That said, it's good to learn how to differentiate between people who are being genuine and just need guidance/attention and someone who's a wet noodle. It's easy to accidentally discourage the former mischaracterizing them as the latter.
It wasn't everyone, but I started to realize that I was triggering negative feelings in some people.
For example, I invented a programming language for board games and the #1 question I generally get is "why isn't that a framework".
The hard part in life is learning to embrace your quirks.
Go onnnnn? :D
Go happens to be both a programming language and a board game, so I promptly forgot about it also being a verb.
It looks like that's what they're referring to.
I even have a video: http://jeffrey.io/AdamaPlatformInTenMinutes.mp4
And I'm building it as a SaaS which I've made available: https://www.adama-platform.com/ for "early access".
I'm still trying to figure out how to explain it. Basically, take an IDL like proto/thrift. Then add in the ability to transform the data. Then add in a sense of privacy of who can see what. And boom, the foundation is laid for a document transform language.
The reason to do all of that is because the state of the board game requires a great deal of care. For instance, wouldn't it be great to offer Undo? What if you hook a socket directly up the document and then differentiate state changes after privacy checking?
Right now, it's a mess, and I'm forking efforts to work on a board game web ide where people can build board games online. Adama is the foundation for the IDE such that it starts collaborative from the get-go.
eg: chess has algebraic notation and that allows replay, undo/redo, save/load, etc.
If you were to come up with some notation for chinese checkers... blammo, same concept.
The "replay log" doubles as a relatively expensive save-game format (re-run the steps).
If you're doing something like texas hold'em, you might do:
Deal @ 1 => "XX, YY"; Deal @ 2 => "AA, BB"; Flop "AH, 2H, 3S" ; Bet @ 1 => $12.34 ; etc...
...and then "materialize" the XX,YY things at the end, while maybe keeping individual + central records.
eg: 1.json => (XX==4S, YY==5H) // 2.json => (AA==6H, BB==7H) // central.json == union(*.json)
...multiplayer is hard, but some sort of replay-log of the messages is my current thinking of the only rational outcome. If you're looking to make an online boardgame IDE, then focusing on devising a game notation (which may include privacy) would be helpful.
I basically translate document layout + transformation logic into JSON changes which can be joined under JSON merge.
The neat thing about basing everyone on JSON merge is that I have a way to deal with buffer bloat very easily with flow control.
I've experienced it firsthand, and I eventually found a term for it: a "high conflict" personality [1]. There are a few ways google says you can deal with these personality types, the main one being: do not interact with that person.
[1] https://www.highconflictinstitute.com/hci-articles/who-are-h...
Or at the very least they don't like you personally and are trying to bully you.
It's not usually about the presented issue. The relationship dynamics are the real truth.
Everyone has bad days. But if interactions consistently take this direction - especially to the point where anticipating them causes anxiety - it's time to consider moving on.
Absolutely. I was on the wrong side of such a dynamic until recently, by the end of it (thankfully I switched teams) it was a straight up bullying situation. And much like an abusive romantic relationship, it escalated slowly in a way that was difficult to notice. My point is, yes, do whatever you can to stay away from these kind of people.
I'm currently (this weekend) going to be applying for jobs to extricate myself from what I recognise as the early stages of exactly such a situation.
I think if we want to start pushing more people into trades and de-emphasize college education: (1) we make it much harder to graduate college and (2) make college much cheaper so that pursuing that risk isn't ruinous. Then a student can explore a college path and pivot to something more suited to their attitude and skills to remain a productive member of society if it doesn't work out.
Combine that with the Pareto Principle and you start to get a fairly accurate picture of "why the world is the way it is." And this applies to all industries, not just tech.
If you look at it through a nihilist lens, it can bum you out quick. But, if you look at it like "I was given the gift/responsibility to do this well" (sans God-complex, elitist "useless eaters" attitude), it makes it a bit more fun/tolerable.
The truth is, there are always return volleys you can make, depending on how petty you want to get, or how many cycles you feel like burning with a person like the article describes. For example any statement of the form “you should…” implies a belief in a particular policy, so you can then inquire why they think that should be so. Any question can be answered directly, or you can start asking questions about why they asked the question, or you can just answer a different question entirely. Et cetera.
At some level this stuff is war and if people aren’t going to bring their thinking caps, a change in tactic is appropriate.