, who merely say things because they gotta say it.

I identify with that part, so I will explain my interpretation of it:

If you do things the way they all do, you go on the path well-traveled. But if you dare to do what your heart tells you to do, even though it is outside of the "standard" way of doing things, then you stop being a commoner and become special.

If you didnt dare to be special, you will never know what you will have missed. True courage is living your life the way you want it (without harming others in anyway, of course) and not by the socially constructed dictates that are ephemeral anyway.

Be real, stay cool, and enjoy the journey!

A good question! Although I wonder why the timeline is set at 12 months....

This is what I learned:

1- amateurs try to hard sell and persuade with much energy. That is how you know they are amateurs. They make up for competence by inflating their confidence.

2- true experts are those who can explain things patiently and completely (and sometimes enigmatically and paradoxically so that it makes sense on a lower level that we understand even though its seems like there is more to it than our understanding allows) and dont feel threatened by your learning them, too. All the rest "experts" are bozos.

3- I learned that the limit of my achievement is the limit of what I don't know that I don't know. Which in turn can be expanded by directionless search in random directions, kinda like how probabilistic methods solve deterministic equations in higher math.

4- I learned that the ancient saying "women lack reasoning" is false, because women have a different kind of reasoning machinery. And it works on a different wavelength than is normally assumed. It is not important to know exactly what wavelength a woman's reasoning systems operate (you won't ever find out) but you gain some advantage knowing that it is DIFFERENT and always CHANGING.

5- Body language is approximately 10 times more powerful than verbal communication. It includes tone of voice, the way your eyes look on to the world, silence, and even how you socialize. It is the ultimate tool to prevent people from getting fresh with you. Ignore the nasty ones, and it hurts them way more than engaging them.

6- I learned that small differences (and issues and squabbles) dont smoothen out with time. They become bigger and worse. Prevention is 100 times more effective than cure.

7- I learned that the most intelligent and wisest writer born in UK is Robert Burton, not the moronic Shakespeare.

8- I found out that all the smart cats (and some wannabes like me) hang out on news.ycombinator.

9- I learned that deadlines are necessary but they should be quantity-based, not temporal. "I have to finish reading two chapters today" sounds like an ideal deadline than, saying "I must finish this book in 2 months".

10- I learned the best way to learn something is by reading books, not watching lectures or videos. They put me to sleep, videos do.

11- I finally managed to create a site such that the buttons turn on like a light bulb. Www.jans.surge.sh

12- I realized that optimism wins even when failure is guaranteed. Better to lose a game you enjoyed than to win one you didn't.

I could go on. I will stop because I have more things to learn!

:)

There are two types of interruptors: the intelligent and the stupid.

The intelligent ones have a lot to say, and worry they forget, so they want to edge in a few of that "block" chain before it's lost.

The stupid ones are simply rude and don't care about your feelings.

Step1: identify from other clues, what type you are dealing with.

Step2: if intelligent, let them finish their speech. Then ask: "are you finished?" Then ask for uninterrupted talk time. You can be humorous about it. For instance: "if the urge to cut me off hits you, take notes while I am speaking." If they took notes, ask them to rephrase what you just told them.

If the stupid type, you can cut them off, too. It is okay to be fair.

I have read all the comments as of this typing. Some good, others okay. Ish. While there is no doubt that Khan Academy is really good, it depends on good for WHOM?

You don't sound like a typical KA learner, from what I see from your post, so a more accurate answer would be to ask you: how motivated are you to re-learn math?

If you are 110% motivated, I think you will have to first read Morris Kline's "why the professor cannot teach" which is an attack on the way math is taught starting from late 50's, especially in the U.S or the West.

After that, you will know what to do next. Depending on your future choices, you could start with building a strong algebra foundation before going to other branches.

To do that, you could read Polya's "how to solve it" as a general motivator, but as your main book, college algebra by Bittinger (or was it Bettinger) is the best that I know so far.

Make sure it is the pre 90's edition.

An intelligent comment. Good one.

+1 for the excellent Maxwell Maltz

I directly take notes online. See here: learnook.surge.sh

Then in the chapter 2019.

I am going to write my answer before reading others' comments, because I don't want to be primed by the other comments.

Because we are all different in some sense, and yet similar in the main sense, certain strategies work for all of us, while some for only those who are similar in that narrow sense.

I need not mention the general sense, since I suspect there maybe many comments with a high probability of mentioning the general case.

In the narrow case of what works only for me, I cannot learn when I don't have a big picture context for my learning. A Book like Lubanovic's Python cookbook is certainly not my style. I need an overall context, so that each small bit makes sense within that context.

For instance, if I want to learn a foreign language word, seeing it deciphered in a textbook, alongside a text does not guarantee my learning it or remembering. Even less so, if it is a word in a "word list dictionary". I need a text which excites my interest enough to want to know the unknown words in it. A Reader's-Digest-like shallow text is not exciting or stimulating enough.

Ditto to programming and CS. I need to know where each learning bit fits in the overall scheme and the scheme should be exciting. I don't want to learn (cannot) simply because something is popular due to network effects (C++) when I know there are better solutions like a combination of Rust, Racket, and Ruby.

I also need to know whether it is worth my input. Like in the C+ case, is my effort paid in triplicate? If not, not interested. Intrinsic motivation in learning something can translate to a pay off, but it better be as good as (similar input output ratio) Scheme/Lisp/Racket to justify learning it.

Recently I have been looking at Java, in the popular book by Eckel. I am having doubts as to whether I should go deeper in Ruby or also see what Java offers. My motivation is damped by the way Scala is written since it seems to be what Java aimed to be but couldn't. I am stuck now. On one hand, I want to know If I am missing something if I dont learn Java. On the other, I dont want to learn sth arcane and programmer-unfriendly when and since I have alternatives like Scala and Ruby and Kotlin.

Hence, for me to want to learn creates the necessary mental readiness to actually learn it. I picked up Ruby fairly quickly because the explanations by David Black, in his Well Grounded Rubyist were excellent enough to allow me to learn it all in one place, with zero frustrations.

In summary, for me to learn sth, it has to be useful, interesting, stimulating, and practice-friendly. After this is satisfied, I need clear explanations and logical progression with hands-on real-world applications. With all this, I dont need any tricks or strategies. It will all fall into place.

Best,

James

Location: anywhere except Japan, China, Korea, and Africa.

Remote: yes!

Willing to relocate: yes

Tech: Python, Julia, some R (I dislike it), Scheme, HTML/CSS/Js, Ruby, Django/Rails. Mostly data science/analytics and web dev, but open to other fields.

Resume: mostly self-taught programmer. (I dislike being taught in the traditional sense: give me a few good books and I will learn. Lecture me and I am gone to sleepland) ...Also BA Chinese (as if it matters here)

Website: www.learnook.surge.sh

Email: jaemez@outlook.com

Quick learner, good at communication. Age 40.

Previously worked as a uni teacher for over a decade.

My favorite book (in English): the anatomy of melancholy by Robert Burton. Highly recommend it!

Thanks, yes...

A very general question there because stuff can be so many things!

Try:

Boris (search: boris kvass) this guy cooks Russian food, and is quite funny.

Except TypeError: Then I suggest Herbert Gross teaching Linear Algebra at MIT (they dont have such teachers anymore).

I also like the charming Python lady at Socratica.

And if you want to learn about Islam (and not the fake narrative imposed by MSM) Mufti Menk is a good source. You can learn about who Moslems really are, as opposed to the propaganda that is going on now with the "terrorism" circus.

Finally, Talos Principle game walkthrough by Derek Banas is good fun if you are into logic and games.

Hello fellow hackers and direct employers!

…I am sick of agencies and HR portals etc. All I ended up was waste of time jumping through the circus hoops, while the only beneficiary was probably the agency who farmed resumes to sell them to some other client like the CDOs in Finance...

I am a largely self-taught, very highly motivated and the non-pedant efficiency-loving programmer since 2015 (Python, Rust, Julia mainly, but can learn fast), and since you are all talking about job offers, I want to ask for your opinion:

Would you hire a graduate of the www.launchschool.com ? I am contemplating solidifying my programming by blazing through their program since I have slow-learned code for 4 years, so I would not be a typical "studious beginner". I just want to fill some gaps as well as be able to ameliorate the word "self-taught" by adding Launchschool and its projects to my resume.

Any thoughts? Thank you for your valuable advice.

James Logari