Of course, that one example is the type of thing would actually REQUIRE older guys because of the old code involved. How often, really, does that come up anymore, when viewed as a percentage of all software work?
Probably about as much as the type of thing that would actually REQUIRE young cheap guys: a "business solutions provider" that sells the next big thing to customers every five years, while making profits on customization, support, migrations, and extensions. The company just needs a endless supply of cheap beginners willing to learn quirky frameworks and hack out a ton of code to lock in the clients.
Fat clients, thin clients, server-client, SOA, compute-on-demand, the cloud, log-in anywhere, computing fabric, XML, beans, enterprise architectures tend to be little more the the last decade's technology renamed, rebranded, and resold to the same customers, but with a new set of 25 year-old faces assuring them it's going to be better this time.
Why would anyone responsible for these computers (running devices whose operation is dangerous to human life) ever connect them to the internet??
How many millions of dollars a year do you want to spend to maintain that isolation? [proceeds to list a lot of stuff that goes WAY beyond the requirement of "don't connect it to the internet"]
What the fuck did I just read?
Something about actual security issues (like what the article was about,) rather than "system ok, internet link bad, idiot sons of rich people" post.
I was not completely clear, but even if you opt for even a simple DIP-8 555, current tech lets us embed a side-saddle microprocessor (4004, 6502, 8086) easily. Unless you pry the top off and scan it, you can't be sure you don't have a trojan horse. It's only a few thousand lines of code for the chip to decide it's in the right place for its payload (running a centrifuge, controlling a missile fin, etc) and then to fail nastily.
We've been doing targeted component sabotage for decades (Russian gas pipelines, Stuxnet, xerox tricks.) Don't trust integrated circuits to be what they claim to be.
Why would anyone responsible for these computers (running devices whose operation is dangerous to human life) ever connect them to the internet?? Are they complete morons? Why would they be able to keep their jobs? Are they all idiot sons of rich people and therefore can't be fired or something? I don't get it? What am I missing?
How many millions of dollars a year do you want to spend to maintain that isolation? You can do it, it's just really expensive.
1. Lock down/destroy all wireless comm on all hardware 2. Make entire network visible - all cable runs visible in clear conduits. 3. No software installs without full audit (sorry, no commercial installs allowed, no audit software allowed on the gold network) 4. Destroy all hardware leaving the building (and yes, that includes guests' cellphones.) 5. No windows, line of sight, radio leakage, etc. 6. Fab your own chips. Even a 555 timer can hold a rogue 8086. 7. No interns. Assume every Chinese grad is a malware vector (and everyone else, too.) 8. Assume you still have a 1 bit per second channel to the outside world (power draw, sound, etc.)
I hope I'm still solving little puzzles like that when I'm 50 but I also solved those when I was 25. There's nothing wrong with that, but if that's all you do then you're probably going to be at the same point career and pay grade-wise at 50 as at 25..
Exactly, at 50, you will still be solving those little puzzles, but you're going solve them with 30 seconds thought and 10 lines of code that runs first time: they are just that, little problems that you have encountered a hundred times before.
But, if you want to be at a different career/pay point, you're also going to be solving big puzzles. Many of these are so big that people don't even see them as puzzles until you implement the solution, then man-years of work and confusion just melt away.
The problem, is, of course, that most people never get to a career point that trains them for the big puzzles. A few years of apprenticeship at Google, Facebook, Wall st, Xerox Parc, etc, can be a big help. Being the smartest guy in the room implementing web backends tends not to be a great growth path.
“What we’re labeling as ‘distraction,’ some see as a failure of adults to see how these kids process information,” Ms. Purcell said. “They’re not saying distraction is good but that the label of ‘distraction’ is a judgment of this generation.”
also
The surveys include some findings that appear contradictory. In the Common Sense report, for instance, some teachers said that even as they saw attention spans wane, students were improving in subjects like math, science and reading.
I don't usually bag on teachers, but may be this is a sign that your methods are becoming--shock--outdated?
Traditional school is was pretty horrible in my mind. Most kids were lost or bored in math and science. Geography, history, etc, were just fact cramming: a free grade for those who could only learn by rote, pointless data for others. God forbid you picked a promising, but inappropriate book from the library: you were stuck with it for an hour or a day. Talk about a low information environment.
Bring on the internet, I say. It can't be any worse that the old system. It's already revolutionized work (I used to see 10+ books per cube, now 1 is about the most.) Time to do it for school.
Yep. approx 30 kWh per gallon of fuel, a 747 is burning approx 1 gal/second, so 100K kW (3600x30) needed. Solar gives us approx 1kW / square meter, so we need about 100K square meters of solar panels on our 747
But you forget that as you have to increase surface area for more energy, you also get more wingspan, reducing the need for energy!
Unfortunately, more wingspan (or wing area) doesn't reduce the need for energy. It mostly just lets you fly slower (which I guess could be considered to save energy, just like taking the train would save even more energy.)
Most fuel consumed by airliners is done while rolling around the airport on the ground. A jet engine burns almost the same amount of fuel at idle as it does while in cruise.
Wrong on both counts.
Most fuel in burned in the flying. This why we have long and short range aircraft, load fuel based on the flight plan, etc.
Idle burns much less fuel. What do you think that loud noise is when a jet powers up just before take-off? It's the engines doing a lot more work (generating thrust,) and the power for that work comes from dumping a lot more fuel/second into the engines.
I think a bigger problem is that the surface area of an 'airliner' can never provide enough energy to keep it in the air even with 100% conversion efficiency at noon.
Yep. approx 30 kWh per gallon of fuel, a 747 is burning approx 1 gal/second, so 100K kW (3600x30) needed. Solar gives us approx 1kW / square meter, so we need about 100K square meters of solar panels on our 747. Our 747 has approx 1000 sq m top surface, so solar would provide 1% of the power needed even in optimal conditions.
The problem isn't the major, the problem is the combination of youth and a little knowledge. Most 21-year-olds are just knowledgeable enough to be cocky, but not knowledgeable enough to appreciate the fact that they really don't know shit.
The major has a lot to do with it. CS (and IT) give rapid feedback on being right or wrong: those who tend to be right all the time often get cocky. This is fine until they think that because they are right about CS/IT, they are right about everything. Being in the top 1% of tech wizards doesn't make you an expert in politics or telling jokes, etc: this is where people get a reputation for arrogance or cringe-worthy ineptness.
Wall Street used to joke about "dentists from New Jersey:" a class of intelligent technical people who would confuse their specialist knowledge and track records of accruing money with general expertise in investing. They were the dumping ground for the worst financial toxic waste that banks needed to get off their books.
Damn neighbors - I see 35 wireless networks from my mac: Jes's Awesome Network, Doris Family, Alex, Bellclaire Hotel, I Win, Epsteinland, buckduke, toujoursavectoi, sheilajaffe1, ming. And a bunch of hexcodes. Bit sad to not see HotWorkoutPants on the list today.
So person A was walking home doing nothing wrong. Person B creates a situation, and gets a few minor injuries while killing Person A (inflicted by Person A, a bit upset about the whole being attacked/killed thing.) Person A was in Florida because he was kicked out of school.
I'm sure you have doubt in your mind. Justifying the idea of killing the weak because they fought back a little before dying is hard.
So you sit in your armchair, drink your drink, and pontificate on the ifs and buts. And with enough words said, you sort of convince yourself that those people had it coming and the world is just.
* most of the people who had sex with a prostitute did so expecting the act to remain private. they had a clear "expectation of privacy" as a lawyer would put it
Yeah, same complaint here: when my girlfriend broke up with me and "vanished" 24 hours later my name appeared in all the local papers. My lawyers totally agreed that I had a clear "expectation of privacy" because I expected the act to remain private.
I even dismembered her and sealed the parts in a barrel in a private warehouse. Can't get more private than that!
If the Johns had an expectation of privacy, they still have that expectation.
They can have whatever expectation they want, doesn't mean anyone else agrees.
You sit at home at home and JOAC - you have a good expectation of privacy.
You walk a public street, enter a prostitute's apartment, pay on a credit card, rely on her not to film the encounter: you have lost all claims to privacy. At best you have a civil lawsuit against the women and the right to claim in public that you were just there to "save souls" or "help the fallen" or many of the classic defenses.
...correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't life, by definition, do this already... but in a nearly-infinitely more elegant, efficient fashion?
This research strikes me as comparable (scrambling around for a suitable analogy here...) to welding a bunch of pairs of vise-grips into a shape vaguely reminiscent of a pair of pliers and then loudly proclaiming that one has achieved the ability to manufacture impressive tools...
Yes, but that is what building abstractions to support higher order systems is all about. The computer I'm typing this post on does about 12 billion ops/sec, many more in the GPU,) and probably trillions of nand gate state changes per second. All that to underline "nand" as a misspelt word to me. Every abstraction layer in a computer (general purpose CPU, VM model, garbage collection, multi-threading, communication protocols, ACID file systems, HLL representations, etc) costs about 10x in terms of terms of providing the abstraction versus "coding to the metal" in the layer below. It's absurd that the system I work on can do about 10K if/then/else checks a second when the hardware can do a million times that, but that is the price I paid for an abstraction that lets a thousand people work together in a shared cognitive environment.
Hoisting bio systems up to a few gates may seem useless now, but it'll seem common sense and obvious in 10 years time.
If your pushing code the production once a day, you have no QA cycle whatsoever. For a larger infrastructure, there's nothing wrong with extended release cycles.
Daily releases should be for break fix only. Weekly or bi-weekly pushes to stage and test environments are pretty normal. For a full release cycle, monthly is about the fastest I'd expect, and it's not unusual to see quarterly or longer on stable infrastructure.
Once every 15 seconds or so here. Incremental, ongoing improvements. No QA cycle, but automated testing, levels of peer review/approval, fast backout in the rare case we trigger a problem in prod.
It's no different than a poor craftsman in any trade.
Gotta agree with that.
If the guys with degrees actually understand that IEEE floats are not sufficient for all computation that involves a decimal, why do so few languages natively support arbitrary precision?
This is a complex conditional, and only asks about the state in which an understanding of IEEE floats exist amongst the educated. Perhaps:
1) languages are designed by the educated, but if the uneducated do not understand floats, why give them another opportunity to go wrong with float/AP number choices? 2) languages are mostly designed by the uneducated? 3) the uneducated do understand that IEEE floats are not a universal solution, but don't care 4) no one, degree or not, understands IEEE floats. The statement is trivially true 5) something else
I actually don't believe 4 - you were kind enough to reply to a post of mine some years ago, giving a sane analysis of a strcmp of "Apple" versus "Apples," so at least one person probably understands IEEE floats.
Ugh. Looks like I need 4 sig figures. And if I want to price a vanilla option on this, I probably need eight sig figures. For a binary payout, I'm at close to 16 sig figures or 48 bits. Inversely, for USD against WTI, AUD, BRK, I'm dealing with numbers where $1 is a tiny amount. Floating point is (doubles or double-doubles) is about the only thing to use here.
Of course, when I actually book a deal (and enter the accounting realm,) then I what to convert to decimal numbers with rather arbitrary market conventions.
Finance covers a lot of ground, and a 14.2 decimal representation doesn't solve every problem.
40 is well into middle age. (The average male lives to something like 75. So take out 10 years for the "middle age" decade and divide by two. Middle age is your early thirties to early forties). So it's reasonable to be looking toward the end of your career and usefulness around that time. Maybe not so fatalistically, but at least to be pragmatic about it.
Also, it was always asserted (though I'm not entirely clear what it is based on -- I guess physiology and brain response) that you become progressively worse at learning after the age of 25.
If you're going to be a great developer, you will have learned everything of importance by age 40. Who cares about specific APIs, frameworks, etc? You've seen them all a hundred times before. You approach everything in terms of speed of light, concurrency decisions, failure modes, user expectations. You know a thousand algorithms, but know there are only 5 or so, the rest are just special cases. You point out that n log n sort is pointless because you have a DAG, you've seen this error a hundred times before. You can hack out a 30 line routine that runs perfectly the first time because you wrote a unit test first that hit all the edge cases: the implementation was totally obvious before you even coded it. And you take your junior developers out for drinks now and then, and you talk about code and debate how to solve problems.
If this is what you enjoy, you will be paid well at age 40, 50, 60, or more. Don't enjoy it? Switch careers.
A small number of suits, each with matching shirts?
That's for losers, Barack. I have a small number of dark suits, and a set of white shirts. No time wasted on the matching process.
I also have a few white+blue shirts. I use these like the tape on those supermarket checkout registers: the color is a signal that the tape is about to run out. So, if I ever find myself wearing a non-white shirt, I know I need to go to the store and buy 12 white shirts.
This is the same kind of comment I got when I asked Slashdot about the electronics I should add for my mission to the moon. All I got was a flamewar over "spacecraft" versus "rocket."
I eventually just gave up and took an iPad, a speak-and-spell, and an RSA keyfob.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, that one example is the type of thing would actually REQUIRE older guys because of the old code involved. How often, really, does that come up anymore, when viewed as a percentage of all software work?
Probably about as much as the type of thing that would actually REQUIRE young cheap guys: a "business solutions provider" that sells the next big thing to customers every five years, while making profits on customization, support, migrations, and extensions. The company just needs a endless supply of cheap beginners willing to learn quirky frameworks and hack out a ton of code to lock in the clients.
Fat clients, thin clients, server-client, SOA, compute-on-demand, the cloud, log-in anywhere, computing fabric, XML, beans, enterprise architectures tend to be little more the the last decade's technology renamed, rebranded, and resold to the same customers, but with a new set of 25 year-old faces assuring them it's going to be better this time.
What the fuck did I just read?
Something about actual security issues (like what the article was about,) rather than "system ok, internet link bad, idiot sons of rich people" post.
I was not completely clear, but even if you opt for even a simple DIP-8 555, current tech lets us embed a side-saddle microprocessor (4004, 6502, 8086) easily. Unless you pry the top off and scan it, you can't be sure you don't have a trojan horse. It's only a few thousand lines of code for the chip to decide it's in the right place for its payload (running a centrifuge, controlling a missile fin, etc) and then to fail nastily.
We've been doing targeted component sabotage for decades (Russian gas pipelines, Stuxnet, xerox tricks.) Don't trust integrated circuits to be what they claim to be.
Why would anyone responsible for these computers (running devices whose operation is dangerous to human life) ever connect them to the internet?? Are they complete morons? Why would they be able to keep their jobs? Are they all idiot sons of rich people and therefore can't be fired or something? I don't get it? What am I missing?
How many millions of dollars a year do you want to spend to maintain that isolation? You can do it, it's just really expensive.
1. Lock down/destroy all wireless comm on all hardware
2. Make entire network visible - all cable runs visible in clear conduits.
3. No software installs without full audit (sorry, no commercial installs allowed, no audit software allowed on the gold network)
4. Destroy all hardware leaving the building (and yes, that includes guests' cellphones.)
5. No windows, line of sight, radio leakage, etc.
6. Fab your own chips. Even a 555 timer can hold a rogue 8086.
7. No interns. Assume every Chinese grad is a malware vector (and everyone else, too.)
8. Assume you still have a 1 bit per second channel to the outside world (power draw, sound, etc.)
I know the feeling.
What language? How long from idea to production? (Python and minutes here.)
I hope I'm still solving little puzzles like that when I'm 50 but I also solved those when I was 25. There's nothing wrong with that, but if that's all you do then you're probably going to be at the same point career and pay grade-wise at 50 as at 25..
Exactly, at 50, you will still be solving those little puzzles, but you're going solve them with 30 seconds thought and 10 lines of code that runs first time: they are just that, little problems that you have encountered a hundred times before.
But, if you want to be at a different career/pay point, you're also going to be solving big puzzles. Many of these are so big that people don't even see them as puzzles until you implement the solution, then man-years of work and confusion just melt away.
The problem, is, of course, that most people never get to a career point that trains them for the big puzzles. A few years of apprenticeship at Google, Facebook, Wall st, Xerox Parc, etc, can be a big help. Being the smartest guy in the room implementing web backends tends not to be a great growth path.
I was just going to say that. From TFA:
“What we’re labeling as ‘distraction,’ some see as a failure of adults to see how these kids process information,” Ms. Purcell said. “They’re not saying distraction is good but that the label of ‘distraction’ is a judgment of this generation.”
also
The surveys include some findings that appear contradictory. In the Common Sense report, for instance, some teachers said that even as they saw attention spans wane, students were improving in subjects like math, science and reading.
I don't usually bag on teachers, but may be this is a sign that your methods are becoming--shock--outdated?
Traditional school is was pretty horrible in my mind. Most kids were lost or bored in math and science. Geography, history, etc, were just fact cramming: a free grade for those who could only learn by rote, pointless data for others. God forbid you picked a promising, but inappropriate book from the library: you were stuck with it for an hour or a day. Talk about a low information environment.
Bring on the internet, I say. It can't be any worse that the old system. It's already revolutionized work (I used to see 10+ books per cube, now 1 is about the most.) Time to do it for school.
To inject some math into the discussion:
ThrustToKeepFlying = FlyingMass / LiftToDragRatio
PowerToKeepFlying = ThrustToKeepFlying * Velocity = Velocity * FlyingMass / LiftToDragRatio
Um, math is nice, but it needs to be applied to the physics of the situation.
In your first equation, you claim an equality between thrust and mass. They don't even have the same units.
Your second equation just compounds the problem.
Yep. approx 30 kWh per gallon of fuel, a 747 is burning approx 1 gal/second, so 100K kW (3600x30) needed. Solar gives us approx 1kW / square meter, so we need about 100K square meters of solar panels on our 747
But you forget that as you have to increase surface area for more energy, you also get more wingspan, reducing the need for energy!
Unfortunately, more wingspan (or wing area) doesn't reduce the need for energy. It mostly just lets you fly slower (which I guess could be considered to save energy, just like taking the train would save even more energy.)
Most fuel consumed by airliners is done while rolling around the airport on the ground. A jet engine burns almost the same amount of fuel at idle as it does while in cruise.
Wrong on both counts.
Most fuel in burned in the flying. This why we have long and short range aircraft, load fuel based on the flight plan, etc.
Idle burns much less fuel. What do you think that loud noise is when a jet powers up just before take-off? It's the engines doing a lot more work (generating thrust,) and the power for that work comes from dumping a lot more fuel/second into the engines.
Clouds?
I think a bigger problem is that the surface area of an 'airliner' can never provide enough energy to keep it in the air even with 100% conversion efficiency at noon.
Yep. approx 30 kWh per gallon of fuel, a 747 is burning approx 1 gal/second, so 100K kW (3600x30) needed. Solar gives us approx 1kW / square meter, so we need about 100K square meters of solar panels on our 747. Our 747 has approx 1000 sq m top surface, so solar would provide 1% of the power needed even in optimal conditions.
The problem isn't the major, the problem is the combination of youth and a little knowledge. Most 21-year-olds are just knowledgeable enough to be cocky, but not knowledgeable enough to appreciate the fact that they really don't know shit.
The major has a lot to do with it. CS (and IT) give rapid feedback on being right or wrong: those who tend to be right all the time often get cocky. This is fine until they think that because they are right about CS/IT, they are right about everything. Being in the top 1% of tech wizards doesn't make you an expert in politics or telling jokes, etc: this is where people get a reputation for arrogance or cringe-worthy ineptness.
Wall Street used to joke about "dentists from New Jersey:" a class of intelligent technical people who would confuse their specialist knowledge and track records of accruing money with general expertise in investing. They were the dumping ground for the worst financial toxic waste that banks needed to get off their books.
Exactly? 1000 feet should be easy. Bonus points if you can get the exact building. Mega-kudos for the floor.
Oh, Cliffs of Insanity just showed up - nice name.
Damn neighbors - I see 35 wireless networks from my mac: Jes's Awesome Network, Doris Family, Alex, Bellclaire Hotel, I Win, Epsteinland, buckduke, toujoursavectoi, sheilajaffe1, ming. And a bunch of hexcodes. Bit sad to not see HotWorkoutPants on the list today.
So person A was walking home doing nothing wrong.
Person B creates a situation, and gets a few minor injuries while killing Person A (inflicted by Person A, a bit upset about the whole being attacked/killed thing.)
Person A was in Florida because he was kicked out of school.
I'm sure you have doubt in your mind. Justifying the idea of killing the weak because they fought back a little before dying is hard.
So you sit in your armchair, drink your drink, and pontificate on the ifs and buts. And with enough words said, you sort of convince yourself that those people had it coming and the world is just.
* most of the people who had sex with a prostitute did so expecting the act to remain private. they had a clear "expectation of privacy" as a lawyer would put it
Yeah, same complaint here: when my girlfriend broke up with me and "vanished" 24 hours later my name appeared in all the local papers. My lawyers totally agreed that I had a clear "expectation of privacy" because I expected the act to remain private.
I even dismembered her and sealed the parts in a barrel in a private warehouse. Can't get more private than that!
If the Johns had an expectation of privacy, they still have that expectation.
They can have whatever expectation they want, doesn't mean anyone else agrees.
You sit at home at home and JOAC - you have a good expectation of privacy.
You walk a public street, enter a prostitute's apartment, pay on a credit card, rely on her not to film the encounter: you have lost all claims to privacy. At best you have a civil lawsuit against the women and the right to claim in public that you were just there to "save souls" or "help the fallen" or many of the classic defenses.
...correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't life, by definition, do this already... but in a nearly-infinitely more elegant, efficient fashion?
This research strikes me as comparable (scrambling around for a suitable analogy here...) to welding a bunch of pairs of vise-grips into a shape vaguely reminiscent of a pair of pliers and then loudly proclaiming that one has achieved the ability to manufacture impressive tools...
Yes, but that is what building abstractions to support higher order systems is all about. The computer I'm typing this post on does about 12 billion ops/sec, many more in the GPU,) and probably trillions of nand gate state changes per second. All that to underline "nand" as a misspelt word to me. Every abstraction layer in a computer (general purpose CPU, VM model, garbage collection, multi-threading, communication protocols, ACID file systems, HLL representations, etc) costs about 10x in terms of terms of providing the abstraction versus "coding to the metal" in the layer below. It's absurd that the system I work on can do about 10K if/then/else checks a second when the hardware can do a million times that, but that is the price I paid for an abstraction that lets a thousand people work together in a shared cognitive environment.
Hoisting bio systems up to a few gates may seem useless now, but it'll seem common sense and obvious in 10 years time.
If your pushing code the production once a day, you have no QA cycle whatsoever. For a larger infrastructure, there's nothing wrong with extended release cycles.
Daily releases should be for break fix only. Weekly or bi-weekly pushes to stage and test environments are pretty normal. For a full release cycle, monthly is about the fastest I'd expect, and it's not unusual to see quarterly or longer on stable infrastructure.
Once every 15 seconds or so here. Incremental, ongoing improvements. No QA cycle, but automated testing, levels of peer review/approval, fast backout in the rare case we trigger a problem in prod.
It's no different than a poor craftsman in any trade.
Gotta agree with that.
If the guys with degrees actually understand that IEEE floats are not sufficient for all computation that involves a decimal, why do so few languages natively support arbitrary precision?
This is a complex conditional, and only asks about the state in which an understanding of IEEE floats exist amongst the educated. Perhaps:
1) languages are designed by the educated, but if the uneducated do not understand floats, why give them another opportunity to go wrong with float/AP number choices?
2) languages are mostly designed by the uneducated?
3) the uneducated do understand that IEEE floats are not a universal solution, but don't care
4) no one, degree or not, understands IEEE floats. The statement is trivially true
5) something else
I actually don't believe 4 - you were kind enough to reply to a post of mine some years ago, giving a sane analysis of a strcmp of "Apple" versus "Apples," so at least one person probably understands IEEE floats.
Nothing wil help if you need 1/3 of a penny.
Let me google "USDJPY"...
1 US dollar = 78.3400 Japanese yen.
Ugh. Looks like I need 4 sig figures. And if I want to price a vanilla option on this, I probably need eight sig figures. For a binary payout, I'm at close to 16 sig figures or 48 bits. Inversely, for USD against WTI, AUD, BRK, I'm dealing with numbers where $1 is a tiny amount. Floating point is (doubles or double-doubles) is about the only thing to use here.
Of course, when I actually book a deal (and enter the accounting realm,) then I what to convert to decimal numbers with rather arbitrary market conventions.
Finance covers a lot of ground, and a 14.2 decimal representation doesn't solve every problem.
40 is well into middle age. (The average male lives to something like 75. So take out 10 years for the "middle age" decade and divide by two. Middle age is your early thirties to early forties). So it's reasonable to be looking toward the end of your career and usefulness around that time. Maybe not so fatalistically, but at least to be pragmatic about it.
Also, it was always asserted (though I'm not entirely clear what it is based on -- I guess physiology and brain response) that you become progressively worse at learning after the age of 25.
If you're going to be a great developer, you will have learned everything of importance by age 40. Who cares about specific APIs, frameworks, etc? You've seen them all a hundred times before. You approach everything in terms of speed of light, concurrency decisions, failure modes, user expectations. You know a thousand algorithms, but know there are only 5 or so, the rest are just special cases. You point out that n log n sort is pointless because you have a DAG, you've seen this error a hundred times before. You can hack out a 30 line routine that runs perfectly the first time because you wrote a unit test first that hit all the edge cases: the implementation was totally obvious before you even coded it. And you take your junior developers out for drinks now and then, and you talk about code and debate how to solve problems.
If this is what you enjoy, you will be paid well at age 40, 50, 60, or more. Don't enjoy it? Switch careers.
A small number of suits, each with matching shirts?
That's for losers, Barack. I have a small number of dark suits, and a set of white shirts. No time wasted on the matching process.
I also have a few white+blue shirts. I use these like the tape on those supermarket checkout registers: the color is a signal that the tape is about to run out. So, if I ever find myself wearing a non-white shirt, I know I need to go to the store and buy 12 white shirts.
it's not a schooner, it's a sailboat!
This is the same kind of comment I got when I asked Slashdot about the electronics I should add for my mission to the moon. All I got was a flamewar over "spacecraft" versus "rocket."
I eventually just gave up and took an iPad, a speak-and-spell, and an RSA keyfob.