CGI lets any server-side script "print" to the browser. (Apache "httpd" is a modular "do everything" web server, which you can customize and fine-tune for performance -- but some say it has a steep learning curve.)
Does that really apply to people with outstanding skills in, e.g., programming? I can't imagine something less relevant to programming than formal education. It's not a good indicator for me.
Until big business changes - or heck even hiring at facebook - you need that piece of paper. It's absurd a lot of times - forced to take a lot of meaningless classes just to get a piece of paper that isn't worth a hole lot vs real world experience.
It's not like you're writing the regular expressions and lookup tables per hand. You write the routes in whatever format you deem nice and it's automatically translated from there ;)
Because of regular expressions? I've seen a few frameworks do routing that way and it seemed clean to me. Are you saying nightmare because regexes are nightmarish, or something?
True, Perl 6 is an amazing fiasco! Every bad thing in software has happened, so it's the world's most sensational counter-example! Stay away! Hide your kids!
P.S. But from close-up, it's the think-tank and test-bed of potential Perl 5 upgrades. Even if Perl 6 never ships, it's contributed tons of shipping code for Perl 5. Yes, it's hard to understand that from a distance, and it's not a PR dream, but oh well.
But from close-up, it's the think-tank and test-bed of potential Perl 5 upgrades.
I question this claim. Perhaps it's true of some syntactic features (`say` comes to mind as do some proposals for function signatures), but the semantics rarely translate over well (consider smartmatch). If you squint and tilt your head you can claim that Moose is an example of a feature designed in one language and implemented in another, but Moose is more an exercise in language/feature syncretism than it is porting something complete in implementation or design to Perl 5.
At the risk of sounding negative, I've found that this is probably a waste of time, because most therapists are utter garbage...
And, it's really no surprise, really, if you look at the average salary for therapists. I imagine that most of the ones who could actually help you are running high-priced practices treating Arab princes and basketball players...naturally they are not going to be found in the provider directory for your insurance...if you even have insurance... (US perspective here)
At the risk of sounding positive, I've found therapy to not be a waste of time, despite therapists being generally mediocre.
As long as they're not an asshole, having someone listen to you and prompt you with questions is incredibly therapeutic. It also helps immensely that you can be confident about your privacy. Just getting it out sometimes is what you need. None of the therapists I dealt with when going through anxiety/depression issues really grokked what was going on in my head (my impression, but perhaps, like a parent, they really did know all along). However, a few 45 minute sessions of speaking and prompting got things off my chest, and my mind redirected on far more positive things than "I'm not good enough", "I'm going to die alone", "No one would miss me if I didn't wake up tomorrow" and other delightful thoughts.
I agree. I used to go to a therapists for depression and it helped a lot just talk but it was also like having a coach that gave you social exercises (starting small). I have a lot of friends but I feel like I can open up more to my therapists.
I don't have data on "most" therapists, and neither do you, but some therapists can immeasurably change your life for the better.
As for the cost, would you rather work on your inner life (which might bring professional success) or buy that new BMW? Only you can make that decision.
Also regarding cost, I found the cost with insurance to be very affordable. Perhaps my insurance is better than average, but I just paid the same copay I'd spend going to any other doctor ($20). And like going to any other doctor, when you're in pain (mental or physical), it's almost always best to just go and talk to them. The longer you delay the greater risk of it becoming worse, and a small fee to find out that you're ok or not ok is worth it. And when it's something like anxiety or depression, it can definitely get worse. Until you've accumulated more experience with it than anyone really wants (speaking from experience here), it's next to impossible to pull yourself out of it.
Very few employer-provided plans pay for long-term therapy.
If you do use insurance for short-term therapy, all sorts of red flags (aka DSM diagnoses) will forever be branded into your permanent medical record. Obamacare may change some of this - unclear.
In short, while getting therapy is good ... involving insurance is iffy.
Ah, the old negativity-masquerading-as-insight trick. HN really needs to do something about its implicit approval of such foolery tarted up as meaningful commentary.
You're right, thanks for calling me out. I thought about deleting the comment. I was just complaining...usually, I can restrain myself, this time, I slipped.
That's like saying intolerance of intolerance is intolerant.
In fact, I'd like to have simply said, "stop being an asshole", but that sort of direct, rude comment gets downvoted here on HN. Meanwhile, an extremely rude, condescending, dismissive, but roundabout comment stays neutral or is even upvoted.
I think it could be interesting if people on HN actively tried to flip their negative comments into a point of discussion.
For example, if we instead said "You sound like you have stories to tell, do you have any experience with bad therapists? What could they have done better?" then the conversation could continue down a more interesting path.
That's a really good point, and something I'll have to think about in the future. I suppose an awful lot of online "discussions" are really sequential attempts at having the last word.
Or don't. I feel for the poster, but I think that depression is given too much emphasis as a category. Psychologists have a justifiable low bar in defining such categories - for them a category's existence is justified by its usefulness. But outside the field of psychology, we should acknowledge that people do not neatly cluster into "depressed" and "not depressed".
If medicalizing (and I don't mean that term in a pejorative way) your problems works for you, then do that. Other people find other solutions to their problems, like self-help, or just prefer to live with them.
Hmm, how about if you build some kind of API to the legislative site's data somehow? Bills coming up, etc.? Or whatever data is there. Then a widget could display the data on other sites. Just a (very conventional) thought.
