For a business, having spelling or grammatical errors is sometimes seen as an early indicator that the business is a scam. There are a variety of reasons for this and it's not necessarily fair.

The practical fix in your case, which I'd strongly recommend if you can, would be to find someone to review the text and fix all grammar, spelling, and formatting issues.

edit:

Also, some of your phrasings could be a turn-off because they hint at information instead of revealing it. (They "play coy.") This behavior is associated with people over-selling, exaggerating, or hiding things.

Examples include:

"Acoto has everything and for everyone."

"We have limited spots and many excited users so don't get left behind."

People have seen excited sentences like this so many times, we're immune to them. In fact they often have the opposite effect. Instead of using excited copy, it's better to focus on your great idea and users will get excited all by themselves.

My feeling is that the people who could use this are, basically, people who are trying to get their first job as a software developer. They don't have connections in the industry, and they're focused on interview prep.

But is that person really going to sign up for what sounds like fairly expensive one-on-one tutoring sessions? Many people in the industry will answer questions for free, if you just send them an email.

On the other hand, is this service for pros who want long-term career growth? If so, you can charge more but you need a much stronger selling point (e.g. mentors who are known experts that people will sign up for your service to talk to.)

Anyway, in either case I'm outside of the target audience because I'm not interested in mentorship as a service, I prefer to build friendships, mentors, and role models in "real life."

edit: removed unnecessary comment

But, I get the impression that in his own head, he didn't feel a choice in the matter, or rather the alternative was worse.

Therein lies the true "moral" of the film, as I personally interpreted it: McCandless was trapped in his own head, no matter how far he traveled he couldn't escape his own mentality. The tragedy is that it seems he himself realized this too late. But, who knows -- personally, I imagine him being at peace with his decision and the ultimate result.

I see how you got the impression that McCandless was trapped in his own risk-addicted thinking from the movie, but I think that impression is editorializing on the part of the filmmakers.

I'm a rock climber and it's my experience that the risk taking in rock climbing isn't a death wish. On the contrary, it's a life-wish, a desire to experience life to its fullest even if that means risking your life. You will die--risking death is not a risk. The greatest risk you take is dying without achieving your deepest desires and dreams.

This is a pretty common view in the rock climbing community, and I think that Jon Krakauer, a mountaineer the author of the In To the Wild book, probably held a view of risk similar to my own, which is why the book presents a much more sympathetic view of McCandless' risk-taking.

When I read the book I felt McCandless was a romantic. Naive perhaps, and his death was unnecessary, but he lived his life on his own terms to a degree which is relatively rare today.

I don't mean that as anything negative about McCandless. It's just that I think it's worth saying that other people aren't also lesser for making their own different choices. They are also doing their best with the difficult problems life throws at you, giving you lots of options and few clues.

For what it's worth, the "death wish" thing wasn't meant to be pejorative -- maybe I should have used a different term. I like your "life-wish" phrasing better, thank you for that perspective.

I enjoyed both and admire his path.

But many of these tools work by allowing you to express the _intent_ of the diagram without having to draw it out. They're basically markup languages that get "compiled" into diagrams. PlantUML is a good example: http://www.plantuml.com/plantuml/uml/SyfFKj2rKt3CoKnELR1Io4Z.... With these tools, you can make diagrams much, much faster (but usually with less nuanced control over presentation)

The book "So Good They Can't Ignore You" by Cal Newport was really beneficial for me to build a mental model about career growth.

In short, "career growth" is basically _building an asset_ and then _bartering that asset_ for things you want. So in your case, it's really important to understand two things:

1. What assets (career capital) do you have? e.g. Authority borne of experience, a history of demonstrating excellence (or at least good-enoughness), a good network/references, etc.

2. What do you want to barter those assets for? What kind of job do you want to have, ideally?

As an example, in my case, I felt my "capital" was fairly low -- I was still a junior developer. But, I really wanted to work remotely, and work-life balance is very important to me. So, I willingly accepted a pay cut to work from home. Then by building more capital over time, I've been able to raise my salary back to the original level, and above.

In your case, perhaps you should evaluate whether you have accumulated enough "capital" to "fund" a significant spike in salary, or not. (Chances are, if you've been working at a place for years, you have also made some demonstrable growth. If not, you might want to think about how to grow your responsibility at your current gig.)

I ended up usually writing it as "200h" instead of "200 1/2".

Worked surprisingly well. One of the advantages of having deliveries still carried out by actual people where the address apparently doesn't have to be an exact match.

I find it natural and convenient to think about "What dependencies on other parts of the system does this code have?" Expressing those dependencies explicitly feels like it reduces complexity, not adds it.

But, I'm not talking about pulling in a big fancy DI framework, just making dependencies explicit in your function/class parameters.

I will say that DI is sometimes used as a tool in overly-abstracted systems. An example that comes to mind is the ASP.NET MVC framework -- with DI and inheritance, literally any behavior can be overridden in fairly opaque ways. Trying to suss out the concrete behavior details is like swimming in quicksand. (Or it used to be that way, haven't touched ASP.NET in a while.)

As an aside -- I'm curious about your programming language of choice. I think DI is a lot more useful in some PLs than others. For example, I find JS code often uses imports to create complex graphs of implicit dependencies, and DI can help tame that complexity. But for other PLs like Python or Clojure, I basically don't use DI at all.

Now Java and C# are different because they are compiled. You need a DI tool to do dynamic dispatch if you want to mock.

You can't inject a nuclear reactor into a burrito in any language untyped or not because it will lead to an error.

The only difference is python/js the error will happen at runtime while in C$/java the error happens at compile time.

The main difference is the type. In typed languages you need describe am interface or a class of types if you want to do mocking or dynamic dispatch while in dynamic languages you don't need to explicitly define this as a type, the definition exists in how you use the object that is passed in.

Either way DI, however universal, in any language is bad practice.

This is the first I've heard of such a therapy, it sounds fascinating.

Anecdotally it's done nothing for my RSI, but it has helped me deal with a 7+ year "chronic" upper back pain, though it did take a bit of time to swallow the concept at first.

1. Don't do exercises unless you want to. Completionism is a trap.

2. Take notes. Rewrite things in your own words. Imagine you're writing a guide for your past self.

3. Ask questions. Anytime you write something down, pause and ask yourself. Why is this true? How can we be sure? What does it imply? How could this idea be useful?

4. Cross-reference. Don't read linearly. Instead, have multiple textbooks, and "dig deep" into concepts. If you learn about something new (say, linear combinations) -- look them up in two textbooks. Watch a video about them. Read the Wikipedia page. _Then_ write down in your notes what a linear combination is.

Anyway, everyone's different of course, but these practices have been helping me get re-invigorated with self-learning math. Hope they help someone else out there. I welcome any feedback!

(edit: formatting)

especially the part about skipping the exercises. if you're not trying to write a dissertation or pass a qual (and you're just interested in learning and being exposed) then you don't need to do them. a lot of exercises are a hazing ritual or imagined by the author to be a dose of bitter medicine (i'm looking at you electrodynamics by jd jackson) since they mistakenly believe all readers are formal students.

the most important exercise is to mull over and consider what you're reading/learning. naturally dovetails in to asking question: what happens if i remove a hypothesis from a theorem, what happens if i add one, is there an analogy to another object/group/measure/etc, etc.

also read multiple books (http://libgen.is/ is your very very good friend and generous friend). a lot of math authors (no matter how esteemed they are) are terrible writers or make mistakes (look up errata for previous editions of your favorite book).

the only thing i'd add is to learn to use LaTeX to take notes - it is much easier and faster and neater.

I think this is deeply mistaken. In a well-chosen book, such as the ones in the submitted article, doing the exercises is not to test your memorisation, it's to develop your understanding.

Math is not a spectator sport. Reading about math is fine, but it will not take root and develop unless you engage with it, and the exercises are the way to do that.

Ignore the exercises if you want, but you almost certainly will end up knowing about the math, but not able to do it.

This is a great point and example of the problem with a one-size-fits-all strategy. For some books, exercises are an essential part of comprehension. For others, not so much.

> Math is not a spectator sport. Reading about math is fine, but it will not take root and develop unless you engage with it, and the exercises are the way to do that.

My experience is that by taking excellent notes and asking why, you engage with the material to a similar degree, if not a greater degree, than by doing exercises. (Once again, depending on the book, as you mentioned.)

> Ignore the exercises if you want, but you almost certainly will end up knowing about the math, but not able to do it.

I would argue that's the point. Usually self-taught math is about self-growth. Getting new ideas, being exposed to new concepts, recognizing patterns. Being able to actually "do it" on-the-spot is beside the point (and is the quickest level of skill to evaporate once you stop focusing on that material, anyway.)

Isn't that literally exactly what I said?

> if you're not trying to write a dissertation or pass a qual (and you're just interested in learning and being exposed) then you don't need to do them

> if you're not trying to write a dissertation or pass a qual (and you're just interested in learning and being exposed) then you don't need to do them

There's ground in the middle, and this thread is about that. This thread is not about learning for tests and qualifications, nor is it about "being exposed", it's learning how to do the math.

And for that you need to do the exercises. You don't need to do all of them, you don't need to be completionist about it, but if you don't do the exercises, if you don't actually do the math then you won't actually be able to do the math.

Specifically, you said (quoting again):

> if you're ... just interested in learning ...

There's a difference between learning about and learning to do. If you meant just "learning about" then you are at odds with the entire thread. True, in that case you don't need to do the exercises, but I don't think that's what people are talking about here. I think people are talking about being able to do the math.

And if you meant "learning to do" then in my opinion you are wrong, and one needs to do a large slab of the exercises.

Otherwise it's fairy floss, and not steak.

My apologies if all this seems overkill, but there's a real danger of talking past each other and being in violent agreement, and I wanted to state explicitly and clearly what I mean, and why I thought you said something different.

but i'm not a mathematician. i don't need to be able to do math anymore than i need to be able to do history (while reading serious history books).

>And if you meant "learning to do" then in my opinion you are wrong, and one needs to do a large slab of the exercises.

no i didn't. that's precisely why i used the word "exposed".

>violent agreement

we don't agree but i'm not being violent. but my responses are short and yours are long.

i do not see the exercises as essential for anyone other than practicing mathematicians. i have read a great many serious math books (i just recently finished Tu's Manifolds book and am now reading Oksendal's SDEs). i read them without doing absolutely any exercises but following the rest of the guidelines in the post i responded to. the experience is gratifying because i learn about new objects and new ways of thinking about objects i've already learned about. that's absolutely the only thing that matters to me.

but let me ask you something

>That, to me, implies learning to do, not learning about.

here's a fantastic explanation of the topological proof of Abel-Ruffini

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeRXVL6qPk4

would you say that I don't understand that proof if i haven't done any exercises related to it? and therefore would you say I didn't learn any math by having watched that video?

Do we agree that if you don't do the exercises then you probably won't actually be able to do the math?

You are discussing learning about the math, and not eventually being able to do it, because you say that you don't care about becoming a mathematician, therefore you don't need to do the math. Fair enough.

But my reading is that that's not what this thread is about. This thread, and the original submission, is about learning how to do the math.

> i do not see the exercises as essential for anyone other than practicing mathematicians.

I think you're wrong. Knowing how to actually do the math has proven useful to many people for whom it is a tool in their craft/job/employment. Learning Linear Algebra properly, being able to actually do it rather than just talk about it, can be enormously useful in Machine Learning.

>> That, to me, implies learning to do, not learning about.

> here's a fantastic explanation of the topological proof of Abel-Ruffini ... would you say that I don't understand that proof if i haven't done any exercises related to it? and therefore would you say I didn't learn any math by having watched that video?

Understanding a single proof implies very little about one's ability to actually do the math. I've met many people who are math enthusiasts and who have watched hundreds of math videos. They say they understand all of what they've seen, and yet they are unable to do the simplest proofs, or the most elementary calculations.

My experience of people's abilities is that if they haven't done the exercises, they usually can't actually do the math.

But you complain about the length of my replies, so I'll stop. I think I've made my position clear, and I think I understand what you're saying, even if I don't agree with it.

You keep repeating this but you're evading the question about abel-ruffini and the question about whether reading a history book is "learning about history" as opposed to learning history.

You're making a weird distinction. People learn in different ways. Some by doing exercises and some by just playing with the objects. I wonder how you think actual research mathematicians learn new math from papers that don't include exercises lol.

You edited your response.

>I've met many people who are math enthusiasts and who have watched hundreds of math videos

There's a difference between watching numberphile or whatever and essentially watching a lecture on a proof. Very few people are watching/consuming rigorous expositions. I think that's the difference not the lack of exercise.

> You're making a weird distinction.

As someone who has done a PhD, done research in math, done research in computing, worked in research and development in industry, taught math, and headed a team doing research in technology, this is a distinction that I can clearly see. My inability to explain it to you is regrettable.

> People learn in different ways.

Yes they do.

> Some by doing exercises and some by just playing with the objects.

Doing the exercises is playing with the objects to try to answer specific questions. Good exercises are carefully constructed to help the reader learn how those objects work in an efficient manner.

> I wonder how you think actual research mathematicians learn new math from papers that don't include exercises lol.

In my experience research mathematicians learn now math from papers by, in essence, constructing their own exercises based on what they're reading. In general it takes significant experience and training to be able to do that.

Clearly you don't think one needs to do the exercises subsequently to be able to do the math. Good for you.

I disagree.

Me too so now what? I don't think your credentials give you any real authority but just make you look like you're gatekeeping.

>Doing the exercises is playing with the objects to try to answer specific questions.

Great so then we're in agreement: playing with the object is doing the exercise.

The funny thing is that at one time I actually did all of the exercises in volume 1 of apóstol's calculus. You know what effect on me it had? I was so bored I didn't read volume 2. And today I'd still need to look up the trig substitutions to do a vexing integral.

It wasn't intended to, it was to provide a context for my opinion.

So let me state my opinion as clearly as I can, and then I'll leave it.

* Math is a "contact sport" ... you have to engage with it;

* Reading books is not, of itself, engaging with the math;

* Watching math videos is not, of itself, engaging with the math;

* Well designed exercises are a valuable resource;

* If you can easily do an exercise, skip ahead;

* If you can't do an exercise, persist (for a time);

* Ignoring the exercises is ignoring a resource;

* For the vast majority of people, doing the exercises is an efficient way to engage with the material;

* To say "ignore the exercises" is, for the vast majority of people, an invitation to not bother engaging with the subject;

* Doing all the exercises is probably a waste. Doing none of them is an invitation to end up with a superficial overview of the subject, and no real understanding.

Just reading doesn't get much at all. Not even a superficial overview. I tried it. It's essentially a meaningless combination of words after a certain point.

Reading extremely thoroughly is actually marginally useful. Stopping to think, do all these assumptions matter, why, what if one of them changes, etc, pencil in hand, making notes, testing things out. I've managed to "understand" the topics when doing this, and so far it's been the highest ROI method. But it does still leave one feeling like something is missing. Just because you can sight read music doesn't mean you're an expert on the piano.

Doing exercises is a huge jump on investment, and the return on that investment is a bit questionable from my experience. A couple reasons: first you don't know if you did them right. If you did them wrong then that's negative ROI. Second you don't know what a "reasonable" workload is. It varies by author. Is it three problems per chapter, is it all of them, are some orders of magnitude more difficult than others? Without some guidance it's hard to know if your difficulties are due to not understanding basic material, or due to that problem being a challenge geared toward Putnam medalists. So they may cause you to question your understanding and thus mentally roadblock you unnecessarily. And finally with proofs (and this may be a me thing), it's pretty easy to say "I guess this is okay(?)" and move on, even if you're not sure. Since nobody is ever going to review it, and it's just a homework problem, it's very very hard to will oneself to make sure every assumption is correct and you're not missing anything, even if you feel like there's a good chance you are. Or perhaps I just don't have the constitution to do so.

So while I think doing exercises is necessary for a deeper understanding, I don't know whether the ROI is worth it outside of a classroom perspective. You need feedback for exercises to be beneficial. At least, I feel like I do.

Finally, is even taking a class that useful if the end state is that two years from then you'll have forgotten most of it and so what was the point. Can you claim knowledge of a subject that you've never actually used beyond some homework problems and exam questions, or is this still a superficial understanding? Having an ends where that knowledge gets used seems critical.

I feel like I have some knowledge but I don't feel like I'm there yet. But I don't know if I know where there is. Maybe that's the biggest challenge. Does completing a Ph.D. even get you to there? No idea. But, I guess it's up to the individual to decide what they want out of it. Nobody can determine that for you.

1. Stay at unethical job you hate.

2. Get a new job you don't hate.

Well, the answer is pretty obvious. But there is a deeper challenge, which is the choice between:

1. Stay at unethical job you don't hate.

2. Damage/destroy your career and job prospects.

This latter scenario is really a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. It forces you to pick. Would you rather be virtuous (i.e. ethical), or be paid?

> You can't just walk away from a decent income because idealism.

Sure you can. You just choose not to -- and (IMO) that's fine.

Much in the same way that you can jump in front of a moving bus if you want to - you just choose not to.

The implication is not that it's _impossible_ to walk away - it's that it just doesn't make any damn sense, given the likely outcomes.

Yes, that's right. Which is one of the big problems with this line of argument for many people -- how do you reconcile "biomechanical robot" with the concepts of "free will" and "moral decision-making"?

I'm personally agnostic on the issue (I don't believe science is able to answer this question yet -- or possibly ever.)

I do think it's interesting that you say "just a biomechanical robot." The "just" implies that being a robot -- a fancy rock -- in some way isn't enough. But in my mind, there's absolutely no (objective) reason to think of a human as any better or more important than a robot, or a rock.

I'm just trying to challenge people's assumptions of what makes something intelligent. To me, it's not precisely clear as to what makes something intelligent, and is why I think we've had trouble coming up with a satisfactory test for determining when a computer is intelligent.

(P.S. Sorry for putting words in your mouth -- I don't want to imply you said anything you didn't. My bad there.)