Fordrus

As person with a similarly vicious voice, part of the answer lies in cognitive behavioral therapy techniques - information is the enemy of hyper-criticism (usually, anyway).

The voice of your own critical judgment can be vicious, but if you're on board with that you're not, nor are you somehow supposed to be, some kind of rational Messiah with all the perfections and answers, but rather regular person doing their best, subject to the usual problems and issues that beset humans all the time, it's much easier to remind the voice, almost as if going one voice deeper - giving the hyper critical voice it's OWN voice - that it's being harsh to a standard that virtually no one has ever or will ever meet, that there are reason you or other did things the way they did (even if those reasons include "we didn't have time to research any other way, and the resources that would've made it possible or trivial like it feels now came about after we finished this.").

Anyway - basic idea here is to give you voice a voice and whip back around and overflow into the regular critical space where criticism can be healthy instead of incessant and damaging. I hope it works for you! It works fairly well for me, but I'll admit freely that sometimes I do feel like such a massive twat that BOTH voice roll their eyes at me. XD

I love a good name, one that is spelled such that many/most native speakers of the language will pronounce it approximately correctly when they see it, and isn’t too difficult to spell, but also lets a person feel a baseline differentiation - to not be drone#6472567.

I am <banal name>#4235862, and I DO find that annoying. Often cannot even differentiate me from the many holders of my name by adding my last initial, or even my entire last name.

I have a depressingly banal name and have experienced pretty serious annoyance about it. I wouldn’t say depression, but when society already makes me feel like a faceless drone, being <banal name>#476 exacerbates the problem substantially.

Sometimes mental illness turns a person into the moral equivalent of a natural disaster. We don’t exactly blame natural disasters for arriving. They didn’t intend malice towards us. But we don’t therefore let them destroy our homes or kill us because there was no malicious intent behind the disaster. We batten down the hatches, make our homes storm and earthquake proof, we douse fires in water and build protective cellars.

Sometimes when mental illness turns a person into a malicious abuser, we have to protect ourselves regardless of whether we blame them fully for their actions or not. Nature turns the person into a disaster (sometimes, it’s not like EVERY case is like this), and when it does that, we’re justified in doing want it takes protect ourselves, to keep from being abused or harmed - not blaming them doesn’t mean we have to go out and stand in the storm, so to speak.

Here’s wishing you peace and happiness. :)

The issue is that an extremely sensitive negotiation (interviewing and hiring process) is utterly disrupted by their presence, so nobody is in a good position to legally challenge them. If almost ANY non compete is in place, the potential employer is highly likely to make the decision not to bother with the candidate. Proving that it was because of the noncompete is difficult (making it difficult to prove real damages).

They would almost certainly fall apart in court, but the systems they disrupt don’t survive long enough to move them into court.

There isn’t some function we can feed a different argument here to value agreeableness more highly though. I generally agree, but that more collaboration would be good isn’t so much the question - the question is HOW these tweaks can be done.

Man, so many memories. I was involved in a MUD called Dragonstone and had so much freaking fun, when I first entered college I had to stop cold turkey because every time I tried to announce that I had to quit to get my homework done, saying goodbye to treasured online associates made me so sad I couldn't follow through on leaving.

I also started one of my own, which gave me my first brush with people doxxing me (not as serious back then - I was more worried that one of them would figure out how to hack my computer - I was not a terribly sophisticated user of the internet back then - probably still am not today. XD)

I learned a bit about algorithms from our head coder, and we put our heads together to make an herbalism system that he should still be quite proud of, I think. Listing each room as a terrain type, a list of herbs that could grow in that terrain, and a random chance that the herbs would grow in any given room.

Man, what a strange time and exciting time that was! :)

Seems like it might be tasty milk, but I have neither time nor space to care for a cow. XD :D

On the other hand, I valiantly tried a number of variations of “learn C++ in a weekend” when I was a teenager, and finding most of them too difficult/annoying, presuming prior knowledge I didn’t have, I decided programming just wasn’t for me and focused on my violin playing. Now I’m neck-deep in bioinformatics and machine learning, enjoying more than almost anything else ever.

In other words, I’ll cop to thinking you’re weong about this, and that sometime in the future, you or someone else will return to a thread similar to this one, wishing that someone had flattened out and simplified at least some of the technical aspects of this stuff so that you could move forward without such massive frustration that you would give up even despite substantial (but not invicible) motivation.

Well, banning the practice is the first step towards doing exactly that. The whole world is a lot more understanding of the stance, "Sorry, we cannot go and rescue [person X]," when person X got in trouble because of illegal activity they were performing - and there are few more effective methods of making someone adopt the stance espoused by your proposed note, "I forbid you from rescuing me," than making the practice illegal.

So, essentially, I agree, I just think this is the proper way for Nepal to go about de-prioritizing this particular problem. :)

FANTASTIC, many many thanks!!! With that in mind, I can move forward in relative peace, again, very grateful!! :)

I'm finishing up at WGU in Software Dev but sure wouldn't mind switching to CS proper - I keep hearing this and "soon," but can't pinpoint the source of the rumors whatsoever - do you know where you heard / got the impression that CS was coming to WGU?

A very simple hypothesis as to why doctors can argue this effectively but teachers cannot is that teachers are not as powerful a lobbying group as doctors.

Doctors have effectively been able to defend their "turf," from hostile encroachment, while teachers have not, not because the situations do not contain substantial parallels, but rather because doctors are politically strong while teachers are politically weak.

There is substantial argument that our focus on standardized testing is literally ruining the advantages traditionally associated with a Western Education.

But then, perhaps I would be a "below-average" teacher, and my opinion might therefore similarly be discarded as worthless. We'll never know for certain, because I don't make a habit of boarding sinking ships - especially when I'm slated to receive blame for their sinking after boarding them. (And I did at one point very much want to enter the field of secondary school education.)

(Slight modification: I won't board a sinking ship and take blame for it's sinking after the fact without some substantial advantage, such as excellent remuneration, being offered as well - teaching offers no such advantage, except perhaps self-actualization, and I can neither eat nor sleep in that.)

Oh... oh my Gosh..... it's full of... he globally declared his LOOP INDEXING VARIABLES?!

I really appreciate him making that available, fantastic little cautionary tale, clearly from an enthusiastic and thoughtful learner of Java - glad he's made good progress since then, though, that's... I mean, dang it is REALLY bad, but it is also amazing as a sort of exercise in him just knowing what he wants to do and finding (bad) ways to make it happen. And that's admirable, even if it is also horrifying to see unfold. :D