What is logic here against the subjective internal experience you're responding to. Do I have to hold an axiom true to believe the person describing their internal experience is specifically as Chomsky proved in the language of logic?
I'm actually glad you posted this because it reminded me of a quote from Wittgenstein's page on Wikipedia [1]
> According to Wittgenstein, philosophical problems arise when language is forced from its proper home into a metaphysical environment, where all the familiar and necessary landmarks and contextual clues are removed. He describes this metaphysical environment as like being on frictionless ice: where the conditions are apparently perfect for a philosophically and logically perfect language, all philosophical problems can be solved without the muddying effects of everyday contexts; but where, precisely because of the lack of friction, language can in fact do no work at all.[259] Wittgenstein argues that philosophers must leave the frictionless ice and return to the "rough ground" of ordinary language in use. Much of the Investigations consists of examples of how the first false steps can be avoided, so that philosophical problems are dissolved, rather than solved: "The clarity we are aiming at is indeed complete clarity. But this simply means that the philosophical problems should completely disappear."
I try to tell all new programmers that ask me for advice that keeping abreast of the words of tools that are available for use is a big part of the work and shouldn't be left out. If I quit my daily / weekly trawl of what's out there, I'd surely start to atrophy.
Oh. Sounds like you're referring to Agile and Standup with capital letters. In my experience people talk about agile-with-a-capital-A and standup-with-a-capital-S and those two don't really match what actually happens in the real world, at least in my experience.
I guess this is a sort of meta comment rather than a reply. You seem like someone who hasn't had an account for a long time and upon clicking your profile I see that is in fact the case. It seems plausible that you haven't read the site guidelines, so I'll be that guy and point you to them. I like this place largely because of the good moderation. I hope you come to like this place for the same as the years go on.
I disagree, but mostly just in the present. Sometimes I take an active approach to getting unconstructive communication out of where my eyes naturally go. It's rare. It's a feeling in a moment in a context as kind as I can possibly be. This has been net positive, but sure we agree in this context it's just a forum on the internet and I click my share of downvotes like any other.
Agreed, addressing the bully directly allows them to see they are wrong. The HN “just downvote it” is passive aggressive and disincentivizes interaction. It may work well for Apple related threads or other noisy topics to help cut the noise down but you’re still basically telling people to “shut up” which feels bad if you’re on the receiving end. Some people are just emoting even if it’s off-base.
Responding to cruelty with more cruelty, breeds cruelty.
I have an old boss that calls me from time to time. Maybe I'll just call him an old friend at this point. He lives by the philosophy that you put in the work and you debug your thinking by bouncing the context you've built up off of experts. Sometimes he shoots a cool hundred my way thereafter, sometimes he doesn't. Most of the time we're just catching up.
This works for him and tbh it works for me too. I guess my advice is that the important part is not sourcing the expert it's putting in the work to come with enough context to get something out of talking to an expert and to leave them without the feeling like you've wasted their time. Follow people on the socials, read their code, show up at NeurIPS with actual good questions to ask people in person on the hallway track.
Without the _hard work up front to get good questions to ask_ you're in danger of finding a good expert and them deciding you're just another starry eyed kid that doesn't know for just how many years longer you wouldn't even pass the screening call for an interview.
That sounds pretty good. Someone I know, calls me for a take, maybe offers a dinner, etc, sure. Even sounds like fun. A transactional 1:1 domain expert call, less so. I have done them from time to time but it's either been as a favor or prospecting for future business but isn't really a business model in either case.
ADDED: you've also described how networking actually works as opposed to the stereotypical networking event where a bunch of people desperate for jobs all show up which are basically useless.
An actual expert can fact check me but as far as I'm aware that's due to how magnesium sits within binding site within the NMDA receptor ion channel as a blocking / gating factor. If supplementation actually raises the level of available magnesium beyond the blood brain barrier (when you're perhaps in need of some) then it would affect the way in which that ion channel affects the downstream excitatory effects towards long term potentiation.
Thanks for posting this. As someone who picked up reading brain anatomy as casually as I might read technical documentation this put a few puzzle pieces together that I found quite satisfying. Good read, interesting topic. Pretty neat.
