1,569 karma · joined November 21, 2008
Remote: yes
Willing to relocate: yes
Technologies (used in professional capacity): Python, Gevent, Django, Javascript, JQuery, NodeJS, Java, Clojure, Storm, Redis, HBase, Postgres, MySQL, Bash, Awk, Perl, C++, PHP.
Resume: Email me or https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=77186689
Email: adrianqsk at gmail
Nitpick: I actually only started learning to program in university as an undergraduate (I was ~21). I have a female friend who had a similar start, so you don't necessarily have to start as a child. It's not gymnastics. The thrill of solving puzzles can be experienced at any time in your life, I think.
Otherwise, great article.
Somebody hire this person!
Hence the new law.
Another interesting related effect has also to do with how Singaporeans see themselves in relation to creativity and spontaneity due to the way things are structured there.
Possible sample bias here, but a lot of the creative types I know plan to leave.
Regarding the issue in the OP, I would not even attempt to defend it. It sucks and is typical of the sort of stuff the government pulls that makes me want to leave.
This seems to be the sort of opinion only a person who does not live in said hideous hellscape could support. While I (Singaporean) do not agree with everything the government does, I would definitely much rather live here than in North Korea.
In fact, I think that's probably a part of the reason why some programmers don't have patience for beginners with a lot of questions. It's because beginners actually have Google and StackOverflow these days, so it might seem like laziness to someone who had to learn using books and man pages. It's not that they don't like to share their knowledge, it's that they think the answer is already there if you'd bothered to look. I'm not saying that they're right to have that attitude, by the way. I'm just trying to present things from their perspective.
42 is the answer. He's just not asking the right question. Sorry, couldn't resist.
Of course, this is just my opinion, formed from a sample size of 2, so take it with a large pinch of salt. :)
Secondly, even if we allow that his private definitions be used for the purposes of this argument, he's still wrong. People do exhibit consistent behavioral tendencies, after all. Some people consistently think things through, while others consistently jump to conclusions. So I think there is pretty good justification in applying the heuristic of thinking a person is stupid if he consistently jumps to conclusions.
I hate to say this, because I have much respect for Derek Sivers, but this post was pretty stupid.
Not necessarily true. :)