There are times for documentation and times for no documentation. As so many on slashdot are fond of pointing out "Software Developers are not Engineers". Having been an engineer that changed careers 15 years back, I know that to be very true (although the implied superiority in this statement is unwarranted). Creating an API that is intended to be consumed outside of your direct team? Document that sucker.

All that code inside, implementing that API? Waste of time. Good commenting + unit tests will be better than any word doco. In-fact, providing a little stripped to the bones demo app, implementing each api call (with a little comment around each piece), that is built as part of your project, is better than a pdf any day of the week.

Generally though, documentation is all about who you are communicating with. Co-located team members? Waste of time. Distributed geo-location teams? Make sure the boundaries are very well documented. Selling something to be consumed externally? Document, provide examples, provide demos. Mostly it's just common sense.

Where did you get Euclid from? No one is talking about Euclid except you. No one is suggesting the Babylonians were the first to "invent" trigonometry (mathematical concepts aren't invented, hence why you can't patent them). They were the first to use them, but we already knew that. What's interesting about this if that they used them way before we knew, but also that they were able to perform pratical trig (with triangles), in a completely different and novel way, without angles. What's more, this approach has pratical advantages over our current methods (albeit somewhat redundant since the calculator).

Clearly you have spent approximately 0 seconds reviewing this study. It is a table (much like a sine or cos table back in the pre-calculator era), and the missing bit was really just an explanation as to the why of the table. These guys have "reverse engineered" that with a combination of math (how the numbers are related) and an understanding of how the sexagesimal system and babloynian use of it influenced their practical use of math.

Both

That's absolutely true and also why the discovery is so interesting. It is trigonometry. Trigonometry without angles. The authors have a YouTube video which is very informative Here. There are so many interesting things about this. Angles are not needed to work with triangles. The sexagesimal numbering system had many advantages over our current decimal system from an application perspective. It's just a whole new way of thinking about trig. Anyway, it's well worth 20 minutes of your time.

So people who habitually seek out a stimulate are more likely to also be the the same people who go on to seek out other stimulates you say?

There are plenty of functional alcoholics, smokers, even users of heroin. Just because you've managed to incorporate it into your life doesn't mean your not addicted, or that it's a good thing. But in general I completely agree with you, it's just that most addicts are incapable of realizing that they have a problem on their own. (I.e. I'm not addicted! It's not hurting anyone!)

I note the "insightful" article is written by an anonymous author, as I wouldn't want my name tarnished with this steaming pile either. There is nothing of value here. Nothing. I note that "syndeq" simply spams articles from this CIO website, driving traffic there I suppose. Slashdot is a waste of time these days. I still come here out of habit, but it's a habit I need to kick.

What you're saying makes sense. This article makes me wonder about the state of brain-machine interfacing. Obviously at a very crude level, brain to hand to machine to eye to brain interfacing already exists, but the bandwidth is somewhat low. If we were to leave out possible ethical considerations for the moment, is there anything you could implant into the skull of a baby monkey say, that would allow the brain to interface in a bi-directional way with large bandwidth? Is there anything we can implant that can be inside the skull long term without health effects with current or soon to be realized technology?

A quick google of "problems with Git" will quickly reveal the various challenges that git brings to the table, for example git push --force. More generally, any team using git needs to decide on a workflow and carefully adhere to it. How do we manage merge workflows? To rebase or not to rebase? etc. With traditional source control, this is significantly easier.

I'm not anti-git, far from it. I introduced Git into the company I work for and love it; and it is absolutely the best source control system for distributed teams that exists. If you have distributed teams, it's an absolute must. But if you can't see that it's more complex, then you obviously haven't had the wonderful experience of having to field complaining from 30+ developers and having to fix the amazingly inventive ways in which they have managed to screw things up.

The problem with git, and I don't see it as a major problem, is not that it's hard to get up and running, but rather that you can quite easily get into the kind of trouble that needs expert knowledge to get out of. If you don't happen to have a git expert handy; well, you are going to have a very bad day. In this git shares the same problem as most very powerful tools, for example C. So I agree with the original poster, if you need the facilities of git, then you'd be an idiot to not use it, but if you don't, then other tools are better for simpler uses cases. Much like using something like python makes a huge amount of sense for certain applications, and zero sense for writing kernels.

Which is why this study is so interesting. It essentially replicated this exact effect. The mice had decreased motivation (locomotion speed) after directly tinkering the serotonin up, but over a longer time scale they had increased locomotion from their base levels. Essentially replicating the human experience, and providing a much more direct way to study the effects of this particular chemical. This is interesting science as we still have very little understanding about Serotonin.

Which is exactly what they did and you clearly didn't read the article.

The decreased motivation (physical movement speed) was only temporary. The study showed that over a longer period of increased Serotonin, locomotion speed was up by 30%-40% from starting levels; the researches are looking at this as an explanation as to why SSRI drugs take about 3 weeks to start working.

Myers Briggs is basically star signs in more authentic sounding packaging. The Big 5 is not related and the MBIT definition of what is "extroversion" is not the same as in the Big 5. You may well be high on the Big 5 extroversion scale, just not on the Myers Briggs one.

This article you linked is a critique of the Myers Briggs star-sign consistency nonsense and in support of the reliable and scientifically backed Big 5. Maybe you should read articles all the way to end eh?