I would agree - especially developers are prone to develop this "better than you" attitude. The detail-oriented job of a developer and the need for exactness and correctness of the code leads to a high transparency of the quality of someone's work and facilitates comparisons on a peer level. I have the feeling, developers treat their work as some kind of puzzle and look to see who can solve this puzzle quicker and better - a very competitive environment with clear rights and wrongs. If you have an edge, you can abuse this situation.
I tend to agree - just look at large parts of the Venture Capital / Start-Up scene. Chasing the coveted product/market-fit is a purpose in itself there (at least in the early stages). I guess it depends on what you define as "successful"...
I see this article as a piece of its time - it tries to bridge the divide between connectionists and symbolists. And that's exactly my problem with it: of course, you need a non-symbolic approach to sensor data processing, fusion, aggregation, category discovery etc. but it does not necessarily mean that a neural network is the only option. In the end, an ANN implements a mathematical function and as such, you as the system designer should be able to choose any mathematical framework for your lowest level.
You sound severly frustrated. You don't need another job, you need a good coach or psychologist to treat your burn-out (which is a form of depression)
I can only speak for myself: yes, corporate it teams can be mentally draining, but working there will make you money more easily than in most other professions.
frustrated is fair, I would say disheartened but yeah it's semantics.
I know mental health does not fix itself. I guess I'm looking for an environment conducive of supporting mental health. Not just supplementing it with therapy.
To be fair - J2EE (and its associated technologies like SOAP, XML) is a bit like alcohol. It is great when used in moderation, but gives you headaches when used excessively.
XML is great - if you don't believe it, then you might be interested in the pains of parsing JSON: http://seriot.ch/projects/parsing_json.html
And don't get me started on YAML...
ChatGPT is just the beginning and a glimpse of what is to come. In its current form, it is rather generic and more of a tech demo. In the future, we will see much more specialized AI applications based on ChatGPT or similar technology, that are geared towards attractive use cases:
- software developer support (StackOverflow on steroids)
- News aggregation - the automatic newspaper editor or blog curator
- Legal support - automatic law clerk
All jobs that use natural language as a tool or resource are fair game.
A small sci-fi novel where a fantastic premise is explored. The most interesting part is the description of the role of the different characters in relation to the mystery (which is not explained in the book).
See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadside_Picnic
Awesome! There is a whole world of Bluetooth devices waiting out there!
Some suffer from broken or outdated Android apps like my Eurochron A620 bluetooth thermometer - the only way to make it work on a modern Android version is to hack it like the OP did. (If only old apps would make their source code publicly available...)
All good thinking starts with the realization : "This is odd - why would it be like that?"
In my experience, my co-workers tend to accept many concepts / structures / processes for granted whose design is non-obvious, yet they accept them although they don't understand them.
They're relying on an illusion of understanding - better thinking starts when you realize that you had no real understanding to begin with. I am not sure that you can teach this from a book. It requires an inquisitive mind and the courage to think for yourself.
That is a blatantly false answer. Of course, there is an ongoing debate about nature vs. nurture, which means that the genetic makeup of the individual strongly influences the individual's life. Look at musicality, look at sociopathy, look at general intelligence - all areas where genes exert their influence (as an example).
So yes, you can try to grow around your talents, and develop strengths there. But by the same token, you should not try to grow in areas that you are not cut out for. No amount of whishful thinking or practice will turn me into a top-notch musician or singer, for example, as the genetic component is missing.
Your response carries much too much confidence. There is no debate any longer - the story is pretty well worked out [1][2]. Nature only gets you so far. See for example how much top pro golfers practice (or musicians, or whatever ..). (Not that it matters but I learned this late in life and was able to apply the knowledge to make it near the top of my admittedly very narrow field). Sure, at the top 0.1%, maybe even 1%, your nature really matters, but you still need to practice.
You, meaning anyone, could probably practice hard and join the upper x% of just about anything (setting aside things like the NBA that overvalue nature). What x is, well that is subject to debate. So is the source of motivation, and that is almost the most important thing.
[1] Peak, by K. Anders Ericsson and Robert Pool
[2] talent code, by Daniel Coyle
This is clearly not true for anything where being the top C requires innate physical abilities. You mentioned basketball. But the same applies to anything physical.
My own little anecdote. I have Cerebral Palsy. This isn’t a woah is me statement. It really only affects my left hand and slightly my left leg. Most people wouldn’t even notice besides a really slight limp.
I spent 12 years as a fitness instructor as a working hobby. No matter how much I practiced, I wouldn’t have been able to do what other instructors could do. I synthesized my own none choreography heavy, fairly simple, very athletic style. But it got to the point that I knew I was the best that I could possibly be and I once my style started going out of fashion (step, cardio kickboxing) and the industry got to be more dance focused, it was time for me to hang it up. I also start focusing more on my career and my then new marriage and step sons.
During the latter part of the period when I was teaching, I also started running. I was decent - under a 10 minute mile up to a 15K. But every time I tried to push harder - either longer or faster - my slightly favoring my left leg caused my right leg (good leg) to experience problems or my left ankle to start hurting.
Even lifting weights, something I have always had an affinity for (and my CP doesn’t affect) and at my strongest I could bench press 300 pounds at 5 foot 4 and a weight of 175 pounds, I would never be able to lift what my 6 foot 3 200 plus pound step son can get to with much less training.
No, they weren't. They had only little interest in anything musical. Why would you start as a musician (and then fail), if music does not interest you?
Growth mindset has literally nothing to do with "top notch performance", or a guaranteed way to achieve success in any and every field of practice.
It's simply a framing exercise for how you handle failure and how you approach new topics and challenges.
And I will cheerfully disagree, many top notch musicians can't sing, and many great singers are no musicians. You could have been great - you could still be great!
But effort and persistence is a much wider gulf than talent.
