Came here to say something similar. Humans are much closer to “other” animals than what they think, and social instituions like marriage were created to prevent social mayhem.
For most of my life, I have been one of those guys who were like your friends. The point about intimacy hit hard - I have never seen such a simple point expressed so beautifully.
We often hear that choosing the right algorithm will get rid of all performance problems. There is no "need" to understand what is happening under the hood and all programmers should only work at higher levels of abstraction.
My take away from this question and and the top answer was that the above is not true. It does not mean that everyone has to code using assembly - it means that good programmers are aware of where their abstractions may leak.
Agree, people probably underestimate the value of documentation. For example, Michael Kerrisk the well-known author of the book The Linux Programming Interface is the maintainer of the man-pages project and has probably has more contributions via documentation rather than actual code.
Putting on my philosophical hat for a minute, I would say that while humans have put in lot of social structures to counter evolutionary tendencies, they still slip through in all our interactions with other humans.
Agree, I have been in the industry for long enough to see that they are discriminated against. One thing which can counter the effect of height is humour - people who are funny and extrovert can get over this to a large extent (I guess this goes not only for professional relationships but personal ones too).
I am personally still doubtful of Rust's adoption. I consider the 2008-2014 period the peak hype cycle for Haskell and don't see that it changed professional programming much. I predict it will be similar for Rust.
> free=response questions that are automatically evaluated and can handle fairly complex mathematical expressions - man, was that a lot of work!
Wow, that's excellent. I can imagine that would have been a lot of work.
> People like to believe they can outguess a multiple-choice question by being clever
Personally I think it adds a bit more complexity and toughness if I can't see the answer in advance. But that is purely my individual style and opinion and I have not seen any research either proving or disproving my hypothesis.
My biggest worry with these kind of programs is that the questions are invariably multiple choice ones. How would we practice proofs or questions where the answers are not "seen"?
Ok. I am based out of India though, so not yet sure if we can make the time zone work. You can reach me in Whatsapp or Signal - my 10 digit mobile number is 10^10 - 119214203 (excluding country code).
Came here to recommend this. I completed my bachelors in mathematics back in 2003. However, recently I am thinking of going back to school to study graduate level mathematics or higher, and possibly do a PhD in a related field. My tentative plan over the next couple of years is as follows