vukmir

Most of the content that I watch and the content creators that I'm subscribed to comes from the recommendations. As far as I'm concerned, the algorithm works great.

To this day the name of the professor brings a smile to my face. If I remember correctly, I didn't even plan to take this course (had no interest in finance), but after watching the Intro video I was hooked.

There's a shortage of talent willing to work 80 hours a week and get paid for 20. There's a shortage of talent with 5 years of experience in technology that is 3 years old. There's a shortage of talent willing to jump through an absurd number of hoops in order to work for you.

In early 2000s, Microsoft basically told Win32 API developers to either migrate to .NET or to go fuck themselves. There was a lot of FUD flying around. At one point, people were wondering will the new Visual Studio ship with C/C++ compiler.

In it's quest to promote .NET, Microsoft even got Borland to kill itself by jumping on the .NET train. The days of native Windows development were over and the best alternative to MS stack, Borland with its Delphi, decided to commit suicide.

That was the chance for D to shine. I was among the developers looking for non-MS solution for native Windows development and D was my favorite, but the Tango vs. Phobos thing killed it for me.

Like many developers at that time, I left Windows for the Web development. If D was then what is now, I would stay with Windows a bit longer than I did.

D is what C++ should have been. It had some traction in mid-2000s but the Tango vs. Phobos debacle killed it.

Go is the most serious of the three languages mentioned. It has the momentum, solid community, solid tooling, and corporate backing. It's well suited for networked services, but it is not replacement for C.

I'm not so sure about Rust. Unlike D and Go, Rust can replace C (in theory), but I don't think that will happen. Rust has a feel of a hobbyist language in perpetual alpha.

I guess I'm having a bad day and the author's malcolmgladwellization of the paradox of choice was too much...

I'm familiar with the Schwartz's paradox of choice, but the author is pushing it too far. Does anyone really agonize over trivial choices such as which bottle of water to buy? Is anyone really getting dehydrated and unable to chose among many alternatives? Does anyone even considers opportunity cost when making such trivial choices?

My problem is not with the paradox of choice, my problem is with the author's trivialization of it.

In my opinion that is unfair assessment. From my reading of the article, the author is attacking the overzealous evangelists, not the meditation per se.

Lie on your bed. Relax. Instead of trying to fall asleep (and thinking about it) think about making yourself as comfortable as possible. Turn this way, move your arm that way,... Once you've done it, the sleep usually follows. In short, think comfort not sleep.

P.S.

I've used to have troubles falling asleep, but that simple method helped me to solve the problem. I would give the credit to the original author, but I can't remember where I read it.

You don't have time for everything. Therefore, you must choose what to do, but also you must choose what not to do. That is the hard part - choosing what to let go. Once you did that, the rest is (comparatively) easy.

Ideally, devote yourself to one subject and immerse yourself in it. Stay focused, refuse to do anything else. You'll have distractions, you'll doubt your choice, but don't start anything else until you finish what you've started.

If you have to do two things at the time, split your day in two. In the morning do one subject, then take a break (have a lunch, go to walk,...) Then, you study the second one. This break is important, don't jump from one subject to the next without it.

In summary, make your choice and stick to it until completion. Ignore everything else.