GarvielLoken

I think you misunderstood me 180 degrees. I was not advocating stronger evidence. I was questioning our culture need for "Now scientist have finally proven the old x is correct/incorrect".

Wasn't Pascal beautiful passages already obvious true before this psychologist made his statement?

It is generally better to live your life irrational and do decisions irrational, because this usually indicates decisions based on values, humanism and real human empathy. Rationality in it self is autistic and schizophrenic, a closed system that is doomed by Gödel to always try, but never achieving completeness and consistency. A never ending lie that we can know it all rationally.

I actually think that humans work the other way around. At our core is a giant GPU parallel computing system that deals in emotions and our culture. Slapped on to the system is a slow weak single core trying desperately to control everything. I can recommend the book "The Master and His Emissary" by Iain McGilchrist.

Notice especially in the Schizophrenic Paranoia in the link in the GP. Most people are dumb, but there are the evil "Persuaders" who are out to get you. And you are the enlightened one who has figured out the "truth". Classic delusion.

What did I just read? Some unheard of psychologist distorted and dumbified a perfectly understandable passage from the famous Pascal. And because he, as a psychologist, did that; the statement is now considered truth and valid "for realz". Am I getting this right?

Scientist are really our times high priests.

All true truths are Truism.

Why would you do that? It sounds very schizophrenic to me to make one self have such a distance to normal social and emotional life that one represent it to one self as a game. To treat a social overstep as a rule break instead of understanding emphatically that you have caused hurt i would consider schizophrenic / autism.

I think it is much more healthy, in a mental health way, to not re-present life and instead experience it directly.

It is really a very big blast, like an artillery blast like you say. I was given three opportunities to throw hand grenades during my conscription training.

First one was in a purpose-built field, where we were hunkered down in a concrete hole and threw the frag-grenade onto gravel.

The second was when were having an exercise of storming a machinegun-nest on top of a small ridge in the forest. So first we move by leapfrog (a combat pair) firing, then climbed a small ridge and threw over a live frag-grenade on to the "machinegun-nest".

Third time was when we were doing a urban combat exercise. In the middle of the forest they had a roofless building with several rooms, again purpose-built for training with live grenades, with dust floors. We were given two grenades each, one which was a chock grenade ( not flash , again doing the exercise as a combat pair. Really big blasts.

Have you seen the movie Whiplash from 2014?

What a sad person

Paywall

I thought this was going to be about the AH-64D Apache Longbow.

It's not about the brain, it's about the body. Right brain innate connection to ones own body and to the world. We know that there are nouns because the body senses objects. We know there are verbs because the body can make movements. We know there are adjectives because the objects differs. It's a very left brain dominated view that would even contemplate that a language system would evolve free of interaction with the world, only through dna construct some language organ.

And language is probably a product of singing. Checkout "The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World". Singing is used to share feelings in larger groups then ordinary grooming permit. Language is a systematization of singing. That is why music evokes feeling response more readily then words in ordinary speech, speech evolved later.

Languages.

Fallout series?

How is that an analogy? What you actually said would be that you try to force French phrase and sentence structure into English and cringe every time you here a proper English sentence.

Yeah! I found the article a bit shallow since it only discussed English like forms. Spanish has the same things "perro Grande" <==> "Dog Big". And has adjective bending forms on nouns, "perrito" <==> "small dog", "cafecito" <==> "little coffe". Disclaimer, I am only learning Spanish, not native speaker.

This is a real test which is in favour that programming is not math like biology isn't physics. You don't build programs with one character variables.

Multi-Dimensional Separation of Concerns is more useful and can easily be modelled in standard oo without tools. In a game for example you can have three dimensions, data, features and system dimensions. Where each is a folder hierarchy in your solution. Here you use the standard oo cross dimension with interfaces. Like system dimension export interface IGUI which exposes return actions and info functions that features and the data dimension classes can implement.

But you can also make a feature cross dimensional by using partial classes. So if you want to add a new feature, let's say Move you add a behaviour class in the feature dimension, in a new folder, which implements interfaces from the system dimension like Igui and Igamestate and uses a TroopDataClass from the data dimension. Then you make a new folder in the data dimension and make a partial class for TroopDataClass where you add move based data like petrol. Now that whole feature is isolated, you can easily remove both Move folders and nothing will break everything will compile just as before.

The advantage is that you get rid of the spiderweb dependencies you get if Move where a standard class with combined data and behaviour. For data that still is feature crosscutting like ActionPoint or Position on the map, you can still use inheritance and standard oo techniques within the Data dimension, so TroopDataClass inherits from MapObjectClass or something similar, then all features will have access to them.

http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~bedir/CS586-AOSD/Syllabus/NDeg...

No, the real lesson was don't procrastinate. "She also committed herself to systematically completing, without procrastination, her daily task list and to completely clearing her email inbox and workspace on a regular basis."

I found the same thing. Sure monads can help with somr cases in oo.

Overall i find Common Lisp Macros to be a better way for me to code, you can always construct your problem domain easily instead of choosing between two.

Worse is better.

Intuitors.

The next revolution is widespread GPGPU programming, which can yield great increase in performance when leverage correctly. Java 8 already have libraries for HSA and Java 9 will support it out of the box. And this is AMD lead technology.

Of course it is not a science, we don't have the technology yet to probable verify it. But Dario Nardi has made some interesting studies with eeg that maps the functions to areas in the brain.

It is a theory that many people are finding works and confirms their real life experience, short story if it quacks like a duck and if it looks like a duck. But you are ofcause allowed to continue thinking the earth it flat until you are shown prober proof for something else.

Actually most good writers ( as in book authors ) are FE-doms (Feeling Extroverted) which makes them extraverted and not introverted. They are good at it because they are naturally good at consciously think and reflect about how they affect other people and how other people affect them, which is good for making believable characters.

It still amazes me that people on this board stick to their (hero) introvert/extravert dichotomy instead of actually researching the subject which you would expect engineers and techies to have an inkling to do. Search words, MBTI, Keyser, Jung, Big Five.

That already exists, it is called "Historical European Martial Arts" short HEMA.

I am having a hard time how one could have gotten that impression if one has worked in ecommerce or business software, i promise you that mayor ecommerce site is just not interacting with development libraries.

I really can't see the point of your third paragraph, what are you arguing for? That the people who threw code was people who didn't share your view on programming? Or is the paragraf to be interpreted that anyone who try to use leverage in code is a fool? And also how are inexperienced untrained programmers skill really relevant to different views on programming?

Let me give an exercise in return. Add to the code base a module that allows the skin of the site to be changed depending on the users device in a way that it is easy to add skins and also capability to random give users different skins. How much math do you really need beyond Math.rand(0,100)?

This instead is task that is solved by being able to formulate an expression that is general enough and can communicate with the existing system and fit the existing organization without breaking the big structure. No computations is really taking place ( in the seance we want to get some mathematical result from different values ) it's only flag checking at the bottom line.

You learn to learn when you grow up. The things you mention are different ways to look at problem and thus different ways to express solutions.

I guess you like math much, am i correct? Programming is in some wayslike math. Programming is in other ways more about organisation, expression and language skills.

But the real truth is that people are different. Some people are mechanics in the head, they like to optimize small functions and break systems and loved the assembly c time. Some people see the world as states and attribute facts to static objects, these people love OO, its an entire paradigm that complies to their though process! Some people are rigours about how the world moves, they like Haskell and logic programming and always bring these aspects to their code base.

Some people are dynamic and see the world as a continuous flow of time (not pinning attributes to things, seance a thing can change along its time line, thus brining focus on the core of things and ones purpose), they like languages like lisp where transformations of data is the center, not classes with fixed static attributes, that is contrary to their irl thought processes. These are the people who develops non-deterministic programming, because the focus is on time not space. They like macros and other efficient expressive tools because it allows you to express your solution in a better language and automate transformations.

tl;dr / Summary People think differently and programming is merely a means to express yourself, ergo your view of programming will be a view of how you like to think and function, and to say that your own definition is the universal truth is arrogant, narrow-minded and wrong.

http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Statics_and_dynamic...

And how was it on the Sovjet side? The article failed to explore that part. Genuinely asking.

Still not a requirement. A person with a strong talent for structure will be able to construct an efficient UI. Not all programmers are like this, many programmers are tech-nerds that just want to cramp all the cool things up in to UI and these people are the main problem.

Why not read something established instead of discussion this black grey white home-made scale? Like the jung derivates example mbti. Also the author is biased, he shows no understanding that people are different instead he claims that his nerotypical archetype is superior and the rest of us should strive to emulate him. It is nothing wrong with becoming a wholesided person, but saing that empathy is the best skill is biased and in majority of the cases wrong, i promise you that you don't program a computer with empathy no matter how hard you try. My view on the matter is that most of you are connecting empathy with intellectually feeling witch i would map to feeling extrovert and then you guys discriminating continue to map feeling introverted to sociopat. Which is ironic because it would seem the author probably is a feeling introverted dom or aux.

http://mbtitruths.blogspot.se/2013/01/the-functions-explaine...

"Feeling

Extraverted Feeling - Fe users take as their primary focus group values and feelings. Their own emotions are strongly influenced by the emotional atmosphere and other peoples' emotions. If others are having a bad day, they're having a bad day. When asking about the ethical thing to do, they refer to societal norms - what OTHER people feel. They want their peers to agree with their opinions and may feel bad if others disagree. If they've done something immoral, their strongest cues will not be how they feel, but if those around them have an unfavorable reaction. But because they are more aware of others' feelings then Fi users, they are better at deliberately doing or saying things that give people positive feelings. These are the types of people who can be referred to as "people-pleasers." Their facial expressions are often quite animated, with big flowing natural smiles. Teachers, hosts, caretakers, diplomats, politicians, salespeople, receptionists, waiters/waitresses, PR reps, missionaries.

Introverted Feeling - Fi is basically Feeling turned inward. Those who use this function have feelings that are more hidden from view; they are less obvious and they may only share their true feelings with their close friends and family members. To decide if something is moral, they simply ask themselves how THEY feel. So if everyone thinks that eating chocolate chip cookies is okay, but they feel that it's truly wrong, they will have a personal problem with seeing people eat chocolate chip cookies and not eat them themselves. They are not as expressive as Fe users, but they probably feel their emotions more acutely since they don't convey them directly. If Fe is direct expression, Fi is indirect expression. Instead saying "great job, you rock!" they would give thumbs up with a sincere smile. They also focus on individual feelings rather than group feelings. Their facial expressions are rather constrained and may give the impression of pride and passion. Artists, poets, composers, therapists, counselors, writers, speech pathologists, photographers."