Psyladine

Problem of the local maxim, extreme dependency is the same as evolutionary pressure to specialize for it, eventually the process owns you.

And even he learned by the end the only real satisfaction is in helping others.

"Well, I guess if a person never quit when the going got tough, they wouldn't have anything to regret for the rest of their life. But good luck to you Peter. I'm sure this decision won't haunt you forever!"

>Neither can a toddler nor an animal. The level of ability is irrelevant for evaluating its foundation.

Its foundation of rational logical thought that can't process basic math? Even a toddler understands 2 is more than 1.

The history of programming is devs frustrated at arbitrary limitations of syntax or modelling and forming new ones, with their own arbitrary limitations of syntax or modelling.

When your only tool is a FOR loop hammer, every set based operation frustratingly looks less like a nail than a screw.

joy at exposing the hypocrisy of others is a red flag of the ego.

You're asking those whose object problem model is a FOR loop not finding set based operations intuitive, efficient or ever necessary?

Chicken and egg, perhaps? OOO lives and breathes state, so complexity (defined as an excess of state consideration) seems a natural pairing, yet the overhead and complexity is increased by each in response to the necessity of the other? That is, when complexity of the problem shifts, there is a parallel increase in the complexity of the OOO solution.

The general anxiety of the movement towards functional or procedural programming in general might also be a feature of age: a young programmer eager to impress that they can juggle 8 balls effortlessly, but called upon to do the same 15 years later might admit 3 balls sufficed to begin with, and is closer to an attainable sustainable solution.

And dismissing the old is one way that youth make themselves feel they know better.

I asked Spector about his 'immersive simulations' comment some years back:

"I just prefer games that are less puzzle oriented or "single-solution" oriented and games that offer deeper simulations. Simulations allow players to explore not just a space but a "possibility space." They can make their own fun... tell their own stories... solve problems the way they want and see the consequences of their choices."

Maybe precursors to todays sandbox game environments then.

Storing it without availability is the same as it not existing.

Hedonic adaptation's a b, but it did get us out of the caves.

People bought into the seductive lie of fairness is what happened, even when the sentiment was the opposite.

Compare "blood is thicker than water", which was rooted in the opposite conclusion, that the blood of the covenant is thicker than water of the womb, i.e. your relationships and social bonds outcompete genetic ties.

The failing of meritocracy is that it is tautological; those who succeed did so because they must have been successful. It can't bear scrutiny because, as it turns out, we can have neither fair nor equal grounds for competition (if we're measuring results as comparative, which is the case here), but people secretly desire unfairness as long as there's a chance they will benefit, even if they are not the beneficiary of a given instance or result. See monarchies, lotteries, CEO pay discrepancies, etc... what matters is there was an arbitrary chance you're dealt out at the top.

>* The IT community, despite the majority being some form of an intellectual

That's your first error. Any trade can encompass a swath of subjects and nuances from history to technology, niche technique and even underlying mathematics thousands of years old, including those that built the floor your chair is on right now, but you'd probably drive by a construction site thinking the mouth breathers are right where big brother market sorted their 'intellect' to.