It is when your name is identical to the co-Founder's name. It's link-baity by the fact that many people were baited into clicking that link under false pretenses.
I'm not accusing this Wozniak of malice, however.
I didn't look at the TLD I just clicked. I thought Woz was ditching OS X, I got excited. I was baited.
About 50 pixels to the left of the title is "Geoff Wozniak"...furthermore, I don't think it's fair to disparage people with names that happen to be shared by celebrities.
I'm going to commit the cardinal sin of meta-commenting twice on the same submission and rhetorically ask why anyone would be downvoting the parent?
To clarify the stated fact: the name appears in the left margin on an iPad, just like on a desktop browser at normal width. However on an iPhone, it appears at the bottom of the page. It does the same thing if your browser window is set to less than 768px wide.
It's not hard to see how in those circumstances, someone could be misled into thinking that the article's author was Woz, especially if they didn't read all the way to the end.
Why does insecurity come into play? Couldn't there be other reasons for God being adamant about what a person believes (i.e., worships)? What if man's nature really is best nurtured by and finds its completion in (his telos) the Being called God?
If your kids insist on eating cotton candy (which works against their health) amid a veritable feast (that is delightful and nutritious), wouldn't your ire be justified?
Disclaimer: This is my personal belief, it seems it seems to offended some passionate dissenters. I understand, I've been there before too.
God is often depicted as moody and chronically concerned with what we think of him. I think that's a ridiculous projection of our own human insecurities.
If a creator like God existed, he would be billions of orders of magnitude more intelligent than us. Why would he care if we were skeptical? Humans are arrogant and we project our own humanness onto everything. I doubt God, if he existed, would stop loving me even if I hated him. He would be above all that, in my view.
If there is a creator or God, I personally believe he doesn't care if we believe in him. He's too intelligent and mature for that to ever matter to him
Side note edit: It has always been interesting to me that moderate agnosticism is always the most drowned out religious view. I would be better off as a militant atheist or familiar, friendly theist if I cared about internet points.
I looked hard and can't find the exact verse, but there's a specific verse in the Quran that basically says the same thing:
If all of humanity gathered to believe, it wouldn't add Him anything. And if all of humanity gathered to disbelieve, it wouldn't remove anything from Him.
People still have this latent idea of God as an old bearded guy (or any variation of that myth) "interacting" with the world (via spells and miracles).
Consider God as not a being but the infinite consciousness that pervades every particle/subparticle. Considering God as a finite (great) being who sits somewhere high in the space and runs the show on Earth is limiting the supreme being.
Upanishads states that God exists in each one of us as the pure consciousness that experiences the three states – waking, dreaming and sleeping. The mind with ego (I-ness) is the veil that has made us blind to experience this consciousness (experiencing consciousness by consciousness is possible as stated by wise men but describing that experience in words isn't possible because words are objects of mind and consciousness is beyond mind.)
"God is often depicted as moody and overly worried about what we think of him."
Moodiness? I can give you human examples of this trait; but what specifically do you have in mind about God that portrays Him as such? This way I know we are communicating about the same thing.
"Overly worried" - I know of no text in all of the Bible that portrays God as anxious about anything. Maybe you mean to say "chronically concerned with" what people think?
The categories of love and hate as you are discussing seem to require a little work. Whenever we see God's unchanging love discussed, at least Scripturally, to what does it refer? And if God chose not to love, would that make Him less than divine somehow?
I'm asking these questions (not attacking! I value your response!) because whenever we go into the "my personal belief is..." it seems prudent to examine whether such beliefs have rational warrant, or are they simply another way of wishing the world worked that way?
"Humans are arrogant and we project our own humanness onto everything" -- that is utterly true. Thank you for acknowledging it. But could it be you are projecting your own preferences of what God would be like if He existed? How do you escape this human flaw while the rest of us can't or won't?
By the way, if God turns out to be real and He is preeminently concerned with what you think about Him, what grounds would have to object to His preoccupation with making you see how ultimate and satisfying He is?
> Moodiness? I can give you human examples of this trait; but what specifically do you have in mind about God that portrays Him as such? This way I know we are communicating about the same thing.
God throws a few temper tantrums in the Old Testament. Either way the Christian God is not the God I might believe in. I sometimes believe in a creator who, for the purposes of familiarity, I call God.
> "Overly worried" - I know of no text in all of the Bible that portrays God as anxious about anything. Maybe you mean to say "chronically concerned with" what people think?
Yeah, that is what I meant. I will change that, thanks.
> The categories of love and hate as you are discussing seem to require a little work. Whenever we see God's unchanging love discussed, at least Scripturally, to what does it refer? And if God chose not to love, would that make Him less than divine somehow?
I don't personally believe the scriptures are anything but contradictory pseudo-history combined with fiction, so I cannot answer your question.
> "Humans are arrogant and we project our own humanness onto everything" -- that is utterly true. Thank you for acknowledging it. But could it be you are projecting your own preferences of what God would be like if He existed? How do you escape this human flaw while the rest of us can't or won't?
Of course, I am. I can only maybe accept that there was a creator. Everything else is just pure speculation. I'd like to think that this creator is unfathomable to mankind. That being said, I often doubt that this creator exists at all.
> By the way, if God turns out to be real and He is preeminently concerned with what you think about Him, what grounds would have to object to His preoccupation with making you see how ultimate and satisfying He is?
Well if he was right in front of me I would obviously admit I was wrong. If he cares as much as you say I'm sure he'd be pretty upset at me. At that point he would either have to understand where I was coming from, or send me to hell.
"God throws a few temper tantrums in the Old Testament."
Clearly there are descriptions of God's kindled wrath that is admittedly frightful and overwhelming. Do these eruptions of anger and fury and wrath somehow militate against a standard above or outside God Himself? What's the origin of this standard? How does it (or can it?) apply to Him? Objections, it seems, are either rooted in taste ("I prefer this because of something about my personal predilections.") or in an understanding of the world as it is or ought to be ("Reason clearly shows that...")
"Either way the Christian God is not the God I might believe in." You very well might not believe in such a God. But what psychology is at work here? I can't read your mind, but if you indeed resist such a notion of a God who can erupt in wrath or even treasure up wrath against anyone who rejects Him, would this rejection be a product of mere taste? Should things of ultimate importance be considered on something as (I would consider) fickle as taste?
My point of bringing up the idea of God's love in the context of the Bible wasn't meant to say you accepted the text as true or inspired, only that if we are objecting to the historical Christian concept of God, we should at least try to deal with the source of its self-understanding since the defects of Christianity stems either from its faithfulness to its sources or its deviation from its sources.
"I can only maybe accept that there was a creator." -- Happy to hear you are not out and out closed out to the idea of a Creator. "Everything else is just pure speculation," which is an interesting claim in itself, but it seems to be an implicit admission that the hard work of metaphysics is an indispensable part of our dialogue. Your rejection of Christian scripture may be warranted, but I'd be curious as to how you concluded it is a "contradictory pseudo-history combined with fiction." Is this based on your own reading? You don't owe me an explanation, but so much seems to hang on this point. Even if it were demonstrably not a hodge-podge mess of history, fiction, poetry, and teaching, would that even sway your seeming pre-commitment to the words you wrote: "Either way the Christian God is not the God I might believe in?"
"Well if he was right in front of me I would obviously admit I was wrong." -- that seems to be the a realistic response. Scripture certainly paints that picture.
"If he cares as much as you say I'm sure he'd be pretty upset at me. At that point he would either have to understand where I was coming from, or send me to hell." -- An infinitely wise God would clearly understand your own mind on this. The ultimate question is whether hell is ever justified even in the case of those who claim a degree of ignorance? That's another discussion, but I am glad you are thinking about it at least hypothetically.
"Either way, I'm willing to take that risk." -- Blaise Pascal would love to discuss with you what constitutes a rational risk on this count. Risk-taking is a good thing, wouldn't you agree, if it is eminently grounded in reason?
Thank you so much for this exchange. I don't have all the answers, but like you I am happy to hang my hat on anything that has the ring of truth. I am openly a traditional, classical Christian, but I'm always willing to dialogue and calibrate my beliefs in the light of the Truth, the Good, and the Beautiful.
for the sake of argument let's assume there is a God. and let's say He was better than all the things He created. better than that awesome sunset that you saw that took your breath away; better than that favorite meal you love -- you know the one. love is giving the object of your love the best... the best you've got. what if God giving Himself was Love defined?
It certainly is reasonable to look for an archetype for what we consider transcendent acts and qualities. Even the most ardent atheist generally is moved by acts of mercy, heroics, sacrifice, and unmerited love.
His chosen framework cannot properly and consistently account for these things, perhaps the best he can do is proffer a narrative about bio-chemical impulses and evolutionary advantage -- but the transcendent "feel" at the end of the day seems no more than an illusion of nature.
That's a bad assumption to start with because there is no evidence of such a thing. "just for the sake of argument, let's assume there are invisible horses everywhere. (followed by explanation of how these horses are responsible for love)"
Your epistemology and categories are already flawed, as if there's an analogy between a thing (like a horse) and the Ground of Being (classically called "God"). God in classical theism is not a "thing" among things. If you think classical theism posits deity the same way people posit horses, of course you'll want "evidence" that is empirical.
So wouldn't it be helpful, for the sake of the thought experiment proposed by shawndumas, to at least see where his reasoning leads? The premise ("There is a God") might not be true, but an a priori exclusion of such a being seems no more based on logic than the counter claim. What is helpful, I think, is if by looking through those lenses we see if God gives the world more explanatory power than by not looking through those lenses.
>God in classical theism is not a "thing" among things.
Neither is an invisible horse. These all fall under the category of things that there is no physical evidence for.
>So wouldn't it be helpful, for the sake of the thought experiment proposed by shawndumas, to at least see where his reasoning leads?
No, because his entire premise is based on the existence of something that follows no logic or physical laws. Something that violates the laws of logic cannot be reasoned about.
a valid argument is valid apart from the truth of its premises [1]. I am perfectly happy to agree that an argument's construction is formally valid and still deny it's conclusion.
all sound arguments are valid but not all valid arguments are sound.
I never said it was. I said it had a bad assumption, which makes the whole thing entirely pointless and self-serving.
Entering a debate where you make your arguments using the form "Assume I am right about the thing we are debating. Now here are all of the logical conclusions of that." is completely worthless because nobody cares about the logical conclusions when the argument is about the part you are taking under assumption.
The original post was, "If God exists, I doubt he cares if we believe in him or not. I like to believe he would not be that insecure."
My response was addressing the part about insecurity. You are objecting to the original poster's thought experiment -- "If God exists" -- which I was allowing for the sake of argument.
So you are objecting to my continuation: Is this what you are intending to do?
This has happened to me during every OS X upgrade/reinstallation I can remember. The first time, I also assumed that it just wasn't working. I've since learned that the 99% is deceiving in terms of the expectations it might give you. You just have to be patient and it'll eventually work.
>What you say almost makes me want to learn enterprise.
Perspective is a funny thing. I started in the enterprise and was there through the bubble (excluding a brief stint at a startup). I then went on to found my own company some years later.
Anyway, it somehow never occured to me that people actually depend upon the startup ecosystem continuing to thrive, and would feel absent options without it. I mean, I guess it's obvious, but I suppose I just hadn't consciously considered that it really implies "startups as a career".
So, it's somewhat hilarious for me to read someone musing that maybe they should "learn enterprise".
I'm also not in SV or another startup hub. So, I'm sure it's partly cultural as well.
Interesting. I wasn't aware there was a choice between "learning enterprise" and (other?) in school nowadays. Back in my day, you'd come out with a solid foundation, equipped to make those choices. Hey, another perspective thing. Fancy that!
But, I'd say, yeah...get you some "enterprise" while you're there, especially if they're offering it for the same price. ;)
I certainly did not read that unclebucknasty was bothered by your phrasing, but rather was sharing a story and encouraging you to branch out into some "not cool" tech that could support you in possible bubble-burst future.
New suggestion, though. You should spend your time in school learning how to remove your prejudice. It's pretty bad, and will hold you back more than not learning a particular language will.
P.S. Just to be clear, I was bothered by your ageism.
Just take the correction, apologize, and move on; there's no utility for trying to "win" the conversation and as others pointed out you really took it more personally than needed.
Knowing how to be graceful will spare you a lot of future pain in your career as well as your social life.
Point taken. At risk of being further downmodded, I have to say that I don't consider myself to be very graceful. I'm not sure how much I can change that (I find fake personalities exhausting).
However, the way you phrased your criticism was very polite, yet firm. It drove your point home in a self evident kind of way. It's got me thinking and I appreciate that.
If you'll listen to another old guy who wouldn't mind a nap:
There's a world of difference between having a fake personality and learning to politely and gracefully interact with others even when you really don't want to. Those skills are far, far more important than anything technical you will learn in your CS classes.
Yes, and then there's that sweet spot you find when you're walking the fine line between being polite and being patronizing. That perfectly guised condescension with a rich aroma of political correctness that still delivers the intentional underlying message.
That's the real skill to master, especially amongst the smug closeted egomaniacs in the programming world. But as a normally blunt person, it all seems a little silly(and very insincere) to me.
Yes, I've read it. It's not a very good book, in my opinion.
The end of your second point fails to address the comment you responded to, I was addressing an entirely separate issue about how this community (and to a lesser degree, the programming community) chooses to communicate. Specifically, how it fails to actually remove flaming, trolling, rudeness, and arrogance. It merely wraps these things nicely in pseudo intellectual packages.
Anyways, I wasn't defending my (purely spiteful) "ageist" comment, nor do I intend to. Although, I keep getting baited to address it, so here I am. Rest assured though, while I may never transform into a different gender or race, I will certainly age. I'm sure one day, when I'm older, someone on the internet will say a rude, politically incorrect comment towards me, and I shall weep with regret and understanding.
For what it's worth, I do think there's way more utility in differentiating oneself by having opinions one believes in, vs trying to be a crowd pleaser (which really adds no long term value to anything). Now the onus is really one oneself to make sure that those strong opinions are right, of course. :) Kinda like on HN, having a differentiable and unique idea/product/startup is way better than all the me-toos, as long as the idea is actually any good. :)
Consistency is one of those things that people try to figure out all life. I personally respect those who are clear in taking a stance even if I don't agree with them -- they've found their niche. The alternative is someone who's trying to play short term efficiencies and please everyone -- all they say are words everyday, words that carry no weight or meaning behind them.
Pardon the jumbled metaphors and all that. :)
PS -- Being mindful of what you type on the internet, just like being mindful of what you say in real life, is helpful in being genuine. Specifically it's to understand what other people are trying to say, and also understand the ramifications of your own words. And as you exercise this mindfulness, it'll become second nature and become a skill.
PPS -- re: gracefulness - just remember the downside value of a comment is not 0 but negative, and the expected value of a comment is not necessarily positive.
Patio11 made a very good point in one of his posts that enterprise, specifically Japanese enterprise, taught him a lot about engineering skills.
There's an entirely different philosophy out there from the startup "push code to production on your first day". That of (lowercase) solid engineering practices where production releases are major events that require lots of interactions, checks and planning. It teaches you an awful lot. Safety critical industries, and many financial companies after Knight Capital, are good places to learn this kind of discipline.
I think it's best to know what you love, but also know what has massive demand. And by demand, I mean outside of the startup bubble. If you're lucky, you'll never have to do enterprise, but I'll be damned if I tie my ability to feed my family to a philosophy. :-)
Since turing completness implies that you can write an interpreter for any other programming language you can do it in python in at least as many ways as there are programming languages where you can do it.
Am I the only weirdo who just uses multiple workspaces with ctrl-arrow and cmd-tab like a mad man? I genuinely enjoy it, especially with a second monitor.
I, maybe, have one or two apps sharing a single workspace. Most apps are in full screen.
You are not. :) I don't usually use full screen mode for apps when my Macbook Pro is docked, but when I'm just using the laptop screen it's ended up being surprisingly useful. (At least I was surprised.) Docked I'm usually only using two virtual desktops, sometimes three.
Mission Control gets slagged on more than it deserves -- it's fast and functional. On point for the actual link to Amethyst: I use Moom for window resizing/control from the keyboard, but in practice the mouse is actually pretty darn efficient when what I want is to make a window this big and put it over there.
I do this with trackpad swipes and a grid of desktops (using TotalSpaces2 currently). Each app or task has its "place". I've tried other stuff, but the spatial metaphor really works for me.
Great response. I lol'd at the people from Vulcan bit. Your points about the change of perspective death offers are very true and insightful.
I have nothing to add other than I really enjoyed reading this and felt compelled to comment. It upped my mood :) Keep up the positive outlook (sometimes rare on this site) and have a great day.
If you're already a decent QWERTY typist I agree it is a waste of time to learn a new keyboard layout.
But if you're hunt a peck QWERTY typist who decides to pick up touch typing, choosing an ergonomic layout like Dvorak or Colemak makes sense. You're essentially staring from zero anyways so you're not wasting much time on the layout anymore so than you would on the QWERTY layout.
This way, you retain your two-finger QWERTY skills while learning a layout that minimizes the odds of developing RSI.
I suppose so, it just seems that the odds that you may need to work on a machine that isn't setup for you is probably going to be pretty high at some point. I agree that RSI is probably something we should avoid, but other than that things like typing speed have zero effect (in my experience).
It's takes a trivial amount of time to set up these layouts on most machines.
I agree that good typing skills do not necessarily make you a more productive programmer. But I do find that it is a skill that compliments other programming skills nicely. It's also nice for countless other parts of my workflow that do not include programming.
I think you misunderstood me. I never claimed anything like that. In fact I suggested most of the benefits of touch typing are not related to programming.
That being said, you will never know the benefits of touch typing if you can't touch type. You seem to be threatened by the thought of it being a valuable skill so I won't try to convince you otherwise.
i can touch type just fine. I'm not threatened by the concept of touch typing, I am making the case that its a waste of time to try and learn to touch type another keyboard map. While it may have some benefit, there are literally thousands of things you can do that will be much more useful than learning to touch type dvorak.
We've come full circle to my original reply to you. If you are going to learn to touch type you are starting from zero with QWERTY anyways so using a new layout wouldn't add any additional time.
> there are literally thousands of things you can do that will be much more useful than learning to touch type dvorak.
You could say this about any skill or hobby. You are not the arbiter of usefulness. Plenty of people have derived utility from learning to touch type Dvorak or Colemak. You're writing them off out of pure ignorance.
EDIT: Holy down votes. Don't know what to say. I thought it was Woz, sosume. All I did was agree with the less-downvoted parent.
EDIT 2: Hive mind crit axotty for 9999.