Agree. team needs to know about the shit. It's important information that helps them prioritize their work and motivates them as they know that what they do is important for the bigger bosses. If manager shields me from everything I go apathetic, not knowing why I even do the boring stuff if manager doesn't tell me his manager is giving shit
I hate having to rely on my own sense of what happened in a meeting, or which executive is upset about something. While its usually accurate, it's been borne out of chaotic leadership and shouldn't be necessary, especially if its to try to get off the tracks when a freight train is coming.
Sometimes the culture of poor management is so ingrained and normalized people really don't understand what the problem is. That usually ends with me looking elsewhere, as taking on the responsibility other's won't while not having authority has lead to multiple full years lost to burnout.
Cars are so expensive I'm happy if somebody brings cheaper cars to Europe. EU regulation is probably a factor in making cars too expensive and it's time to stop and think, how to find a better balance.
That's interesting. People are really different. I had my own stages to being still not socially normal person. I always wanted friends, sometimes had some, sometimes felt lonely. In case you happen to read this, did you not have friends in childhood but didn't feel bad about it?
Even if you are smart you have to work. And the work isn't necessarily funnier than the "stupid" work that almost anybody can do. I still think I liked my time at construction yard more than my time in front of computer screens. But I do this to be able to pay my bills. There are many counter arguments to the point that smart people are less happy because of what their jobs but I still wanted to say, "better" job is not always happier. Disclaimer, construction workers are smart but there are entry level jobs where smarts is not needed.
Cont.
I was always somebody who does well in school and thinks he is smart. But I had some situations that gave me a lesson. E.g. when I was younger I got to know some people who were kind of fun to spend time with but I thought they are a bit crazy, not smart. At some point I noticed, well, they seem to be doing better than I, in fact. They have a nice job, they have friends, they have a comfy apartment, they seem happy. I was a poor technical student in university who was struggling with studies and life, and not finding a great job. So I thought, "I think I'm smart but what use is my smarts if the dumb ones are doing better?" I developed this mindset of forgetting smarts and not categorizing people with that so much. And don't be proud of your smarts, instead show what valuable skills you have.
What if something works even if the arguments are unscientific?
Example: How to get an apple from high up in the tree where I can't reach?
My theory is that if I knock them with a baseball bat they fall because they are afraid of baseball bats and don't want to be hit. I have tested it and it works.
A physics teacher I know disagrees, and a biologist disagrees.
What if psychology has such things that just work even if the theory is wrong? The trauma healing layman psychology industry might have a method that works for some people, so that they get into a better mental state.
Yeah I think there's no point denying that we humans need and are affected by narratives. At least on the psychological level, which, in turn, may have impact on the body as well.
I think there should first be something resembling a state and only then it could be recognised. Now there isn't any entity that looks like an independent Palestinian state. For that reason this recognition seems pointless to me although I'm sympathetic to finding a peaceful solution.
Do you think it's possible that Israel's campaign of violence and destruction was to result in a scenario not unlike what you're describing: a land so thoroughly bombed and a people so controlled by terrorism that it barely resembles anything self-governing?
That would be rewarding Israels actions though. Similarly your arguments apply to Israel as it doesn't meet all of the standard criteria of statehood, should it's statehood be revoked?
I don't think this from the point of view of who I'm rewarding. To me, Israel looks like a state with its independent foreign policy, army, government.
How about Gaza/West Bank, no even before Oct 7 attacks it didn't look like a state. Israel is right now so much more powerful that it won't let Palestinians have independence. This situation is so strange I don't have time to write a more detailed answer about my opinions.
Palestine is not allowed statehood by Israels actions, often illegal. Israels illegal settlements and apartheid regime should have resolved the discussion on statehood decades ago.
The only moral viable solution I can see is 2 separate states. At this point support of anything else is supporting genocide and ethnic cleansing. If it doesn't happen then that is a deliberate choice of the US and I fear for the world never mind Israel or Palestine.
Also there are some popular ways of explaining things that don't do the job (your experience is maybe different). For example: try to learn very basics of object oriented programming. The tutorial will inevitably have examples like "Class Bicycle" or "Class Car". These are out of programming context and never helped me to understand how to benefit from OOP in programming.
Another example is git tutorials. Having used git for years it feels so simple. In the very beginning it wasn't and those maps with circles and arrows didn't help.
A lot of kids who learn programming are motivated by a desire to make video games, and everyone already knows what a car is, so such class hierarchies are a good way to teach the concept.
On HN it's trendy to bash OOP and inheritance but it's a bubble; contempt born of familiarity. Real world codebases all use it extensively, including new codebases, and they use it because it's often a reasonable point in the design space for modeling problems. It's not perfect but the alternatives all have major issues of their own.
Obviously once a budding developer realizes that he can't find a job writing game engines and 'graduates' to writing DB driven web apps, the objects and class hierarchies he finds will be representing much more abstract concepts. But by then he'll understand what those concepts are, having mastered them in a less abstract concept space.
The writer mentions "panic monster" which is something like deadline or fear or public embarrassment and it forces you to work. It's kind of strong external motivation.
I wonder if ADHD can be described in terms of motivation instead of in terms of attention. Like what if someone with ADHD can regulate his attention as well as somebody other but he's not motivated enough to do it. Could ADHD be described as a better than usual resistance to "panic monster"? In a class somebody might feel very stressed out about homework and about being in time (are those things "panic monsters" to him?) while somebody other feels uninterested. Somebody other is not even scared of getting reprimanded by teacher if he directs his attention to talking with friends during class. He's not scared of being late. He's not scared of getting bad grades. He's generally not easily stressed out and he does fun things while the other reads homework.
If both internal and external motivation are lacking for him he might have some troubles graduating from university. If he's expected to work without much direction or pressure(e.g. remote coder) he might have troubles getting good results in work.
This idea is surely simplistic but can you relate to this, that instead of ADHD person being more prone to divert his attention to fun things randomly he might be just feeling the external motivation in a weaker way?
I don't have ADHD even though the article made me think about it.
I wonder if human singer instinctively chooses another note, that is not 100% same frequency as in piano. You know, there are always imperfections in piano tuning even if it's done in today's standard way(all intervals are not perfect). I'm not a piano tuner but this is my understanding. Possibly trained singers can sing in a better harmony somewhere where piano gets it (very) slightly wrong?
It's not (just) instinctive. Good choral singers adjust their tuning purposefully to match the overtones of the harmony.
For example, if you are on the fifth in the chord, you adjust the tone slightly up. If you are on the major third, slightly down. Minor third, slightly up. These rules are consciously applied by choral singers, and are even genre-defining for things like barbershop.
because pianos are real physical things, high and low strings have overtones that do not match the harmonics (and in different ways), so for stuff to "sound good" piano tuners tune on overtones and not fundamentals.
on a more fundamental level our perception of pitch (the musical psychoacoustic thing) also vary with loudness and frequency (physical reality)...
add to that, that at low frequencies we have difficulties tracking the pitch in the first place (so we rely on overtones/harmonics) -- which makes it even more important to tune on evertone (because our heads can recreate/track the note through psychoacoustic effects... so we will ear it "nice" when without the overtones we would be lost)
i might be wrong on some points since i starting learning about music 2 years ago as a hobby but i think it is mostly correct. the whole thing is fascinating.
I suspect there's something to this. I find with guitar you can do something similar if you tune by ear, getting the strings to resonate with each other rather than perfectly matching a tuner. To my ears it produces a richer sound.
