I'm sorry but this is plain wrong. Not all programming jobs are the same. Has every coworker you've worked with had a solid grasp of the complete set of computer science fundamentals? I'd be surprised if that was the case for you, because in my case it's a definite no. But they still had the job and completed tasks didn't they?
I wrote the fundamentals are the same for all programming languages and frameworks. I didn’t write that “a solid grasp of the complete set of computer science fundamentals” is necessary for programming. I didn’t mention computer science at all. I was referring to the fundamentals of programming.
Reading and writing are fundamental skills required to learn and communicate. What one chooses to read or write follow from the fundamental skills. You don’t ask “How can I learn to read Harry Potter?” because learning to read anything comes first.
Ok so you were referring to the fundamentals of programing and not computer science. The term "fundamentals of" can mean different things depending on what you're referring to. The fundamentals of C programming could be said to encompass understanding the stack and the heap and how memory is allocated and operated on through pointers. Or the fundamentals of Python could be said to encompass understanding that the program is a made up of statements that are executed in order, and that there are loops, variables, and if statements. Learning to write basic Python program doesn't take years.
I thought I was clear stating that the fundamentals are the same for programming languages and frameworks.
Someone can learn Python syntax in a short time. That’s not the hard part of programming, though. It takes considerably more time to learn how to solve real problems with code, to understand and implement requirements, to work with a team, to learn any database. No company needs someone to write 2,000 more lines of Python.
The OP is asking the wrong question, probably with good intentions. Carpenters need to know how to use a saw and a hammer, but that’s just the beginning, and which brand of hammer and saw makes no difference because those are necessary but not sufficient skills.
> So, how come it sounds like the sound of the plane is behind the plane? It's got to do with sound attenuation in the atmosphere and your hearing threshold.
> So, it's not at all like in the article.
On the contrary it is indeed because of what the article is getting at. It's because the sound emitted by the airplane at one position reaches you significantly later than the light the plane reflects from that position reaches you. Maybe what you're describing is that the sound emitted when the airplane took off reaches you faster than the airplane reaches you which sure, it's correct - but the light still reaches you way way faster.
> - "If the plane was moving very slowly, it wouldn’t outpace its sound by much." That's completely wrong. "very slow" aircraft are much slower than their sound, and all commercial aircraft still are slower than their sound, all of them are outpaced by their sound rather than the other way around.
Even if the s̶o̶u̶n̶d̶ plane (edit: meant plane) travelled faster than sound, you would still see the airplane passing over you before the sound emitted from the airplane when it passed over you reaches you.
Minor nitpick:
- As an example, take an aircraft flying with 100 m/s
200 m/s would be a better example as the Boeing 737 (the most common commercial passenger jet) cruises at around 230 m/s
> "Even if the sound travelled faster than sound [sic] you would still see the airplane passing over you before the sound emitted from the airplane when it passed over you reaches you."
Absolutely not. It depends on the Mach number, distance, sound weakening, and your hearing threshold.
You cannot hear some crazyman running at you, screaming, until he has passed you? You cannot hear the stereo in some guy's car until after he passed you? You cannot hear a siren of police until the car has passed you? Or are what you describe special magical airplane-only physics?
> You cannot hear some crazyman running at you, screaming, until he has passed you? You cannot hear the stereo in some guy's car until after he passed you? You cannot hear a siren of police until the car has passed you?
For all of those things, you will see them pass you before you hear the sound they emitted when they were passing you. (Maybe not by enough to be noticeable, given the smaller distances involved)
Well yeah, if the plane is faster than its sound (and flying towards you), the plane will reach you earlier than the sound does. The plane does not get attenuated by flying farther, and your seeing threshold is helped by the sun or the lights the aircraft turns on at night.
Of course you hear the siren or crazy man or anything, before it passes you if the component of the velocity vector pointing to you is slower than the speed of sound.
But it still takes time for the sound to reach you. And in that time the source has continued to move. So it will be as if you are watching a video but hearing with a tape delay.
If some one was standing 1000 meters away from you, and had a sign that flashed a sequence of numbers, 1,2,3,4,… once per second, and at the same time as the number flashed, they shouted the number loud enough that you could hear it, do you think what you heard and what you saw would be in sync?
> "Of course you hear the siren or crazy man or anything, before it passes you if the component of the velocity vector pointing to you is slower than the speed of sound."
So, only in aircraft it is different? Magical aircraft physics after all?
> " If some one was standing 1000 meters away from you, and had a sign that flashed a sequence of numbers, 1,2,3,4,… once per second, and at the same time as the number flashed, they shouted the number loud enough that you could hear it, do you think what you heard and what you saw would be in sync?
Of course not.
But to humor you: which is the distinct event in a normally flying aircraft in which you can tie the exact point at which the light and sound signal leave the aircraft towards you so you can use that to calculate the distance? Spoiler: there isn't, you cannot, and that is precisely the point.
There are some examples currently in Ukraine, in which you could use your argument.
Well, in many planes it would be the firing of a cylinder. But you don’t need a distinct event. You look at an instant in time. It’s a fundamental of calculus called an infinitesimal.
Did you read the entire article? I think where you’re getting mixed up is that the article is using some poor assumptions and a broken thought experiment to derive a scheme for calculating or estimating the distance based on the sound/light mismatch. I don’t think anyone is claiming sound and light don’t travel at different speeds but the explanation in the article is pretty misguided.
I may have missed something, but what I saw I thought was accurate.
Is it in dispute that it takes time for the sound to reach you?
Is it in dispute that you can discern the direction from which a sound came?
Is it in dispute that the aircraft has moved during the time it takes for the sound to reach you?
Is in dispute that the sound emitted in the instant of time the aircraft is in position A will not reach you until the aircraft is in position A+k?
Is it in dispute that there are realistic velocity vectors for which the direction of sound from position A is perceivably distinct from the visually observed position A+k?
What if you imagine instead a boat traveling parallel to the shore on which you stand. Has the boat moved perceptibly from position A by the time the wavefront of the wake generated at position a reaches you?
