I live in a country and I'm trying to learn the language. I also take weekly classes and occasionally use private tutoring when I have time. I still get a ton of value out of duolingo, its exercises are easy to do in spare moments and it's a great way to work on vocabulary and passive grammar understanding, I love it.
It's not nearly enough on it's own to learn a language though, it's very very good as a supplement though, ime
Do we see this trend continuing through the remainder of this year? Is there any reason to expect a shift back in favour of employers in the labour market here in the near future?
I agree that the prose and structure is not the strong point.
I appreciated it for giving a clearly articulated alternative to zero sum competitive games. It helped me think about the playfulness of cooperative creativity in a new more holistic way, as well as the idea that it’s worth doing things that you’ll never reach an end of.
I don’t doubt that if I read it again I’d share your criticisms though, it’s a thin volume with a very sweet idea at the core of it, at the end of the day.
I would have thought it was an asshole comment for implying that having kids makes you less productive. But having kids DOES make you less productive (at least when they are young) or at the very least removes great swaths of time that you would have had available otherwise, if you involve yourself with their lives at all.
Having kids or not is intensely personal and everyone has to make that decision themselves, not having them is extremely valid
I want to address your direct question: no you are not being self centered; that someone meant to be assessing you has a passing familiarity with your resume is an extremely reasonable expectation.
It might not be the interviewers fault if they aren’t given adequate preparation time but that just means the place isn’t taking hiring particularly seriously, or that they interview tons of people.
I realize it’s not always possible to do so, but you and everyone else deserve to work at a place that treats them with respect, don’t feel bad for desiring this most basic thing.
I know you meant resistance training in general wrt astronauts in space but I just got the funniest image in my head of Chris Hadfield doing a zero G overhead press with a loaded bar and floating all over the place hahaha
"Zig does not support RAII or operator overloading because both make it very difficult to tell where function calls happen just by looking at a function body."
"Zig's standard library is still very young, but the goal is for every feature that uses an allocator to accept an allocator at runtime, or possibly at either compile time or runtime."
It's a real, real joy to read all these memories about the set, thank you all!
> Although I'm a huge fan of tech writing for beginners, in this case I could have done with 0.6 as much whimsy.
Can I meet you in the middle somewhere?
No, but seriously, there are what I consider very good reasons to adopt this tone. It's easier to write in a loose conversational style, first of all, and it's much more approachable for a wider variety of readers. But most importantly, to me anyway, is that I want to avoid even the semblance of an authoritative voice derived solely from the tone of the writing. Case in point:
> It's just a way of saying: "Outside the scope of this textbook".
That's exactly right. I'm not going to explain such a huge branch of mathematics with any justice in a short blog post, so I'm not even going to try. The cursory definition of "what you probably think it is" is more than adequate to get to the point, and I want to be clear about what I do and do not actually understand. To me though, "Outside the scope of this post" bespeaks of an author's deep and abiding understanding of the subject, as if he or she doesn't feel it necessary to deign to share that understanding just yet. For me, for this subject, This is not accurate, and I don't want readers to feel
like it is.
> only serves to tell the reader how little you know.
This is also exactly right. I don't know much about sets, at all. I could read about them! I'd love to read about them, and I probably will sometime. But I don't know much about them right now. I think it's _more_ important, not less, that I am clear about that. This post is written for someone who doesn't have a strong math background and is only just learning about the Mandelbrot set, in effect, me from a few months ago.
The authoritativeness of the post should come from the provable validity of the contents, not the airs of the author. I had this post vetted by JavaScript ~ninjas~ and a Math phd to avoid putting out bad information, that's much more important to me than proving that I know everything, because I don't.
That said, I want it to be an enjoyable read for anyone, so I'll keep the tonal crits in mind.
> A bit unrelated, but it's weird that Medium doesn't seem to support embedded code, and instead only seems to work with gists. It made the mobile experience pretty bad (all I get are links to the gists) and it would definitely "pollute" my gist history with a lot of little code snippets
I agree.
> Am I the only one that was a bit disappointed to find it's a beginner introduction to the Mandelbrot set? The title led me to believe there was some modification or something new =/
I'm sorry; but if I had truly discovered a new fractal set, I probably wouldn't
be publishing it on Medium first. :) Mandelwat was just too good a pun.
> Somebody introduce this guy to the Mandlebulb.
The Mandlebulb blows my mind.
> I understand this is meant as a joke, but I also think that's part of the reason why Node became so big.
I agree.
> I feel like you're going to get far better pictures and faster results from language closer to the metal like C/Rust/Java(???).
Yes, this is self evidently correct. Did you even open the post? One of the first hyperlinks goes to the widget that I finished the project with, which uses WebGL to render ~60fps interactive zooms up to the limits of 32 bit floats: http://mandelbrot.jfo.click
Thank you all for reading, it is really awesome to be able to share something I just learned and am excited about with so many people!!
Author here. Thanks for this comment, as I said in the post this is exactly the kind of feedback I want.
I had read the first half or so of SICP before I started this project, but can't say that I really "got" it. Certainly a lot of lightbulbs had gone off, but I still had the feeling I was missing something. This project (and the two attempts that preceded it) was started with the knowledge that I didn't really know what the hell I was doing, at all. Each iteration got a little bit better and filled in more and more gaps. This is the first one that I can say is "done" in any meaningful sense, though there is a lot still to do if I ever wanted to make it useful or even reasonably performant (GC, TCO, etc...) . I fully intend to explore the concepts involved whether by implementing them into this language or by starting from scratch again, which I am definitely not above!
I agree that a lot of the mucking in this program isn't directly related to building a good scheme/lisp, but it was definitely relevant to my other main goal of becoming more proficient in C. I can report that that was a real success; I learned more about C from this than almost anything else I had done prior.
I will read that paper with interest, thank you for the link!