3 ms·

When I see something like this I wonder if there are people out there who actually go chapter-by-chapter from start to finish, spending dozens of hours learning

by Zetice 3y ago

When I see something like this I wonder if there are people out there who actually go chapter-by-chapter from start to finish, spending dozens of hours learning the content a random GitHub repo claimed was important.

mynegation 3y ago
You can always go for the fundamentals and go through DDIA. It is heavy on foundations but does not really give examples of specific real world systems. For that, Alex Xu’s books are probably the most popular.
worksonmine 3y ago
This repo is a very high level collection of topics with short descriptions rather than a learning source. You can skim it a couple of minutes. But if you're curious about a topic, why wouldn't you read a free resource on it if the quality seems good? Are you always this dismissive? How do you learn?
- Zetice 3y ago
  “quality seems good” is the point of contention here; how would you know? You’re either already knowledgeable about this topic and therefore necessarily didn’t learn it from here or you’re not and therefore unqualified to judge its quality at all.
  - worksonmine 3y ago
    That applies to everything we learn. Most of us use previous experience to make an educated guess. Someone just coming into software won't be reading this, but it can be good start to know what one could dig deeper into. Most content on any topic is bullshit, and in tech quickly outdated. What's your gripe with this particular one? I have several similar repos starred for future reference, because why not? Could be useful. You never answered how you learn? Because I assume you still do? Since you have opinions on how others do it maybe you have better approaches you'd like to share?
    - Zetice 3y ago
      Could be useful? Could be misleading, wrong, outdated, manipulated… there’s a reason these people are self publishing. You asking me how I learn is the very problem, in fact. When the consequences of being wrong are basically zero, the incentives are not aligned for me to provide you with anything resembling quality. Avoid individuals entirely, and focus on institutions who are meaningfully harmed by their inaccuracy if discovered.
      - worksonmine 3y ago
        You seem to have high views of institutions, and low self-esteem on your own ability to assess information. Take nothing at face value, and learn from multiple sources. Those institutions you claim have no incentives are just as likely trying to monetize you and lock you into their walled gardens. To each their own I guess.
        Zetice 3y ago
        Nope! You entirely misunderstand; it’s about incentive and consequence, not self esteem or reverence. Those institutions exist as a result of their reputation, and that reputation is harmed by giving bad instruction. This random Internet stranger has no reputation whatsoever, so there is zero incentive for them to operate honestly, beyond whatever self imposed morality they may have. Your method relies on good nature and blind faith, and leaves you open to manipulation, ignorance and misunderstanding; what I describe uses societal forces and self interest to ensure quality. I’m sure you can guess which had better outcomes…
        worksonmine 3y ago
        > Your method relies on good nature and blind faith, and leaves you open to manipulation, ignorance and misunderstanding; what I describe uses societal forces and self interest to ensure quality. I’m sure you can guess which had better outcomes… Is that how you read "take nothing at face value"? I question everything, so should you. Which are these infamous institutions you praise? Maybe some of them are among the sources this random internet stranger referenced at the end? Linus Thorvalds once was a random internet stranger, now the world runs on his kernel. Your world view is very black/white. Most of the best content I've read are from random internet strangers, and not institutions. They're often from hands-on experience and not written for PR purposes.

by Zetice 3y ago

mynegation 3y ago

You can always go for the fundamentals and go through DDIA. It is heavy on foundations but does not really give examples of specific real world systems. For that, Alex Xu’s books are probably the most popular.

worksonmine 3y ago

This repo is a very high level collection of topics with short descriptions rather than a learning source. You can skim it a couple of minutes. But if you're curious about a topic, why wouldn't you read a free resource on it if the quality seems good? Are you always this dismissive? How do you learn?

Zetice 3y ago
“quality seems good” is the point of contention here; how would you know? You’re either already knowledgeable about this topic and therefore necessarily didn’t learn it from here or you’re not and therefore unqualified to judge its quality at all.
- worksonmine 3y ago
  That applies to everything we learn. Most of us use previous experience to make an educated guess. Someone just coming into software won't be reading this, but it can be good start to know what one could dig deeper into. Most content on any topic is bullshit, and in tech quickly outdated. What's your gripe with this particular one? I have several similar repos starred for future reference, because why not? Could be useful. You never answered how you learn? Because I assume you still do? Since you have opinions on how others do it maybe you have better approaches you'd like to share?
  - Zetice 3y ago
    Could be useful? Could be misleading, wrong, outdated, manipulated… there’s a reason these people are self publishing. You asking me how I learn is the very problem, in fact. When the consequences of being wrong are basically zero, the incentives are not aligned for me to provide you with anything resembling quality. Avoid individuals entirely, and focus on institutions who are meaningfully harmed by their inaccuracy if discovered.
    - worksonmine 3y ago
      You seem to have high views of institutions, and low self-esteem on your own ability to assess information. Take nothing at face value, and learn from multiple sources. Those institutions you claim have no incentives are just as likely trying to monetize you and lock you into their walled gardens. To each their own I guess.
      - Zetice 3y ago
        Nope! You entirely misunderstand; it’s about incentive and consequence, not self esteem or reverence. Those institutions exist as a result of their reputation, and that reputation is harmed by giving bad instruction. This random Internet stranger has no reputation whatsoever, so there is zero incentive for them to operate honestly, beyond whatever self imposed morality they may have. Your method relies on good nature and blind faith, and leaves you open to manipulation, ignorance and misunderstanding; what I describe uses societal forces and self interest to ensure quality. I’m sure you can guess which had better outcomes…
        worksonmine 3y ago
        > Your method relies on good nature and blind faith, and leaves you open to manipulation, ignorance and misunderstanding; what I describe uses societal forces and self interest to ensure quality. I’m sure you can guess which had better outcomes… Is that how you read "take nothing at face value"? I question everything, so should you. Which are these infamous institutions you praise? Maybe some of them are among the sources this random internet stranger referenced at the end? Linus Thorvalds once was a random internet stranger, now the world runs on his kernel. Your world view is very black/white. Most of the best content I've read are from random internet strangers, and not institutions. They're often from hands-on experience and not written for PR purposes.