I cheat and use Loc-a-Sok sock holders. I still may take forever to get my laundry out of the dryer, but almost never lose a sock!

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!

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’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!

The oddest I’ve ever encountered: EXACTLY 15 characters long. No more, no fewer. 15.

Honorable mention: Various online accounts where I used my password manager to generate a long, secure password, which the website accepted without warning or error. I was then locked out because their user management system could not handle such long passwords (had to create a second account with a much shorter password to find that out) 🤣

This is a great analogy! To build on these points and the analogy: I like to think of my coding in terms of inputs, outputs, and what needs to happen to the inputs to get the outputs I want: that is, inputs->how->outputs. So for this buttered toast analogy, your inputs would be:

• toaster
• electricity
• bread
• butter
• knife
• plate
• operator’s hands

The desired output: toasted bread on the plate with butter spread on one side.

The “how” is the sequence of specific instructions the instructor gives to the operator.

This approach is even more helpful as you start working on larger projects; as you think about a problem you’re trying to solve, try to break the overall input->how->output into smaller modules of input->how->output, and then you can use those modules (often called “functions” or “methods”) in the overall “how.” Let’s say you want the instructor and operator to prepare a full breakfast with bacon, eggs, and buttered toast. You’ll have some more inputs, of course (frying pan, raw bacon, shelled eggs, stove, in addition to the toast components), but since you already made a known-good make_buttered_toast function, you can incorporate that function into the pipeline to go from your more comprehensive set of inputs to the full breakfast outputs, and you can make separate functions for making the bacon and making the eggs. Finally, your overall program can then call your bacon, eggs, and toast functions to result in the desired output of a full breakfast.

Now here’s where breaking the problem down into smaller input->how->output chunks really comes in handy: one day, you are tweaking your breakfast-making code, and suddenly, your overall outputs have good bacon and good toast, but the eggs wind up dumped half-cooked on the stove. But since you made nice, modularized functions for toast, bacon, and eggs, you automatically know more where to start looking for the bug: the eggs function.

There’s a lot of good advice in the responses to this post! Overall, I just wanted to emphasize what I wish I had learned much earlier on in my career: the benefits of thinking in terms of inputs->how->outputs and modularizing sub-problems in the overall program’s “how” into subproblems that can be independently considered, debugged, and re-used on future projects. (A secret for you: those of us who have been coding for a while often don’t start everything from scratch–we’ll re-use some functions or classes we wrote in the past, tweaking them as necessary for new applications, but not needing to start from a blank text editor :) ) Learning to write applications in code is exploring a new way of thinking about problems and how to solve them, and personally, I find it very rewarding!

I wish you all the best on your coding journey!

Yes! Another fan of spicy sausage in stuffing! My mom one year made the stuffing (not cornbread-based–Stove Top brand with savory herbs, I think) with half mild sausage and half spicy sausage for younger me who didn’t like much spice. We also added pecans and dried cranberries in addition to onion and celery. We’ve barely ever deviated from that recipe since!

Even better: purchase an inexpensive strap wrench with a rubber strap (something like this) and keep it in the kitchen for stubborn jar lids. For the jar lids that even a strap wrench alone can’t quite open, I’ve had success by using the strap wrench on the lid while holding the jar itself with a silicone oven mitt (or oven mitt with rubberized grip–the rubber band trick might work here as well).