Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
You don't need to believe in a higher being, it is true; but you must believe in something.
Well, what are you going to replace it with? Advocates of what some call "scientism" think that science can replace value systems, like religion, when it comes to making decisions about how one should act. In the aftermath of 20th-century megalomania, Eric Hoffer called out the True Believer who, although godless, was nevertheless anything but irreligious.
Will there ever be evidence that anything at all is "good" or meaningful? There are self-styled rational people who want to help others live lives that are free of "delusion" and contribute to the "well-being" of humanity, as if those things were somehow valuable. Yet, when pressed on what exactly well-being consists of, or whether people ought to have it or not, or the point of humanity in the first place, I get the sort of make-believe these people are trying to save me from.
There is no meaning in the universe that isn't utterly make-believe. Our existence is an absurdity; nothing can be proved beyond its physical nature, and there is even a certain tenuousness about that. Perhaps the most dangerous and deluded people of all are the ones who think they are free from delusion because they haven't got religion.
Is this related to the work that Arkani Hamed and Trnka are doing with Ampletuhedrons? They have discovered a geometry that simplifies calculations and that suggests space and time might not be fundamental to physics.
I've read stories that indicate exactly the opposite - that night people are more successful. Also, I question the study. Among other points, GPA and academic success often has no relation to success later in life.
Also, multiple studies have shown early risers tend to lose energy and peter out in the afternoons and evenings, where night people may take time to get going, but after they get going, they can continue in marathon sessions going from the afternoon, through the night, and well into the next day with ease - something few morning people can do without serious difficulty.
There are also studies that indicate a higher intelligence among night people. They're the ones that manipulate the environment to their needs and desires, compared to morning people who respond to something like the rising of the sun. The ability to manipulate one's environment for the conditions one desires is also a trait found in successful people.
While that may work for many people, I've had two times, due to hurricanes, in recent years, where I did not have artificial light in the evening. Both times the power outage lasted 8 or more days and it did little to shift my sleep schedule, so I'm not so sure that applies to everyone.
But, taking it as it is, I've also read studies that point out that nightbirds are modifying the environment to suit themselves, which would support the point that night people tend to handle marathon sessions better, since they're intentionally altering their environment to allow them to work as long as they can. It's also possible that the habits attributed to morning and to night people are from other factors and that the early bird or late night habits are an outgrowth of other personality factors.
I've seen, over and over, night people going on for hours and hours - many more hours than can be accounted for by the time difference of when they started and when morning people started. I've also read a few studies about that as well - that night people are better for marathon sessions. If I can start at noon or 1 PM and be sure I'm uninterrupted, I can often keep going in good form until after sun-up the next day. That's much longer than finishing at 9 PM when you've started any time on that day.
There are a lot of jokes about morning and night people, but studies show there is validity to this. I learned to work with this when teaching special ed and later, when I ran my own software company, where I did all the programming, I saw a dramatic illustration of some of those issues.
Morning people get up and are perky and ready to start. However, they're the ones who often need a nap in the afternoon and work well with an 8 hour day, but do not do well with marathon sessions. Night people do not start quickly. They wake up and need time to adjust to the world again and often are not ready to really focus until the afternoon. But they gain in strength and focus over time. They can often work marathon sessions, working all through the night and into the next morning.
I found that when I was coding and could work on my own schedule, I could get some work done in the afternoon and this is when I set things up, did simpler tasks, and caught up on things. But my real work hours started about 8:00 pm, when I could start focusing and I would often work through until sunrise or longer. 18 hour coding sessions were not unusual for me, but, of course, if I did a few in a row because I was working on something difficult, then I'd need several days to just recover. But I might be able to do 5 days straight of mega-sessions if needed. It's also worth noting this was in my 40s, not when I was some over-energetic teen or 20-something. In fact, in one month, when I was over 45, I did more all-nighters (with good code as a result) than I did in all my time in high school and college combined.
It does vary according to the person. Forcing night people to try to work in the morning will always be an issue for them and will not produce the good code they can produce. Forcing morning people who tend not to do well in marathons to stay for 10 hour days four times a week is just as bad.
Corporations don't understand these things, which is one reason I never wanted to be involved with any larger corporations. If you want coders to do their best work, you can't regiment them and dictate how they work. You need to let them find their style. Let them work on their own schedule. If they need music, let them have it. If they need silence, find a way to make quiet places available. Some need neat work spaces, others need chaos.
I use, "663 N 7th St (Leave Cookies)". I don't know if no one has left cookies or if someone is monitoring the cookie situation and taking them.
663 N 7th (leave cookies)
I punched in TI BASIC code from the magazine pages and saved my programs on a cassette tape. I also learned some TI LOGO. That was in 1983. In '84, I remember programming in Atari BASIC in a school club.
I've been this close to purchasing both the compact edition and the full edition (used). My point was that they need a more accessible online pricing structure for people who occasionally "need" access to The Dictionary. It just seems so strange to me that I can't spend $20.00 for access to 20 words or something like that.
I would love to use the OED occasionally and wouldn't mind paying to do so, but who can afford to spend $295 per year for a subscription?
I have to assume that they are not all idiots and that they actually have some subscribers at that price point, but I can't imagine that that model makes the most money possible. I want to look up maybe one word a month, and I would be willing to pay to do so, but I can't pay $295 a year (or even $29.95 per month).
A friend of mine went to Cuba on vacation and noted that pretty much every cabbie, hotel maid, and bus driver had at least a Master's degree. Largely courtesy of two things: free higher education and a lack of jobs to keep people out of school.
On the plus side, I hear that Cuban doctors are pretty good.