GarvielLoken

Your method of learnings is flawed. The specific lesson to be learned here is that they changed their view on the solution for a max-flow problem from a serial probing algorithm to a parallel electrical probing solution and lowered the time-complexity. The general lesson to be learned here is that they changed their view on the solution for a massive parallel multiple choice problem from a serial probing algorithm to a parallel probing solution and lowered the time-complexity.

The actual implementation is uninteresting and will always vary according to domain and optimization, but the intuition lesson is always a valid tool that we now have. And in hindsight this was a really obvious solution, carouse one should try all the routes and identify the bottlenecks.

Food for thought, single cpu core vs GPGPU.

Precisely, a good programmer is more akin to a general organisations and marshalling code blocks then a mathematician calculating his way forward manually.

But i guess this is a difference between extraverted and introverted thinking.

This goes to the heart of the real issue. Programming is expression, more linguistic then maths. What would a lisp program with heavy macro usage map to? Or a newLisp program with fexprs? The programming concepts are abstractions and transformations more akin to how we change words meaning then how you calculate some lines.

So much talk about games and making an appearance. I assure you that I don't care either way what your opinion is of me.

It is always choice to handle your reaction. Also you are strawmanning, it is a far cry from that society didn't actively shove a computer and a programming book to you as a child and people behaving negatively towards you.

I really don't see how you are countering or disproving anything I said, you aren't bringing forth any own arguments for a meaningful discussion, which you yourself admit.

2. If you would supply an argument or article or lines of reasoning to what exactly "sexism" is in the tech field and how this hampers the individual in pursuing ones interested I would be thankful. In my view only the law dictates what you can and can't do, anything else is choice.

3a. I recognize that people want to belong to a group, but I personally find it weak and ultimate foolish to let ones life be dictated by groups. I guess it is more important in the US were you have hundreds of school student groups for every interest available. I find the word "hacker" to be a childish Anglo-Saxon world word used for group identifying and I would never call myself a hacker, I am nordic country based.

3b. Well if you would consider someone who grew up out of the city with one parent working at factories as privileged I let you stand for that definition.

This article strikes me to centrer around concepts such as "impressionable", "self identify" or "feel like a hacker".

1. The author tries to blame society ( everybody except herself ) for not noticing the field of computer science. This is a very strange statement. Anyone using a computer must realise it didn't appear on the earth from god almighty him self. "stumbled upon opportunities early on" here again the author is trying to blame the society for the personal problem of a lack of willpower and curiosity for finding out how computers works, instead she comfortably chooses to say that the society did not do its part.

2. "Still, I imagine that this is unfortunately more common among women due to the ongoing sexism surrounding the field and the effects that this has on young, impressionable women.". Again with the personal lack of willpower. Being impressionable is a personal problem and the solution is not stopping to peruse an interest. Frankly I don't have any sympathy for anyone who refuses to do their own analysis of a subject and instead trust and conforms to other peoples view on the matter, which is what being "impressionable" is.

3. " In addition to being unable to self-identify with the "hacker" stereotype,". This is at the heart of the authors argument, "unable to self-identify". How on earth can this ever be a problem? What does it even mean? She wants to erase her personality and become a profession completely? If you like something I assume you are interested in the technique, art or science of the sport or hobby. Not because you want to "feel" like a practitioner of that sport/hobby? I really can't understand an argument that is based on how much you feel like a practitioner. If you are doing something you are doing it because you enjoy it or find it fascinating.

Every child will during upbringing become exposed to computers and if they are interested they will ask as how they work or how the programs are made. Anything after that is a pure personal problem, a willpower issue. Blaming others for ones own failings is not a valid argument and I wont respect it.

I really don't like this authors way of writing. His only valid success criteria seems to boil down to something similar in meaning of "An acceptable lisp is a lisp that every single programmer uses it".

1. "Killing adoption"? For what goal? People have different thought process, each dialect will be more natural for a certain subset of people. Offering dialects and diversity in choice is a good thing. I have only limited experience, last semester when i graduated i took a SICP course and now i have read through On Lisp because i thought macros sounded powerful, so i am going to be programming a hobby project in Common lisp. But that doest mean i want Scheme to disappear from the world.

2. Libraries.

3. I haven't used CLOS much so i can't really say anything. But making complaints that things are "bolted on" Common Lisp because of the macro system seems to me that he has missed the point of what people like with Common Lisp and its macro system.

4. Can't one use Scheme if one wants portable hygienic macros? I can agree somewhat with the macro situation and my own research seems to point this to the historical decision to pass on fexprs to gain efficient compilers. The plus side is that macros can expand macros means is generally works. And i don't get this "band-aid" notion. From what i understand macros are argument to use lisp and should be utilized.

NewLisp offers fexprs and is focus on interpreted, which means that at any time you have access to a functions definition to use for self-modifying code and eval is blazingly fast compared to other lisps that support compilation. I want to start experiment with true ai that can modify its behaviour in newLisp soon. This is also an argument on point 1 of the diversity of lisps. ( yet i guess you could in common lisp use a macro that always saved the interpreted function definition in some global has that you could operate on in a macro dsl )

On a closing note i would like to add that it isn't really important to attracts people to lisp. Infact from an ethical standpoint trying to sway people which tools they "need to use" is questionable. And in a similar spirit of the HN article "People don't like creativity" i am not convinced that everyone actually would prefer lisp even if we lived in a world where lisp were as popular as C# and Java together.

Every programmer will hear about lisp at some point and if they are interested in it they will probably explore it.

I haven't played it, but i have read the review and Proteus is a new open world game. http://www.destructoid.com/review-proteus-244224.phtml

Okay then i understand, i misinterpret your wording.

"It's bad for the introverted and highly intelligent because it further stigmatizes both of those things, especially in combination. By establishing extroversion and median IQ as "ideal," we're insinuating that the introverted and gifted are somehow defective. "

Extroversion = median IQ and Introverted = gifted.

I am tired of that people equal introverts == intelligence and extroversion == ordinary. Have you actually bothered to learn any type classification system like MBTI or Jungs theories?

If you had (have?) then you know that extraversion and introversion are simply attitudes(positions) of any cognitive function and they can be rougly translated as objective or subjective position. Take me, i get ENTJ ( dominate function: Extroverted Thinking ) on a typical test and i identify with William.

Based on the text i guess William also is an TE dom or aux (auxillary function). This is because TE (Extroverted Thinking) is interested in knowing and structuring the world. Example is when William lead his mates for plays, what i know an TI (Introverted thinker) would Not have done so. Also William reads lots of facts, history books. He is interested in widening his Knowledge before his Understanding, an Ti is interested in understanding first. Ti are more the classical intelligence loners, that is because they focus on structuring their thoughts and internal models, a Te measures and structures the world.

Overall your post is very biased and uninformed. "extroversion" could be any of: extroverted thinking ( Archetype: General, CEO, Scientist (because Te is interested in measurements and result in the real world) ), extroverted intuition ( Archetype: Eccentric millionaire, eccentric professor, inventor), extroverted feeling ( Archetype: great writers, psychologies, political leaders ) or extroverted sensors (Archetype: Great athletes, competitors, chefs, sensor type critiques). All of the archetypes that i have listed usually are considered intelligent also, as alternatives to the Archetype of the Introverted thinker: philosopher and mathematician.

According to your stereotype text i guess you associate extroversion with extroverted sensing and extroverted feeling in a dom or aux place in individuals.

I would recommend that you expand your knowledge before posting more biased texts about extroverts.

Well that is C:s problem, isn't it? If it want a better measure value then it should be more expressive. I think it is fair.