laurathepluralized

Whenever I've read that passage, I've usually considered his underdog-ness to be from him deciding to not wear even the king's fancy armor, and from him being the youngest child in his family. So he looked even more dwarfed by Goliath than he would have had he worn armor, and since he wasn't one of the elder children in his family (despite being a teen or adult), no one in the culture at the time was expecting him to become a hero--much less a king later! But him eschewing the armor in order to keep his agility and range of motion for using a sling makes total sense--I think King Saul was just miffed that his offer of his own personal armor was rebuffed 🤣

EDIT: minor correction

Thank you for introducing me to Wirth's Law. I'll be citing that whenever I write code that takes forever to run even on powerful compute 🤣

Interesting! My last biology class is a tiny speck in my rearview mirror, so I'm not sure that I'm understanding it the way your class meant for it to be understood, but I think that that makes a lot of sense. Too much of one kind of input to a living thing without an output to balance it out can be disastrous.

Those are good points! I can imagine positive feedback to be desirable in some situations and to some extent--a musician's amplifier needs to have some positive feedback to amplify the frequencies they care about, for instance, but likely also needs some negative to cancel out frequencies they don't want to amplify, either in the amplifier itself or in the sound booth. Or maybe for some chemical processes, where you always want to make more of product X, and you're just adjusting the positive feedback to keep the production of X at a certain range of acceptable rates. It all comes down to the math and the desired output! My areas of work are mainly related to areas where negative feedback is desired, but it's really very context-specific.

As for "more optimal," I think I picked up the habit of avoiding that phrase due to grad school being my life for so long. A lot of my cohort was very controls-focused in their research, and several of the controls profs would correct presenting/proposing/defending students if they used that phrase, so we got used to either avoiding the phrase entirely or jokingly pointing it out if a fellow student said it. But in my full-time job now, things are much more relaxed with respect to that sort of thing. Maybe in a few years, I won't hear those profs' "can you tell me what you mean by 'more optimal?'" didactic questions in my head when I encounter the phrase 🤣 And yeah, exponential growth is another good example! It's clear in the colloquial sense, but my engineer-brain still thinks "wait a minute..." when I hear it!

Beautiful! Brb, showing these pictures to my wayetti as inspiration 🤣

Youtube Premium also includes Youtube Music, which allows downloading music-specific playlists for offline listening, but you're stuck playing them in the Youtube Music app, AFAIK.

It's the really cool bird from that catchy meme song! I love it! 😍

"Positive feedback loop" to indicate a situation in which circumstances feeding into each other result in more good things happening, or "negative feedback loop" to indicate bad circumstances feeding into each other to result in more bad things happening.

I have worked with enough controls folks to know that positive feedback in a control loop often leads to instability (bad), while negative feedback in a control loop can be used to stabilize the system (good). It just comes down to the math in the situation.

So people saying that they are in a positive feedback loop can, to a controls person, sound counterintuitive. E.g. "I'm in a positive feedback loop of working out, having more energy as a result, and working out more, making me healthier!" would be momentarily confusing.

I did grad school at an engineering/STEM-focused school, and the campus psychiatrist actually used these terms correctly when discussing anxiety attacks! As an engineer myself, that made my nerdy heart happy 🤣

Another control theory phrase issue: The phrase "more optimal" is incorrect and very well may earn the speaker an "umm, actually" from any controls folks in the conversation. Optimality is not a scale--either something is optimal (with respect to a specific metric), or it isn't.

(EDIT: reducing verbosity)

I second this, and would generally recommend finding some people to talk to who are in jobs similar to those you are considering, even if you aren't able to shadow them. And you don't have to be in university to do this--ask people you know if they know anyone in jobs or careers related to those you are considering, and ask to pick those people's brains. Ask them about what they like and dislike about their current job, what previous jobs/positions they've had and what they learned from those roles, what decisions they made that shaped their career path, what advice they would give to someone curious about or just starting in their field, etc.

I've found that people who are passionate about their jobs/careers often love to talk about how they got to where they are and what they wish they had known earlier along their career journey. Heck, most people enjoy talking about themselves in general, so don't be shy! I did this with a couple of friends' parents when I was trying to decide what to major in in college/university, and more informally along my early career trajectory with others I met, and it has been a huge help. One of the people I talked to even helped me realize how flexible a degree program I was considering could be, and she was absolutely right! And who knows--you may even meet someone who turns out to be a great mentor.

Picking a career path is intimidating, but it's a path, not a label you're stuck with the rest of your life! Even if you take a job that isn't a good fit for you, it can teach you more about your strengths/weaknesses and what growth areas interest you. When you come to a fork in the road of your career path--you learn about a promotion opportunity, see a job posting at another company, or even just have a conversation with your manager at your current job--you'll have the opportunity to make decisions that could help you find a role that's a better fit for you (or even re-shape your existing role to fit your strengths and passions better). Learning about other people's careers--especially the choices they made and what came of them--can be a huge help as you walk down your own career path.

Best wishes for your journey! It's completely normal to be uncertain in making big career decisions, but you got this!

(EDIT: minor rephrase)

In the USA and other English-speaking countries: weary =/= wary.

For example, I'll see someone write something like: "I am weary of the campfire because it is so hot"

You aren't tired of the campfire! You are wary of it!

I'm glad you found it helpful! And no, I love my current job, but I appreciate the sentiment!

To add onto this, sometimes it's about getting more specific with your questions to get the more specific answers.

For context of how I would suggest structuring these detail questions, here's how I think about code I write or debug: The functions and classes my code is made of are meant to get specific inputs to become specific outputs via a defined process; I think of this as inputs->how->outputs. Figuring out what inputs you need to execute the "how" part to get the outputs you want is the puzzle of each function or class I write. The "how" part can even be broken down further into smaller chunks of inputs->how->outputs.

I think asking your engineer friends to frame things in this context would both show your appreciation for the nitty-gritty details you are needing, as well as give you further context to ask more detailed drill-down questions (about deeper levels of inputs->how-> outputs) if needed. For example: "you said to get inputs A and B to result in output C, we need to run the fizzbuzz algorithm on A and B. What roles do those inputs have in that algo? Do we have to do any preprocessing on A or B before we fizzbuzz them, or any post processing of the fizzbuzz's direct output to get C?" "Oh, yeah, we have a wrapper that takes A and makes it column-major so that fizzbuzz executes faster, but we need output C to be row-major for when it goes into otherFunction(), so we do such-and-such to fizzbuzz's output to get the C we output." This gets you a level of detail deeper, and you could ask further questions about the transformations happening to A and the post-processing of fizzbuzz output to get C, as well as get more context for otherFunction to ask more about later.

You could also use this context to ask further questions about what they think the future implementation should look like. "Are there any assumptions we can make about A and B or how C is used that could simplify how we go from the former to the latter? Are there any requirements on the inputs and outputs that would better be either relaxed or made more stringent, and if so, in what way?"

I hope that helps! Best wishes for your work on this project--streamlining processes is hard, especially when working with other people's code, but your appreciation for the details to get things implemented well is admirable!