(That's also why OOP has all these "patterns." Many are just attempts to cope with the "object" metaphor falling apart. "Is" an AttackingRock a Monster, or "is" it an Obstacle? Hmm...)

Have you used this in any substantial projects?

Wake up at 5am, meditate, exercise, and shower before starting your day. Stop eating processed carbs and sugar. Get off the computer at 9pm and sleep at 10pm. Clean your room. Schedule sprints of work for yourself, drag yourself over to your chair, and force yourself to start typing anything. Talk to your friends more often. Set 1-3 large goals at the beginning of the day and explain to yourself why they're important.

There are lots of reasons you might be feeling this way, and it's different for everyone. Maybe you're disorganized, or you feel your work is too easy, or your health is bad. You'll have to find out which one it is by trying a lot of different things.

If after doing all this you still feel the same way, please seriously consider the very real possibility of clinical depression, and seek professional help.

This sounds hyperbolic, but I've never wanted a feature during an interview and found CoderPad to lack it.

I have a (rather lazy) friend who's been asking me to help him start a blog for years now. I've promised to after he produces his first block of content, and he keeps saying he can't write if he doesn't feel the design is aesthetically pleasing. If he'd spent his time writing instead of worrying about this, he'd have a crappy initial draft, several revised drafts, and probably something decent by now. But no, that prohibitively unattractive font!

It was nice of iA to write this up, and design posts are a fun read, but does anyone who's busy actually writing care about this?

The good news is that compared to other technical fields, the math is also relatively shallow. Here are some good resources that you don't need more than calculus/linalg for (I've used all of them and they got me off the ground):

http://cs231n.stanford.edu/

http://neuralnetworksanddeeplearning.com/

http://course.fast.ai/

Once you feel confident, the Deep Learning book is more math-heavy, but it is really very good. The authors are more or less deep learning gods. It'll teach you a tremendous amount about how/why neural nets work and the principles used to discover new architectures, and gain a strong intuition for how to use neural nets as a tool. Read it slowly---unless you're already good at math, it takes a while to get through. Don't skip the first five chapters. Use Google and Wikipedia to pick up concepts you don't understand along the way instead of skipping over them (it will bite you later).

I think we're conflating is and ought here. It's probably a fact of reality that most people aren't happy to be told they're wrong. But arguably people ought to accept the consequences of being wrong, e.g. feeling bad when they're told.

I've talked to lots of startups in San Francisco. Most are failing, just due to the nature of startups, but can survive if they reach a finite set of straightforward goals. They've found product/market fit, they know what they have to do, they just have to do it, and the correct 10,000 characters of code input into a computer would solve all their business problems. There's often a lot of handwringing about why they're failing: the process is wrong; communication is wrong; something or other. But the largest reason they're failing is that they're insufficiently good at technology. You know who'd be really good at fixing that? A team of Alices.

I think Alices get too much flak. Bob is genuinely a toxic character. But if your only fault is telling the truth, which offends people, and you're otherwise excellent at your job--- there's a huge opportunity for twenty Alices to get together, bypass the inefficiencies of being offended, and win big. Tech has an obvious historical example.

Edit: I reread the description of Alice. All right, maybe don't browbeat your point into others.

Did they ever retract their public freaking out?

It also sounds like you're basically proposing we give people free money. That could be a fine thing to do, but then why not give it out explicitly, instead of holding wages fixed?

> Then you seem to make a giant leap from group differences between men and women on such measures as interest in people rather than things, or systematising versus empathising, to differences in men’s and women’s ability to code. At least that’s what you seem to be doing; you don’t quite say so.

Well, if he "doesn't quite say so," how do you know that's what he seems to be doing? If you analyze his essay without searching desperately for subtexts, and if you listen to his clarifications in his interviews, it's fairly clear he's talking about interest, not ability. Unfortunately much of the next seven paragraphs then consists of breaking down their presumed argument as if it were the one he made.

It wasn't until this memo that I realized how many people, when presented with a body of text, immediately start performing motive inference, subtext analysis, dogwhistle detection, etc.

>2004

:)