In Greek mythology, Artemis is a goddess of the moon and the twin sister of Apollo. It seems a rather obvious choice for a program determined to land the first woman on the moon.
So let's just allow people to lie and promote violence or even committing crimes 'cuz there's an ammendment that protects that.
BTW does anyone in Amerikka even understand what the heck "ammending" even means...?
If it's not working, change it. Not that I expect people who think Texas' electricity bills aren't fucked up to understand that "maaaaybe you're not actually right"...
But yeah. To be plain, maybe you're wrong. Probably. Most likely.
There are many Americans who understand that the first amendment protects bad behavior, but support it nonetheless. Their support usually boils down to:
1. The alternative, censorship, is worse when it inevitably is turned against you.
2. Even if censorship is better, it violates individual rights, which are sacred and cannot be abridged except in a narrow range of cases.
It is possible that people with viewpoints that differ from your own are not “wrong”, they just have different values.
You are sorely mistaken if you think society would be better off with laws against lying. Crimes are already illegal. There is already an accepted legal definition for inciting violence.
> So let's just allow people to lie and promote violence or even committing crimes
There's a difference between a demagogue and an individual who threatens or assaults another. Nobody is arguing the latter is not a criminal.
But for the former, what I've often observed is that demagogues are very good at dog-whistling; they're adept at finding the razor's edge between dog-whistling and outright calls to violence. They're also great at spinning any perceived censorship into proof of their righteous "dissent" which plays right into their hand.
So to come back to the statement you made, presumably in exaggeration -- yes, we do have to allow people to lie if we want free speech. The destructive viral effect of such lies can only be addressed scalably with some kind of an immune system.
You cannot solve societal or cultural problems with legislation. Then you will have two problems. Solving the root of America's problem with demagoguery requires solving the root. That is very tricky considering America's history as the world's police force. These aren't problems that can be fixed in a generation even when there is a common desire to fix them.
Front-end now has an "ecosystem". Now everyone loves Babel and EcmaScriot 6 and JS is starting to look a lot like Java shit, and there are build tools every-fucking-where. If Front-End devs had JS as their Ruby, build tools are the shitty assets pipeline with the damned turbolinks. They promise awesome, they get in your way all the time.
Pro-tip: Decide on an MVP, then research frameworks and Libraries. I suggest taking a look at Progressive Web Apps, the deciding on React, Angular or Vue, then deciding on some material design library/UI Kit.
Remember that, if you use Google's repo to start a Progressive Web App (Or pretty much any boilerplate nowadays), it will use Gulp (Or Grunt or Bower or whatever). Anything you wanna plug, first thing to do is integrating with it. If it uses Babel, check that you can import it and that it doesn't depend on Globals, and write everything in ES6. If it doesn't, your code may be messier but you won't hate your life as much, so rejoice. Integrating everything early and properly will save you many hours, especially if you use ES6/Babel.
For the back-end, NodeJS is great but, as with front-end, a mess, Elixir feels like Ruby from the future (And Phoenix is to Elixir what Rails is to Ruby), but it's still small, Ruby and Python are still there and pretty solid, and PHP still sucks.
MySQL is still out there but if you're not going the PostgreSQL way then check MariaDB, it's Open Source MySQL being updated by the original MySQL team.
For Deployment and/or managing this shitload of dependencies (NodeJS versions, databases, webservers and whatnot) you may want to check Docker, though it may be overkill if you're not going all the way down the rabbit hole.
Edit: Forgot to add, instead of freelancing jump at some lesser known open source projects. Maintainers will usually welcome your help, and will also help you figure stuff out. Maintainers win, you win, the community wins.
I use Gitlab and the DB issue only affected me in regards to CI, and I believe this is true to anyone that was affected at all.
They did a manual Backup before meddling with stuff so they only lost data from a really small timeframe.
CI downtime, on the other hand, is troublesome. I love using Gitlab CI and it didn't take me more than a few minutes to manually deploy what I had to, but I decided I need most of my CI to be controlled by me.
The end result is a simple refactor of my test and deploy specs to their own rake tasks (Could be Bash scriots or whatever) and I'll have Gitlab run a simple gle command, if it goes down I run the command manually...
Now some eventual downtime is not such a deal breaker anymore, and I continue having private repos and CI (Awesome CI) for even the smallest (And private) projects I work on... Not a bad deal if I do say so myself.
Finding something that applies to both (Or in this case something that works in neither, which makes it even clearer) is not the same as treating both as requiring the same solutions.
Assumes Correlation and Causation, ignores Social and Economic situations of the twins groups, doesn't account for the fact that identical twins tend to share (being geared towards) more experiences due to being perceived almost as a single "being", ignores cultural differences in upbringing of different-gender twins, doesn't account for indirect training (i.e. strategy, memorization, sequential steps etc. are parts of a Chess game), doesn't account for perception of time (Time passes slowly when we don't like what we're doing) and completely ignores training "quality" (Playing chess against newbies is useless as practice, playing against masters is enlightening).
It's ALSO not your "fault" that you do not excel at something. Your experiences ever since you were a baby shaped you, your tastes and pretty much determined your whole life.
Still, there is no talent, ask any great programmer, musician, illustrator or whatever, every single one of them will say he/she was shitty, but loved it, so kept doing it. This doesn't completely discards the possibility of genetic disposition to liking something, but undeniably everyone starts on even ground.
Obviously, being complex areas they are affected by many indirect skills, and the more something is loved, the safer it is to assume the indirect skills involved are also loved or at least liked, indirect skills matter. Clearly fiddling with computers and watching movies that involve technology is not programming, but will make you better at it.
In the end, the best explanation so far is that your tastes are the defining factor. And yes, it can be argued that tastes are genetic, but currently there's not nearly enough data to debunk the standing theory, we need more studies and we need better studies, taking all variables into account and actually monitoring the subjects throughout their lives.
Maybe in 50 years we'll find out where our tastes come from. Not that it actually matters since it's out of our control anyways.
I've got over a decade of deliberate and intense study and practice in programming. I love it and I love learning new things about it. I've worked in half a dozen professional languages and over a dozen for fun. I give conference talks and have two books out. And yet several people I work with can absolutely run circles around me due to much better long and short term memory. For every hour I put in, they can get farther with ten minutes. I only hold my own in the same league as them with 5x more effort. It's absolutely possible that there is a "wet-ware" component to mastery.
And you probably run circles around a lot of people. If anybody said you were gifted it would be a lie, it's the result of dedication. I've never seen anyone say "I have talent", and I've been to music and computer science colleges. I've seen a lot of people saying that other people have talent though.
But my point is not that everyone faces the same hardships, is just that those hardships or lack thereof are not genetic but acquired, probably mostly during early childhood but I'm not a psychologist so I don't know.
I just think we shouldn't dismiss achievements as a result of just talent (or luck). Luck actually plays a role, as well as many other things (As I said, economic and social situations and a lot more).
We just need to be sceptical of linking stuff to genes, humans are not so simple. There are many other factors at play, and even if we can't change ourselves, we may be able to raise our kids better by considering these subtleties and their possible impact.
Plus those "geniuses" love when people acknowledge their hard work, try talking to them about it. I find the amount of effort some people put into their craft to be staggering.
No everyone doesn't. Some people are born sick, some have better cardio, some take more weight easily, some people are born twice as big, some grow very little...
And it's the same with mind abilities. Your mind have various qualities, and you are not born equals to others. Some can concentrate better, some can abstract less, some more creative, some are shy.
Add all the differences, and yes, you have people that will have an easier time than others. Bolt and Tyson have been trained, but they started with a nice base to work on.
And obviously some people have easier or harder times. I am simply more aligned with modern humanist psychology, believing environment is way more relevant than genetics.
This doesn't mean you're at fault for sometimes having a hard time keeping up, this just means that it's most likely not in your genes.
Still, there is no talent, ask any great programmer, musician, illustrator or whatever, every single one of them will say he/she was shitty, but loved it, so kept doing it. This doesn't completely discards the possibility of genetic disposition to liking something, but undeniably everyone starts on even ground.
Yes, technically, no one is born knowing trig or calculus, but the people with genetic gifts make the transition from 'shitty' to 'good' much faster than those without such endowments, all else being equal. An elementary school environment where all children come from similar backgrounds and are young enough that 1000's of hours of practice is impossible, teachers can readily identify the gifted from the average--the gifted tend to know so much more and learn so much faster than everyone else (in the classroom environment, where parenting cannot be a factor), and it cannot possibly be explained by parenting or practice, because these children are so young and otherwise are very homogeneous. This is because gifted children learn with fewer repetitions (due to superior working memory and or other factors), which is key.
> it cannot possibly be explained by parenting or practice, because these children are so young and otherwise are very homogeneous
I disagree; parenting during the earliest years makes a huge difference. By the time they get to elementary school, some parents have been reading to their kids and some haven't, some parents gave their kids more educationally incline toys and some didn't, and some kids, whether by parental choice or by chance, have been watching more educational programs on television or less.
Early brain development is fast enough that even a few years of environmental factors can absolutely make a difference.
Finger length is relevant factor in piano play. Most people dont hear soinds as well as pro-musicians, our ears webe born less good. That would be talent. More generally, fine motor skills are simply not equal between children even when the kid tries hard.
The importance of right genes is pretty clear when you look at sports. Different sports favor different body types and if you don't have one, you won't suceed.
Not sure what it's called in English, but there's perfect/absolute hearing, in which a person somehow knows the actual frequency of a note.
I know a couple musicians that have it, one of them lost it in an accident, both studied a lot, and most musicians I know, including some of the most successful ones, don't have this.
It's a good point, but empirically not verifiable, musicians train to identify intervals (Even the ones with perfect hearing), and in a similar discussion in class when I studied for a music degree, the only things the class disagreed were the impact of perfect hearing in the likelihood of becoming a musician, and that there may be some innate ability to maintain rhythm. On everything else we were unanimous in believing there is no such thing as talent.
Now you're free to believe differently, still, people that you think have "talent" will mostly be offended and feel that their hard work is not being recognized. Phelps isn't amazing BECAUSE of his body. His body is just a very small part of what makes him awesome, and though maybe a bit less awesome, he could still be awesome with a different body.
Had to stop reading at "...largely mythical war between science and religion..."
History, countries, continents were shaped by religion persecuting shit. Paganism was burned at the stake, and herbal medicine in European cultures is almost inexistent when compared to Asian and (Native) American cultures. Religion wages war on everything, which is epitomized by the crusades.
Galileo was persecuted because he voiced uncomfortable truths. Much like Einstein and many others, he wasn't the only one who knew those truths. And much like Einstein, he had the passion and the guts to pursue his path and voice his findings.
This is his merit, and calling it Hyperbolic to recognize the worth of someone risking their life for something shows at the very least a very poor understanding of history.
A good way to criticize history would be to focus on the "History is written by the winners" though.
