seaknoll

Love magit. I recommend using it with magit-delta https://github.com/dandavison/magit-delta for the syntax highlighting.

The images are of various ages. This article describes the subset that are the oldest, but there are newer ones mixed in. In some places you get layers of them, where you can see that the older ones were drawn over. They can estimate how much later they were added based on the presence of animals and objects that did not exist there 12,000 years ago.

It's true that there's a huge gap in time between the earliest paintings and the newer ones and so some aspects of the culture probably did change. But the area has been continuously populated for millennia.

I've been here and to a few other, equally spectacular sites in this general part of Colombia. They're well-known among local people, but some are VERY hard to get to (freight or chartered plane to a community completely unattached to the rest of the country by road + hours-long boat journey + hours of hiking).

They can be quite sad though, e.g. the relatively newer images depict colonization encroaching upon the region - horses (introduced by the colonists), swords, and scenes that appear to show imprisonment of people.

I think color-moved might also be what you’re thinking of. https://git-scm.com/docs/git-diff#Documentation/git-diff.txt...

Kinda! https://reviverestore.org/projects/woolly-mammoth/ https://colossal.com/mammoth/

In that case, you might want to have a friend/acquaintance with a job like what you want to review your resume and give you feedback on that and a first round-style interview. If you don’t know anyone who can, read over resumes on linkedin, and pay close attention to the language used, and to the extent that it’s relevant to your work try to mirror it. Try to be direct and confident about what you know/don’t know during the interview, and try to at least learn how to talk about technologies that touch what you’re more expert in.

Practice algorithms and read about software design in your spare time. Apply to tons of companies, be prepared to be rejected from almost all of them, and to be asked questions that you have no intelligent answer to. Remember what they asked you, learn the problems you got wrong, and repeat. It may be brutal and embarrassing at times but if you keep at it you will eventually get a job. The only thing I can say about maintaining any sense of morale is to take some pride in the fact that you’re pushing yourself, and that tons of people have had the same shitty interviewing experience but gotten through it and realized it was 1000% worth the pain.

There’s a time and place for asking explicitly for feedback - it can give you 1:1 time with a mentor, and make you look engaged with your role.

But IMO more important is being able to see/hear feedback day to day without having to ask. Try to notice patterns in code review comments, which conversations you’re having trouble participating in due to lack of seniority in that area, which of your suggestions fall flat, etc. and don’t be afraid to ask lots of questions (nondefensively!)/do some research if you don’t understand why you’re getting a particular reception.

I'd also suggest trying to harness the "what if I am wrong" so you can use it to your advantage - it sounds like the kind of attitude that could make you excellent at testing. If you turn it into a curious question instead of a self-judgment, it may help identify ways to test something that would give you full confidence that it works. Which is a very valuable skill to have.

I'm not perfect about this but one experience in particular helped me.

I was a new employee doing on-the-job training for an even newer employee, while we were trying to meet a deadline. We were the only two people working on this project, in the middle of rural NM, out of cell range, and having to improvise. He kept making suggestions and I kept explaining why they wouldn't work. Suddenly he point-blank asked me why I said no to everything. I had a moment of clarity where I realized that I didn't even want him to be right, for no good reason except my ego. I apologized, horrified, and have been forever grateful for the wake-up.

After that I started to notice that pattern elsewhere. The best way I've found to interrupt it is to ask myself "what if they're right" and/or "in what way might this person be right that I may not have considered"?

From the website -

> Out of the people I had hired at my last startup:

> 12% of hires where exceptional hires (I would instantly hire again)

> 42% of Hire were good hires. (I wouldn’t hire again but they did a fine job)

> 29% of hires were bad hires. (They didn’t do a good job and were eventually let go)

> 17% of hires were very bad hires (They had a negative effect on the company culture and other staff)

These seem like extremely poor numbers. I haven't hired a ton of people but all of them have been excellent, though some that I was peripherally involved in hiring have been just good. I'm curious what other people feel that their ratio is.

I interpret it as a pre-defensiveness. Whereas some people admit they wouldn't have the guts but respect people that do, others are trying to convince themselves that the choice they'd make would be the right one.

This is one of the saddest comments I've read on this matter. What progress was ever made from taking the stance that "that's just how things are"?

> hitting them hard -- in court -- when you are ready

Hitting them "hard" in a way that would be painful for them would be extremely unlikely in court. He hit them hard in a way that could actually impact their company's ability to retain and attract talented people. He also demonstrated some self respect in the process. I have to think that to many people that - combined with a giant megaphone for telling their story - is worth a lot more than a payout.

> (Quiet, Lawyer) Watch your target carefully and, when the opportunity presents itself, go for the throat

The problem is that people tell themselves this is what they're going to do and never follow through. It's the perfect way to do absolutely nothing and convince yourself it's the right thing to do.

That some people like learning how to fix things themselves?

I completely agree.

Say what you will about the shit job that the US military industrial complex has done in this region, but I can't help but feel that the real horror of the withdrawal is that 50% of the country's population is being condemned to what is essentially slavery.

Isn’t it all just a question of what scale is the “best”? I agree with your premise but in practice, determining the best policies on trade - much less issues like education and poverty - on a smaller scale is much more tractable than thinking in terms of ever larger subsets of the human race. We should be just as saddened by civilians dying in Iraq as the US, but that doesn’t mean we know what’s best for them in terms of any of the above. Any grouping of people advocating for themselves ultimately needs an organizing body, and the cycle of tribalism continues.

Fair point. Though I do think the focus on integration shortcuts was a huge distraction to the main content, and arguably irrelevant to the actual concepts.

My class consisted of hour after hour of solving integrals of different types using all the different shortcuts, and the exams were largely the same. I feel like that time and effort could have been much better spent.

Doesn't the onion count?

Maybe food just isn't that important to him as anything but sustenance. He sounds like a very kind and content person.

I'm making an assumption here wrt OP, but I think that a lot of people are taught that an integral is a set of fancy tricks that you use to simplify down equations until you get ... an answer.

In my experience, students are expected to memorize all sorts of equations without ever really being expected to understand why you're calculating the integral in the first place (even at decent universities). Obviously the risk with that is that you won't recognize any problem can be solved with integrals, no matter how concrete. Once I left the fancy tricks behind I felt like a fog lifted and it was actually really fun to see how integrals fit into both applied and abstract examples.

I could definitely believe that it's the corporate-ness that makes these groups so vapid.

> Of course, these sessions were complemented by focus groups and more direct discussion, but in no way was any of this dumbed down by the visual arts.

What's your basis for concluding that the visual arts component provided the benefit, rather than the focus groups and direct discussion?

I also think you're missing the whole point: your activities were for children, and for people who work with children. Why are we treating women like children?

If a non-gender-activist group wanted to host arts & crafts for mental health & community building, I have no problem with that.

I have attended a few and found that there was too much "staring at the problem". We'd start with an agenda and leave off without any action items.

So, if I don't like it why don't I try to change it? At the time I was just starting out and felt that being involved in these groups was not a good use of time as they were a) a distraction, and b) put me at risk of being taken less seriously by my colleagues. A few years later and I've found that I get a lot more satisfaction by having 1:1s or small group discussions with women on my team, who are changing careers, and the leadership in my current company, than I did in a group setting.

I could just live & let live, but the point of this post was to get a feeler out for whether other people feel the same way. Thanks for the data point! :)

I think that's an extremely unhelpful oversimplification. There isn't some subset of humans (as a high enough percentage of the population to be considered) that's simply missing empathy. At least in their own minds they are good people, so that's where they have to be met.

So IMO we need to start by assuming that they DO care, but they have different assumptions about the difficulty and danger of police work. They live in safe communities and go into cities and see poverty and homelessness, mental illness on the streets, read about the gun crime, and think that it's scary. They're not entirely wrong.

Where they ARE wrong is in failing to realize how often police officers are the ones to create violent situations. Why did they use force over a counterfeit bill? Why would they bust into someone's apartment in the middle of the night over a drug charge? Unless there is an in-the-moment violent situation going on, they should not be entitled to use force. They should be required to wait, plan, and deescalate. The last thing they should be allowed to do is play out their masturbatory fantasy on the public. If that makes police work more boring, so be it.

This movement is about centuries of unjustness. To me, it is appropriate that the occasional bystander and business is overlooked. That doesn't mean that if you were my sibling, or friend, or business that I wouldn't be entitled to express personal pain. But the magnitude of my pain is nothing next to the pain that's led up to this, and no it wouldn't be appropriate for it to get remotely equal attention.

Sure, ideally bystanders and local businesses (in particular) would be spared. But nothing about the historical events leading to now is ideal.

Totally agree, as someone that's jumped back and forth between software engineering & data science. Data science programming already brings out my worst habits - mixing business logic everywhere, using libraries with odd APIs (pandas, matplotlib) => trawling Stackoverflow for code snippets without really understanding them, ugly performance optimizations.

Add poor version control practices and the dawning realization that you don't know whether your code ever worked or just seemed to work because some variable was in scope that shouldn't have been, and it quickly becomes chaos.

Not to mention the relative cost of student loans, and relative worth of savings that you do manage (ie enough for a decent house elsewhere when you’re ready to gtfo).

I wonder how much of this is related to parental leave policy versus generic social safety net. Countries with a strong safety net also have generous maternity leave but are behind on paternity. I imagine that at a large scale this does make many companies slightly less likely to hire women, and families much more likely to have the mother take time away from her job. The ultimate effect, albeit in a warm and fuzzy way, could be to deemphasize women’s careers by normalizing the idea that it’s best if you stay home with the kids.

I don't suppose that this could have a larger effect than the gender inequality in many countries lacking a social safety net, but it could be a contributing factor.

The idea that women, given the choice, generally would rather prioritize motherhood seems totally plausible. If that's the case, it could indicate that we need to think about diversity differently.

But I'm uncomfortable with a side effect that some of these policies could have - subtly pressuring women to focus on motherhood. The solution is complicated though if the mere existence of a good maternity leave policy encourages sexism. Hopefully general parental leave can help address this.