dandelion_lover

Researcher

> That may be counterintuitive, but it's a mis-extrapolation from the fact that being poor really sucks.

I don't think it is so simple. Consider a totalitarian country. The people in the government have no skills which would help them achieve anything in a democratic country, but they are loyal to their leader and therefore are paid very well and do whatever they want. In a world without a meaning, such people chose the best path, because nothing else would make them (and their families) live so well. The oppressed people are suffering and revolting, but the police is also paid well and keeps them from changing the political situation.

In a world without a meaning, the best strategy here would be to join the oppressive government and get the profit, but some people still choose to revolt, even endangering their own lives. Are they stupid? (This is of course just one example of many similar ones).

> All I can offer is to note that you haven't given up already and therefore have some intution that there is some emotional state you might look for -- even though I assert that "meaning" isn't actually it.

Actually, I believe in the meaning of life, see my other post here. I cannot imagine why I would struggle through life otherwise...

> Ask yourself just what it is you think "meaning" might mean, and why you're so interested in it. What is the actual problem that you're hoping "meaning" will solve?

The actual problem is finding the reason to overcome the life challenges and not giving up, helping other people and not choosing a more simple path by cashing on people. If the meaning is lacking, then the latter are probably the most reasonable behaviours in life, aren't they?

Why are you so sure there is no meaning of life? We cannot know it, because we do not know everything about the world.

Maybe we just did not find it yet? It's not inside the knowledge we have, so it might be beyond it. To find it, we may need to expand our knowledge about the world, i.e., do science. This is how science may (temporarily) replace the meaning of life.

And you don't have to be a scientist yourself. Instead you may help it in any way you like: spreading knowledge in humanity, preventing conflicts, providing necessary services, etc.

But does this badge influence the scientific profile / resume of the researcher in any way?

The second case. However I am hesitating to ask to look at the code of my supervisor. How would I explain why I need it (if it's not needed for my research)? It's also unlikely user-friendly, so it would take a lot of time to understand anything.

> the distinction between "production-ready" and "science-ready" code

In the first case, you must take into account all (un)imaginable corner cases and never allow the code to fail or hang up. In the second case it needs to produce a reproducible result at least for the published case. And do not expect it to be user-friendly at all.

Or Fortran.

Most of the codes I am developing alone. No one else looks at them ever. My supervisor also develops the code alone and never shows it to anyone (not even members of the group).

In other cases, a couple of other researchers may have a look at my code or continue its development. I worked with 4+ research teams and only saw one professional programmer in one of them helping the development. Never heard about a "dedicated software assurance team".

The point is that there may be a meaning. You questions do not prove its lack.

I do not like your parallel. The question about the meaning of life can also have the answer "there is no". It does not assume anything under the hood.

The creatures you listed were necessary for the development of a human. They are also a part of the fragile balance of nature which keeps the living conditions on Earth. I am not saying everything has a meaning (I do not know). But I disagree that this is "an ill posed question".