bathMarm0t

I worked with a programmer in his 40s who hunt and pecked. A generous estimate of his speed would be 10 wpm. He would always yell back at anyone critiquing his typing: Think more, type less.

He was one of the better programmers on the team. Whether this was because he was forced to make good decisions to limit the amount of code on the screen or not, who knows. I think the only critique I had was that his comments were... a little lacking.

I switched to dvorak and would never go back.

1. It took me two weeks to get to ~35wpm, and it was absolutely grueling. The next two months I ramped up to ~80. Now I'm slightly faster than my top qwerty speed (qwerty is incredibly hard to type in dvorak btw), but the investment is worth it. Typing is very easy, and I no longer have RSI issues.

2. I use my family's computer from time to time. There's a break in period / your brain literally flips. It's a very unique experience. I think if I switched more often I'd be able to maintain performance in both.

Thinking a little more about it, learning to type in a new format was such a strange and enjoyable experience. You feel your brain struggling and one day something just kind of clicks, a dam breaks way, and your fingers float above the keyboard, the words appearing on the screen and you're not sure how.

Is the counter-swing of low-fluff incomprehensible density?

I think if you want to avoid fluff, read something that was written more than 20 years ago. Time has a means of eroding away the pop-sci books (Will anyone read Gladwell in 20 years?). I personally like reading the pivotal pieces of a field / founding texts. Jung and Nietzsche come to mind.

Maybe another question you could ask (a fluff test if you will): Could you see a college course using the text as a primary source?

This may not be 100% accurate in nomenclature, but it gets the point across. Laminar flow is uniform and very easy to model mathematically, hence the reference to its "clean-ness" (e.g. clean [simple yet functional] design, clean [elegant] math proofs, etc). Its opposite: turbulence. laminar:turbulent::clean:dirty. You get turbulence/wake when there's something upstream of you disturbing the flow patterns. Air has less potential energy in it once it has been disturbed (the random motion of turbulence detracts from it's ability to generate pressure differences via flow manipulation). Riding in dirty air happens when the rich man's yacht in front of you sails upwind of your own personal rich-mans-yacht. Your vessel can still sail, but will sail a little bit slower, due to there being less available energy in the wind for you to tap into. This becomes a problem w/ turbines for obvious reasons (ask yourself why they don't just put multiple turbines all on a spoke for cost-of-installation savings, or even why they always seem to choose 3-bladed turbines [a very cool/interesting mathematical optimization problem!]).

1. Isn't "reyeast"ing only going to work if there's still significant sugar content in the must? If so, then it's just like any other wine company importing/sourcing their fruit, and then adding their yeast in-house. This is VERY common practice. I vint in central california, and if a bottle of wine doesn't explicitly say "estate" on the bottle, they're sourcing their grapes from somewhere off-site (usually still in the same region, but not always. as the label gets larger, the chances increase that you're going out of the region).

2.Oak flakes vs barrels is very obvious if you know what to look for. The rounding out of flavors via microoxygenation is apparent on a bottle that's seen barrel time.

This study was for beginning wine students. Of course they're going to try to pass the test with the information that had just been provided them (red==this, white==that).

Forums and example projects are your new best friends. Always boil down the problem to the stupidest, simplest version and work up from there. In your case, it's a bare sample application board (see XPLAINED series from Atmel and various other equivicancies from other vendors... yes they're "expensive" but spending 200 bucks to get a demonstration / samples that run through all the functionality on the board is well worth everyone's time. Remember that 200 bucks is less than half a day billing, so it really puts things in perspective). Any small link failing anywhere results in a binary 0 success rate. Embedded stuff is absolutely brutal that way (see how often you confound ~ with ! and throw your computer at the wall after hours of straining eyeballs). Work up from examples. Work up from forums.

Trolling? Soylent -> Soylent green -> Movie where you grind up poor people and turn them into food -> Cannibalism -> Known vectors for prion diseases.

If you're interested in why anyone would draw things like this, give Jung a read. His "Alchemical Studies" is chock full of diagrams, in addition to in depth explanations of the symbology and relations between the figures. It's mythological and religious in nature. The alchemists were kind of like nascent scientists, and it's extremely interesting to see how people back then thought. Fair warning: the rabbit hole goes very, very deep (you should probably read a few other works by him first for any of this to make sense: Symbols of Transformation and Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious), so just be prepared for the long haul.

You've surely seen this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-45

Very stealthy (no bucket/glass where the pilot has to sit). Huge amounts of lift available for high G maneuvers. Infinite air-time given a re-supply tanker is in the area.

Well said. Your roast should complement your bean. Single origin ethiopian yirgacheffe/harar? Don't you dare roast that bean past light brown. The whole point of selecting where your coffee comes from is lost if you do something in the process to mask it's origin individuality (heavy roast / adding sugar etc). Some beans complement dark roasts well (I'm thinking like sumatras or heavy "dirt" flavored coffee), where dark, burnt earth tobacco flavors are awesome and complement very well, but most beans that you would care to spend the extra bucks won't.

I own a small vineyard. I can tell you without a doubt that the process of making wine is literally BEGGING to happen. The skin of the grape is covered with yeast cultures that are ready to ferment the sugar inside the grape. The second that there's a breaking of the skin (aka a deer comes by and grabs a snack), the process kicks off. After a couple of days, there's enough alcohol content in the grape that bees can hone in on the broken cluster (via smell or whatever). Get enough bees around, and they start eating more grapes, and voila. Bee-booze-chain-reaction. Ruined crop. RIP2015.

I don't think it has to be entirely responsive to a specific poor choice. At the company I worked at the bureaucracy increased hand in hand with the complexity of the system (paired with the departure of the original systems sages [who literally knew every specific of the aircraft on par with the design engineers]). Single persons could no longer see the effect of their decisions on the entirety of the system (and therefore needed to check with others via protocols etc). Cascade that a couple times (smart, ambitious people do not like filling out forms [in general]) and out pops a 20k employee company where no one knows anything except how to fill out form 108DB-A.

Also it should be considered that if a small business makes a lot of ill-considered, fast decisions, chances are they're no longer in business.

Not trolling. My thoughts are spastic and impulsive. I'm working on it. Modern take on being presented with answers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQ4o1N4ksyQ&feature=youtu.be

I'm in agreement with you, but that essay you linked is... virulent. Easily misinterpretted. "There is no pure thought but those you come up with" type stuff.

This reminds me why I need to stay off these aggregator sites, why I now write letters to my friends instead of messaging strangers online. While the novelty of the discussion is welcome, I prefer [need] time to stew things over. Basic things. Really chew them. See now I'm sounding like Schopenuaer. Things are complicated. Damned complicated. More complicated than the 6 hour time window the obsolescence of this comment section allows for.

That essay seems far too hardlined. "Reading is nothing more than a substitute for thought of one’s own." -S

Really? I'm going to agree that your "consuming content" fits this bill (in all mediums mind you. Mindlessly doing anything fits this bill), but I've taken to reading used books with red pen, and scarring the pages with excerpts, thoughts, counterpoints, interpretations, etc. I view that as an absolutely critical part of reading now.

"and it may sometimes happen that he could have found it [some great truth] all ready to hand in a book and spared himself the trouble." -S

You don't FIND these truths in books. The books bring out and expose the truths that lie in your experience. Take, for example, reading the classics in high school (Heart of Darkness, Gatsby, Crime and Punishment, etc). Those books meant notheng to me. My experiential quorum was unmet. I couldn't even vote on whether these topics were relevant (let alone true). It was only after I experienced, felt, lived. Only after being could the books show themselves. The authors feel the same way you feel, they just put it better. More succinctly. We all have the ingredients, they just know how to simmer things.

Compare Schopenhauer with Hemingway (Death in the Afternoon)

"People in a novel, not skillfully constructed characters, must be projected from the writer’s assimilated experience, from his knowledge, from his head, from his heart and from all there is of him. If he ever has luck as well as seriousness and gets them out entire they will have more than one dimension and they will last a long time. A good writer should know as near everything as possible. Naturally he will not. A great enough writer seems to be born with knowledge. But he really is not; he has only been born with the ability to learn in a quicker ratio to the passage of time than other men and without conscious application, and with an intelligence to accept or reject what is already presented as knowledge. There are some things which cannot be learned quickly and time, which is all we have, must be paid heavily for their acquiring. They are the very simplest things and because it takes a man’s life to know them the little new that each man gets from life is very costly and the only heritage he has to leave. Every novel which is truly written contributes to the total of knowledge which is there at the disposal of the next writer who comes, but the next writer must pay, always, a certain nominal percentage in experience to be able to understand and assimilate what is available as his birthright and what he must, in turn, take his departure from." -H

It's almost like creative people are individuals; breathing beings who experience complex lives. Lives that will later be scrutinized and categorized by others trying to figure out the "secret sauce" to humanity's most prized possession.