aftoprokrustes

While I prefer expressive type systems by a long shot, I would be much more careful about it "guaranteeing correctness".

Types can act as good documentation and as a safeguard for stupid mistakes. But the worst bugs are due to logic mistakes, wrong assumptions or non-foreseen corner cases. Here, either types do not help, or designing the type system is so difficult it is not worth the effort, and makes many future changes more difficult.

In my previous company we used Scala (with and without Spark) for everything, and this setup pretty much allows you both extremes. There was always a middle ground to be found, where types were expressive enough that they were useful, but not too much that they came in the way.

I would go one step further: why would the question be irrelevant for a janitor? Let's say you search for a janitor for a high school. You have three good candidates. One just applied randomly. One lives just around the corner, and wanted to find a workplace where he would not have to drive for hours. The third one lives far away but loves interacting with teenagers: for instance, he is a karate instructor in his spare time.

Feels relevant to me. You can apply for a janitor job in a lot of places, so it cannot hurt to ask whether there is a reason to choose this particular one. As other said, just saying "I need a job and this fits my profile" should be an acceptable option.

Let's not pretend that question is what will make or break the interview. I always see it more as an ice breaker to get the discussion started.

My feeling is that people with a more mathematical background tend to like developping DSLs that look more like math than code, and is typically written once and then thrown away; whereas people with a more software engineering background tend to prefer code that is more explicit about what it does, and have a better understanding about long term implications for maintenanability/extensibility. Which for me is the summary of the R versus Python debate in general.

One can see that in the JVM world with java vs scala: people attracted to scala tend to like "cute" DSL, java people tend to be more careful with shiny new features. (This is an oversimplification, of course)

Specifically for dplyr: it looks cute and tends to be easier to use in a REPL setting (you can build your pipeline step by step by running your command, looking at the output, get the command from history, add a step, run again; and at the end you get a single line to copy paste in your script). But if you want to wrap it in a function, it tends to create issues.

Note that "insight" meditation without Samadhi/Jhana practice is sometimes called "dry insight", and a lot of "insight" focused teachers still emphasize Smadhi/Jhana as an important part of practice.

Also note that generally, traditional Buddhism tends to see building virtue in everyday life as a necessary prerequisite for meditation. You can be a lay Buddhist by being virtuous but not meditating, but not the other way around. A lot of people in our western culture tend to approach it the other way, with meditation as the defining practice and virtue as a secondary thought. I remember hearing of a meditation teacher who loved to start meditation retreats by saying something like "most of you would probably benefit more from hosting a family of refugees, rather than coming to a silent retreat", which would upset quite a few participants. If you want to ground this in meditation, practices such as "loving kindness" meditation are very helpful, and can help overcome/avoid a dark night.

There are also other more "modern" "traditions" (if you can call something that is at most a few decades old a tradition) that can help deepening insight into emptiness _while_ also increasing a sense of wonder and respect for the world, rather than falling into nihilism. I am in particular thinking in Rob Burbea's "Soulmaking Dhamma". To summarize it, he proposes that, given the insight that there is no reality without a "way of looking" (his way to summarize emptiness), it is not only OK to embrace a way of looking, but we have flexibility in doing so - and switching between such ways of looking in this way helps deepen insight into emptiness, rather than lead to delusion.

This does not make immune to feelings of confusion and grief, but can help work with them. Also note I am by no way a spiritual teacher, and what helped me might not help you.

They are the same, but in a different language. Jhana is Pāli, Dhyana is Sanskrit. Pāli ist the language of the oldest collection of discourses of the Buddha, on which Theravada buddhism is based. Sanskrit appeared later and is often used in Mahayana traditions.

As far as I know both Pāli and Sanskrit are artificially created languages, by merging various Indian dialects of the time, for the purpose of communicating spiritual/religious teachings across ethnic boundaries.

In the case of the Pali canon, the Buddha always re-orients the questions whenever asked about the nature of the universe or of reality, to teach the "noble truths" of suffering, its origin, its cessation and the path to its cessation. I am not aware of any text in the Pali canon where the Buddha would be teaching in order to see "things as they are". It is just not the point of his teaching.

A central concept in Buddhism is actually "emptiness", or the absence of inherent existence of all phenomena. It is sometimes used in Mahayana teachings as "the way things really are", but as I said, this is subtle and confusing, because "the way things really are" is that they do not have independent existence. I would not venture interpreting those strands of teaching too much, as I am not famliar enough with them.

I heard those arguments from various sources, mostly from Thanissaro Bikkhu and Rob Burbea. They are both westerners, formed in the Theravada tradition and scholars of the Pali canon (able to read it in the original language), which I think actually makes them particularly well suited to identify points that might be misinterpreted from a western reader.

Not even need for drugs. Just give a good, intense, long stare at your hand. I bet before long, a weird sense of "this is not mine/me" or it being very uniquely unique, rather than a "hand", or being an empty set of parts, etc. will emerge.

Or, alternatively, you can consciously switch how you see it. A hand. Me. A bunch of molecules. Remnants of an old supernova. The results of millions of years of evolution. The tool with which you can communicate the depth of your love to your child by gently stroking them. Just actively changing the "name" you give it will change the way you perceive it, sometimes subtly, sometimes quite radically.

If you are interested in this kind of things, I would recommend the teachings or Rob Burbea. His whole works are built around exploring this topic.

I guess you mean "the entire eastern philosophy" in your last sentence.

I absolutely agree that there is a lot of parallels with Buddhist descriptions of "co-dependent arising", but there are also important differences. Buddhism is focused on suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the path to its cessation. It is a practical path, and everything that is not related to this path is out of its scope.

But I would disagree that eastern philosophy explores this "much richly". The article cites Kant and Husserl in the second paragraph. And the whole idea of seeing "things as they really are" was imported to Buddhist thought by western thinkers[1]. This idea is present in currents of the 3 Abrahamic traditions, in great part through the influence of neo-platonism from the 3rd century onward.

This kind of concept is present in mysticism in all 3 Abrahamic traditions, though in a different language.

As a Buddhist practitioner turned mystically inclined Christian, I would argue that there are lots of facets to look at this, from a wide array of traditions, and all have their place and value. One of the hardest things to do is not to immediately dismiss them by analogy with waht we already think we know, e.g. "oh yeah that's just good ol' teaching of the emptiness of all phenomena, I know that!", without rejecting what one learned until now either. What is beyond word can be described in countless ways, and each of them can help shed a new light and reveal holes in ones current understanding of "reality", if you let it do its work.

[1] you could argue that it is part of some Mahayana traditions, but the way they describe it is so foreign that if you do not engage with it for years, theoretically and practically, you will understand it through a "romantic" lense.

As other commenters said, what you describe could actually be considered a secret code.

But in the specific german case, the code is not even that secret. This is a formal document with a very specific structure, and very standardized phrases. There is even specific software to generate the text out of performance ratings. Basically something like this:

- John was overal engaged: he is a lazy bastard

- John was engaged: he is OK

- john was very engaged: he is good

- john was always very and thoroughly engaged: he is very good

Thank you, it is great to have the opinion of someone actually practicing this. I was indeed wondering if regular lectio of a text would lead almost automatically to memorizing it, but it seems not to be the case.

Still, I could imagine that the new testament is more easily memorized by getting "involved" in the story. I have this impression mostly by comparing with the pali canon (the oldest set of sacred buddhist scripture): buddhist pali texts (with a few exceptions, such as the dhammapada) are very technical and contain very little in terms of "story", and their structure contains much more repetition and structured lists than the bible. So much so that all written versions I know of abridge the repetitions, as it would otherwise be extremely boring to read. That biblical texts (or more poetic pali texts) did not have to resort to this makes me think that the meaning and emotional involvement with the text indeed helps in memorizing it.

I actually came here to comment on how this memorization "technique" or "strategy" reminded me of what is done in some religions. Catholic meditation, for instance, is structured around _lectio divina_ and _meditatio_: the former means reading a sacred text slowly and attentively, "listening to it as if it was spoken by God". The latter means, after that careful reading, to ponder the text, take the time to reflect deeply on its possible meaning(s).

I have no idea if your pastor had this kind of practice, but from the article, if he did, it might have helped him memorize the texts. And the memorization, in turn, moght help focusing more and more on the meaning, rather than the words.

Also note that, as far as I know, all texts in the bible (except maybe some parts of the new testament, I am not sure) were transmitted orally for periods ranging from decades to centuries before being written down, and are structured in a way that helps memorization.

We tend to think of memorization as unnecessary if we have unlimited access to the text, but this discussion actually makes me wonder whether memorization might be a powerful way to "unlock" the hidden meaning of some texts.

I will not comment on the technical part, as others already did it better than I could, but it just reminded me of an anecdote that reminds of the importance of such trivial things as a period at the end of a sentence:

In Germany, where I work, it is usual at the end of employement to ask for a letter of recommendation ("Zeugnis") that lists the tasks performed, and how good the employee was. It is an important document, as it will typcally be required when applying for jobs. Obviously, no employee would accept a document explicitly stating "this guy is a lazy bastard, do not hire him", so there is a "Zeugnissprache", a "secret code" to disguise this information as praise. One part of this code is that a missing period in the last sentence means "please ignore everything said here, this guy is horrible".

How do I know? I let a lawyer check my Zeugnis after my last employment, and (I assume out of lack of care, as all my performance reviews were positive) the last sentence was missing the period.

I agree that the citation does sound cold and coercitive, but actually this is already kind of how streets and urban developments are designed. Human drivers are limited, so if you allow cars to go fast, you restrict or remove the right to be walking close to the road (highways). Conversely, if you want to give more room to pedestrians, you decrease the speed limit, reduce lane width, etc. such that they are able to react accordingly. Nothing wrong with that in principle.

Now, this does not say anything about the Waymo incident. In that case, the car performed an illegal maneuver, which cannot be blamed on other street users.