I think 'learning from how not to do something' is a really powerful pedagogical technique that should be more widespread.
I agree it’s a FANTASTIC way to learn. I was very disheartened I didn’t effectively communicate that to the students.
Someone who's been in the trenches for several years, they'd probably get A LOT out of this technique as they would have many experiences to pull from.
Once you've got some experience (which usually means getting things wrong a few times, seeing wrongness promoted to production because there isn't time to refactor, and having to fix the wrongness later once more layers or wrong are piled on top) you appreciate this sort of analysis much more as it helps you get things right first time more often, and/or helps you spot the actual problem (rather than chasing symptoms) in more complex situations.
I don't think that is it. _Beginners_ being the critical word.
Most learning is part of a negative feedback loop, if we only ever succeeded we wouldn't know why we succeeded, failure has such bad connotations in our society that it blinds students from deeply understanding a subject. Maybe replace it with experience?
Back to the subject of _Beginners_, we really should be teaching students from a very young age, philosophy, cognitive science, and epistemology. They should embrace experience, it shouldn't be up to the database schema instructor to teach both data modeling and learning by failure. Students should be fully versed in how to care and feed their brains by the time they arrive in the GPs class.
But in any specific subject you need a certain level a basic knowledge taught that way before you can be expected to use the tools available (and potentially discover more) to problem solve.
Destigmatize not #winning and embracing experiential learning.
I'd definitely second that recommendation, both for relative beginners and those of us who have been at it long enough to have learned and forgotten these things a few times over...
https://pragprog.com/book/bksqla/sql-antipatterns or your favourite [e]book seller, for those wanting a copy.
> why this is bad, it then shows you the recommended way of doing it and why this way works better
He also takes the time to mention when the anti-pattern might be OK to use.
Saw this thread and just acquired and read this. The book's premise is a great one, I just don't like the execution. Years of my life were dedicated to SQL CRUD and schema evolution before dabbled briefly in NoSQL (meh), random caching systems, then had my aha moment and upgraded to files on unix (awesome caching! great compatibility!) and occasional use of SQLite (easy backup and parallelism! no RDBMS master/slave complexity!).
While there are a few core issues raised, and all struck a chord, I was not a huge fan of the book overall because it was needlessly verbose. I found its authoritative tone grating. Ultimately with so many dialects and projects, SQL style is personal, organizational or project level preference. One issue I felt was undertreated was clarity of syntax. For example, I personally absolutely loathe any use of JOIN as needlessly obtuse cognitive baggage. An untreated issue was (over/mis)use of stored procedures.
In the real world, however, most systems do not have this type of requirement.
(Full disclosure, I agree with your objection and believe piracy is wrong in any case, but seems like we should be consistent with the application of the rules)
Even if an individual did believe that piracy is perfectly acceptable, direct linking still puts the site under risk of moving into the cross-hairs of law enforcement.
Besides, as I mentioned in my comment, direct links to hubs that contain pirated material and direct links containing suites of tools specifically used for pirating such as DRM removal on ebooks and video players, and bypasses for news organizations and scientific publications are also frequently directly linked.
Mentions of key hubs like pirate bay don't count as linking to them IMO though might effectively be so as the mention might clue some to their existence. Discussing the matter completely without mentioning those places/services would not be practical.
Tools for removing DRM have valid uses. Minority uses, sure, but still valid. Whether removing it for your own transcoding & platform shifting purposes, rather than distribution, is morally OK is a complex discussion (I say yes, lawyers will almost certainly say no!), but if you allow that then the valid use list grows.
Bypassing news filters is usually a case of exploiting them giving different responses in different cases to improve, for example, their Google rank. This is against the engines policies. You can of course argue that "two wrongs don't make a right" but then equally one wrong doesn't either! I'm not sure if the scientific publications matter is the same or not, I'll have to submit to your expertise/experience there.