Yes, but people haven't been using it incorrectly for long enough for it to be considered acceptable, by the very citation you've given:
> This does raise the question of why we don't enter this sense of jive, even though we have evidence of its use since the 1940s. [...] So far, neither jive nor gibe as substitutions for jibe has this kind of record [literally hundreds of years], but it seems possible that this use of jive will increase in the future, and if it does dictionaries will likely add it to the definition.
HARD force yourself to close your laptop. Seriously.
Then go for a walk just around your block, or go to the gym. Some activity that forces yourself to move
I will wide this question a little bit based on my own experience...
1. Some people report that they can have multiple conversations at the same time in their minds. I find that really hard to do. For example, if I simulate a conversation between two people in my mind, I can't easily make one interrupt the other (and make both to talk at the same time). Is this an easy task for you?
(However, I can think on a song and put that as a background music while I'm talking without losing any thread)
2. About the comment in this blog of "I saw in TV and would wish that to be a thing", that kept me thinking; I'm not good at drawing, can you "draw" in your mind? (In my case, if I start with a face, I make the hair, then their eyes, then the nose, but I started to forgot how the hair was drawn. Can't keep my draw in my mind...)
3. Meanwhile, I do have experience coding, and I can make some pretty persistent "sequence & activity diagrams" in my mind. I've found myself using that kind of "diagrams" in my mind to drive the thinking of other people when I try to explain myself about an idea. Now I'm thinking that is not the best way to do it... But, Can you do this also pretty easily? It is possible to sense if the other person is able to do something in his mind that you can not reproduce?
4. So, my experience is coding, what about your own experiences? What can you do in your mind related to that activity? For example, do musicians here, able to make music in their minds while keeping/updating its sheet music? What about other roles?
Basically, before finishing school, I've decided that would be better to make that choice if I had real experience first. So, I've started working on both. 8 months later I figured that I loved working as a programmer with engineers and that was my decision.
As a plus, one year later I enrolled myself in university and was easier for me than most of my mates.
I always wonder how much there actually is out there. It’s hard to say there’s such a thing as “raw potential” considering how much being successful depends on having parents who groom you for society.
I grew up around a lot of kids I personally believe were very smart or driven. But when your parents don’t instill a sense of working in a certain way or creating a career path with certain abstract goals - you just aren’t going to get optimal use for your potential.
> How can a self-learner without access to a university or professor check their work?
Their "work" means: Find a solution, AND then check it. So, not checking it by yourself is being lazy too.
Also, if you are learning; software like wolframalpha can help you too to check your solution. [Thanks, throwawaymath for recall this basic answer].
> I wouldn't want a beginner programmer writing "production ready" code without code review, so why should we expect a beginner math student to write error free proofs?
"Code Reviews" are for checking "how did the programmer solved that problem". On the other side; you know if some code is giving good or bad outputs by checking it with "Tests" (In the worst scenario; manually). So, you have to learn to "test" your solution.
The creativity is in how you managed to get the solution and teachers should give insights about your way to solve it and present you easier or better ways to achieve the same. (Just change "teachers" for "senior devs" and now, that is code review).
> These text seem to be designed solely for a classroom where students will get assistance and feedback from TAs and professors.
Probably that's true. You have to consider those types of books as "slides"; just like a guide for the teacher and memory refresh for students.
This is old (2013). However, i think it's really ironic to talk trash about OOP while thinking in Java and pointing Alan Kay in the same post. Alan Kay being the father of OOP always made clear Java wasn't the OOPL he had in mind.
It's a bit confused alright. His first two quotes are from people who designed OO languages. (Joe Armstrong later realised that Erlang may be the only fully object oriented language, one he learned that java is not oop https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5205976 )
Nice link!. I should add that exist a correlation between objects and lambda calculus for functional programming. So, they are different perspectives of the same idea. And you have to take care of both perspectives.
The problem wasn't lisp... The problem was he didn't want to leave his comfort zone.
You can love lisp, Smalltalk, and all those beauty languages, but you should never stick to a single language. NEVER. Go to another, look it's strenghts, and if it's a bit weak on some sides, try to use the nice techniques you learned back to make it better.
To solve any problem, you can use different languages. Of course would be nice to use the nicest languages, but in some contexts they're not the right tool, and in others, you should have to consider outside factors like, how many people will maintain that software. All of them knows how to use the powers of those nice languages? Also, do you think would be easier to rotate people on that project using those languages instead of another ones?
Everyone can learn to use some tool, but experience using others may help you to discover better ways to use new tools.
Does anyone think this may be related to the fact that you don't have a hard goal to seek for the money you are working?
For example; I want a new PC, so I work for 6 months working and thinking on that new pc. Then finally, when I have enough money to buy it and do it, I love it. The effort that cost me gives it an extra value to me. Exactly like when you worked as a kid for the game you really wanted to have. Didn't matter if the game ended being horrible, for you that game was special, and also you could continue playing it after some years with nostalgia feelings.
If I have enough money, this effort is allmost zero. At the moment i get a new need i could satisfy it.
Of course, this is just another hypothesis, and could explain why some people says aren't happier with more money, probably they want something harder to get and still achievable with money/work.
