but is this necessarily a problem with the richest individuals? isn't it more the rich billionaires that are 'in the middle of the rich' that do this sort of shit

this is such a bold claim... are the effects so drastic that they change the rate of natural disasters?

lifetimes are a part of struct type

under the hood, it creates a new temporary memory that is effectively a pointer to the pointer variable that it is referencing.

also note that the dereferencing is done automatically

TODO

TODO

generics provide zero-cost abstractions

TODO

unlike struct, where each field is private by default; needs to be declared as public. Also, note that private fields mean that we cannot use the default constructor to initialize the private fields. New constructors need to be created.

Either Copy / Drop

ownership rules:

• one owner because if it goes out of scope with two owners => double free bug => memory corruption => potentially lead to security vulnerabilities.

I think I'm one article or movie away from self-actualizing...

It seems that everyone can, at minimum, be placed into one the of the following buckets. Perhaps the concern isn't that anyone is one of these things, but rather the extreme degree that they are any of these things.

Tech debt can be reframed a value-neutral proposition; where the value depends on intentional circumstance and planning. We need to keep in mind the prioirity: build software faster by focusing your time on things that matter the most. The common issue with tech debt is that it doesn't feel as real as financial debt; so we don't pay them off until our development grinds to a halt.

Tech debt, in certain contexts, can be properly encapsulated and fostered such that they allow us to focus on things that are important. Framed in a financial perspective, taking on tech debt is flexibility that allows us to be more powerful. But only do so when you know:

• you can minimize the interest that the debt takes on (understand that it is an exponential fn)
• the debt created can be re-invested into something that yields more than the interest

Rules of the game:

• be intentional about what you invest in; be aware of the interest/cost that you take on
• err on the side of building little because you can build more later
• metric: clear, well-known limitiations, documented.
• Delineation between branches and leaves. If it’s a branch, solve the real problem. If it’s a leaf, consider just getting it done.

Examples of manageable tech debt and the rules of the game applied:

1. scaffolding:
   • validate the riskiest parts -- easiest to get wrong, complicated, hard to defined, not well understood, and generally parts that scare you -- of the project
   • leverage the smaller and more flexible codebase
   • commit to your estimate: moving beyond means exceeding expected complexity
   • throw it away if it becomes a branch
   • well defined limitations and minimized harm
2. hardcoding:
   • avoids existing patterns
   • consider hidden costs: additional work? maintenance work?
   • consider if this breaks the main requirements
3. not fixing all the edge cases:
   • bugs are just tech debt that users can see
   • higher priority work instead of addressing a practical non-issue

yup.

reiterates importance of not evaluating yourself when you're already super emotional

BL

Not applicable to all cases because there are many instances where speed is irrelevant, but generally: speed creates momentum, which rids of the powerful effects of inertia. Speed greatly decreases the projected activation energy cost, making us more likely to start and continue.

Important caveat: speed should not come at the cost of correctness or direction. If either of the two factors are sacrificed, speed instead becomes multiplier to a negative feedback loop: doing tasks for the sake of feeling, and not actually being productive.

actionable

Helpful sections

• Behavioral
• Python Misc
• General

YMMV

lmao

this feels too dismissive. the more accurate conclusion could instead be: our baseline for perfection ie the criteria we use to determine perfect changes as we get closer. A strategy could be the commonly suggested one: expect less and lower your baseline.

perhaps the increase of a size of a discussion board increases the idiots willing to comment stupid shit. which frustrates the best and they no longer want to post. then the community just devolves.

reddit walks the line between social media (the best parts) and the worst parts (needy, stupid).

actionable

a significant part is in the details. it sounds stupid to say, but yeah it's not something we are actually aware of. Positive self-talk is super important for this reason.

YUP

a feeling of guilt

and in order to exercise pragmatism you should

1. be able to analyze the current situation
2. express understanding of the best practices/rules
3. compare the two

tl;dr: understanding reading styles for better reading

Approach: An outline, high-level overview approach is taken since the article is so clearly structured. Specific ideas are highlighted and annotated.

Outline

Reading optimally means applying the suitable reading method for the suitable reading material you've selected, to fit the object you're trying to accomplish.

Objectives:

• Information vs Understanding
• All the true value & growth is in understanding
• Heuristic for information: anything easily digested is information.

Reading Styles:

1. Inspectional Reading: systemic skimming and superficial reading
2. Analytical Reading:

Rules:

• Classify the book according to kind and subject matter
• tl;dr
• outline
• defining problems/issues

1. Syntopical Reading:

Steps:

• find relevant passages
• understand in your own context
• getting the questions clear
• defining the issue
• analyzing the issue

Think of it as an abstraction over the other three. It is a higher-level process that includes additional steps needed to synthesize the benefits of the other reading types.

It's almost like writing a report.

this implies that a lot of the times analytical reading can only be -- or rather is best -- done after inspectional reading.

actionable: I should be mindful of when I'm engaging in analytical reading

ignoring this because it isn't super applicable. I shouldn't ever want to read like this.

Be Wary of Incentives

• ex paul graham beware the prestige

Be careful of the relationships you keep

• dont work under someone who you don't respect or want to be like them

Just do it.

Assduity

Just sit on your ass until you do the work.

See tragedy as an opportunity

This goes back to not indulging in self-pity. A minor setback for a major comeback. Epictetus: a slave to a man favou`red by the gods.

Sliding Window:

Sliding window is a subset of dynamic programming because it uses a 'key insight' to reduce the amount of duplicated work and achieve an optimal result. For example, in the minimum window substring problem the key insight is that our the optimal result will always be bounded by the letters we are searching for.

Recognition:

• ordered and iterable input data structure ex. array/string
• looking for a subrange
• keywords: optimal, longest, shortest that satisfies a given condition exactly

Implementation Details:

1) setup:

• window is what we're looking at
• there are many constants, including:
  • best solution so far
  • current information about the window O(1)

2) iterating/grow/shrink:

O(2n) at most because each pointer only visits each element once.

types: (refer to graphics for more detail)

• fast/slow
• fast/catchup
• fast/lagging
• front/back

key: sliding window subset of dynamic programming problem because we are reducing the amount of duplicated work

1. the key insight is put really well.
2. instead of just lopping off the front of the window.

== "insight", but more clear and accurate

this feels super hopeful

an example of using flow in writing. I read this like a rap verse.

Writing Style:

It really strikes me how little he actually cares for grammar for the sake of grammer. He's clever; he accomplishes that through whatever writing works. He writes with a voice.

this feels like a dumb fucking rule...

connection: we shouldn't seek external approval because that approval is unreliable.

a corollary is that by doing so, we get more external approval. We are more grounded.

perfect description. his story begins and ends on the court.

• The benefit of pushing away the focus from yourself comes from the trust that you will get that recognition anyways. It isn't possible without the skill either.
• Interesting that he gets more attention because he doesn't want it. He goes about his fucking job.