Mostly because of the Maker's Schedule vs. Manager's Schedule (https://www.paulgraham.com/makersschedule.html) issue. It's really hard to be in a role that deals with a lot of randomization and then sit and focus for 4 hours straight on something.
The Last Viking - a biography of explorer Roald Amundsen
The Wager- a book about a ship by the same name which wrecked in the Drake Passage.
Eccentric Orbits - about the Iridium constellation.
The Great Bridge by David McCullough - goes into a pretty good amount of detail in the engineering and sub-problems of construction of the Brooklyn Bridge.
There is a story in Hitchhikers about a nightclub full of robots. No real people. Just loud music and bots trying to get the attention of non-existent human customers. Adams predicted the current state of twitter long before even the internet was a thing.
Yes, the case would be stronger with specific examples. However, I did not find it alienating, as examples of these 6 myths readily come to mind. We see people appeal to expertise all the time, rather than using their expertise to explain. There are lots of examples of people trying to "solve" economics problems rather than, as Thomas Sowell puts it, realizing that there are no solutions but only trade-offs.
I work at a FAANG (and obviously, I'm not a company spokesperson, just sharing my own experience). Those who are passionate about interviewing internally all seem to agree on not asking leetcode questions. I know leetcode questions get asked anyway, but there's pretty clear internal guidance and training for interviewers saying not to use them.
At least part of the problem is that leetcode questions are easy to ask, and most interviewers don't want to go through the hassle of coming up a question that scales well to the candidate's experience and knowledge.
> “We should phase in new energy sources and technologies when they are genuinely ready, economically competitive and with the right infrastructure,”
On the one hand, that seems like a reasonable approach. On the other hand, if we only have on the order of decades of known oil reserves, we'll have to phase out of oil use at some point (likely in most of our lifetimes), no?
> It’s difficult to type and think at the same time
I'm pretty good at typing, but not anything special, at around 90-95 words per minute. I type while thinking all the time, although usually the thinking is the slow part.
Other have mentioned speed and accuracy, but one thing that has been a huge advantage to me is being able to type confidently enough while not looking at the keyboard or screen (or only checking infrequently). It is pretty helpful to be able to have a conversation looking at the person while taking notes, rather than saying "let me write that down" every 5 seconds, interrupting the flow of the conversation.
I don't know much German, so I can't read the original article.
It would be helpful to know if by "they might otherwise engage in climate protests," the people in question had planned to just say things but otherwise stay out of the way, or if rather the people in question had made public their plans to break laws (like blocking traffic, which many climate protesters have been doing lately). In the one case there is no crime, and governments shouldn't be detaining people just in case they commit a crime later. In the other case, even if someone isn't a terrorist, planning on breaking the law is itself a crime, and it's not "preventative detention."
They haven't been convicted of anything, they're being detained anyway. This is not the same as pre-trial detention, if Google Translate is a remotely accurate rendering of the linked article:
"Legally, this police approach is called preventive detention because it is not detention for a crime that has been committed. The police laws of the different states allow this for different lengths of time. In Bavaria, up to one month in prison is permitted, which may be extended by a judge for a maximum of another month.
The so-called preventive or preventive detention is very controversial. The relevant laws were originally created to prevent terrorists from carrying out attacks. However, this form of detention is now also permitted in the case of the “imminent commission or continuation of an administrative offense of considerable importance for the general public,” as the Bavarian police law states. Lawsuits against this have so far been rejected in Bavaria. However, a final clarification about the legality of this approach is still pending."
I had a math professor in college, whom I had for Real Analysis. He told us that one thing that helped him learn was to ask somewhat-obvious sounding questions to try to make connections to things to check understanding. There are at least two good reasons for this: (1) if you don't understand the basic (unsurprising) things, you probably won't understand the more nuanced things, and (2) what counts as surprising varies with the audience.
If someone were to come to me looking for advice along these lines, I'd say: sure, focus on the surprising thing, but it has to be grounded in the familiar, and what counts as "familiar" depends on the audience.
