I've watched the Fedex truck pull up to my house and the guy walk up to the door and slap a sticker on it for missed delivery. Didn't even bother to bring the box, knock, or ring the bell despite my car being in the driveway.
And where if you beg them to allow code review (especially for the code made by your incompetent offshore teams) they say it's too expensive/uses too much developer time, but then they'll pay a subscription for garbage static analysis tools that's enough to cover multiple full time dev salaries.
> It's not a matter of "personalizing", it's a matter of recognizing that, just like you, the company is trying to get the best deal they can
This is kind of untrue. The company may "want" to get the best deal possible, but you aren't dealing with the company. You're dealing with one or more individuals at the company that have incentives that do not align perfectly with what the company "wants".
In most cases, the hiring manager has a budget for the role and they do not care if you come in at the bottom of budget or near the top. They don't make extra money for getting you as cheaply as possible. Sometimes they even have incentive to pay you more, to close you quickly or even just prestige.
Great grandparent comment said roughly "You can make chicken meat at home with just a chicken and a knife." While factory farming may be abusive, that is not what this discussion thread is about.
For me switching between code and tests is a context switch. TDD approaches that I'm familiar with encourage frequent swapping between them which really drains my productivity. It's much easier for me start something and hyperfocus than it is to swap back and forth.
I think the true struggle of ADHD is that you’re in fact constantly context switching. There’s the great theory that being adhd is an evolutionary advantage because it made hunting easier.
This is just insanely wrong-headed. Tests with no code are always negative value, the time it took to write the tests. Code with no tests might also be negative value, but it at least has the possibility of having positive value.
Tests are great and TDD is great for some people, but the whole point is to write useful software. It's important not to lose sight of that.
They may have negative value, but it is not a foregone conclusion. Tests are merely documentation and that documentation very well could provide positive value for someone who reads it. There is no doubt insights to be gained in reading about what someone was once thinking about a particular problem. If well thought out, you might even begin implementation based on that work, saving time having to document it all over again.
I haven't talked to any teachers about this specifically, but based on my impression of the school system and public philosophy around schools and teaching that I've gleaned from my wife and many friends who are teachers, I think it might help in the short term but be worse in the long term. The one thing that seems nearly constant is that expectations of teachers are always increasing. So I think eventually we'd end up back in a similar place except teachers would have to keep the pace year round rather than getting a couple months off in the summer.
I don't know enough about chess mid-game and end-game to know whether chess is the same as poker in this regard, but poker is absolutely not a game of memorization deeper into the game tree even at the highest levels. tl;dr the author knows nothing about the state of high level poker play and I suspect they don't know much about high level chess either.
Chess and poker both require memorization or at least very strong understanding of the early game. In chess this is openings and has been required for as long as I can remember. In poker this is preflop play. Poker extends this a bit into flop play, but already on the flop there is a lot of opportunity for creativity because there are countless strategies that are indistinguishable from one another within reasonable precision targets.
As you descend deeper into the game tree for turn and river play we enter into territory that cannot be memorized due to number of possibilities and the increasing impossibility of having perfectly executed all the way to the current decision point. This opens up a lot of room for creativity and exploitation.
You have a viewpoint that is shaped by a very niche experience. Your experience was with students that happened into an interest that was itself a project that can drive learning in a handful of subjects. This kind of approach doesn't work so well when the subjects that need to be learned don't lend themselves so well to exciting projects or even when the students don't get to self-select based on their interests.
> This kind of approach doesn't work so well when the subjects that need to be learned don't lend themselves so well to exciting projects or even when the students don't get to self-select based on their interests.
Awesome, as this is really one the core things the original post wanted us to discuss:
_Should we_ require students to study so many things that they don't find interesting?
Some of the original post's thoughts:
> It is absurd and anti-life to be part of a system that compels you to listen to a stranger reading poetry when you want to learn to construct buildings, or to sit with a stranger discussing the construction of buildings when you want to read poetry.
And:
> “How will they learn to read?” you say, and my answer is: “Remember the lessons of Massachusetts.” When children are given whole lives instead of age-graded ones in cellblocks, they learn to read, write, and do arithmetic with ease, if those things make sense in the life that unfolds around them.
My take is unoriginal, even summarized by someone else's quote:
“Study without desire spoils the memory, and it retains nothing that it takes in.” -- Leonardo da Vinci
And if really can be attributed to da vinci, then one can say same core energy really existed in minds over half a millenia ago.
So I assert that while that this experience granted was indeed an awesome experience, there's a large swath of folks pushing for this "project-based" learning, and more self-driven learning paths.
Of course any individual bet can win but casinos stack the deck by only taking action from players they know will lose over the long run.