And then you go another level deeper and see everything is actually just different ways of doing the same old Linux and/or Java. I feel especially in Ops people can see that all the time. For instance just today I saw someone debug a NO_PROXY topic in Kubernetes. Kubernetes is super cool and works different than the old LAMP stacks or even Openstack. But still they deal with NO_PROXY not being standardized problems. Also shows that the same, actually hard problems (like standardizing something that is "out there" for more than a decade already) are never really solved. Each shiny new tool comes with its own way of doing things, but what they do with your input is in the end always the same. Mounting, multiprocessing, sockets, string parsing, memory management, log searching, etc.
So yes, I think there's a way to become a chess master. You just need to go one level deeper and accept that there might be multiple topics that each will need half a decade to learn good enough to be useful.
Nowadays I find it more important to define what "high performance" means to me and enjoy it when it happen by itself instead of forcing myself into a scheme while destroying my health and happiness.
Sometimes for me the KPI is digging deeper than anybody else can and solve a real root cause issue. Sometimes it means simply not being in zombie mode in the evening (i.e. yes, actually working less). Sometimes it means finding something that may be less efficient but everybody can agree and do together.
In each of these cases having the right kind of tea and tea cup at hand is much more important than training the best scheduling techniques. ;-)
A point that was also enlightening to me: Chinese literature has two components. One is the theoretical analysis like Sunzi Bingfa, Hanfeizi etc. The other examples of application in different contexts, given in form of stories. It's impressive how much more you can understand and learn if you combine Sunzi Bingfa with Sanguo Yanyi for instance.
Also the story becomes more deep when you realize that there are story elements where they act like the character would coincidentally slip into a situation but actually was probably stupid on purpose to create a much better outcome for himself. My favorite example being when Caocao fails to kill Dong Zhuo who is laying in front of him sleeping. If you are a mass murderer like either of these two there is almost no chance to fail to assassinate someone laying in front of you sleeping. And yet Caocao did.
What happened due to this failure? The rebels took him in and started to listen to his ideas, when before they ignored him due to his low background. Also one of his biggest competitors, Wang Yun, who coincidentally is the owner of the knife used in the attempted murder.
What would have happened if he had successfully killed Dong Zhuo? Lu Bu probably would have killed him on the spot. Maybe he would go in history as a small hero but he would have never become emperor.
Same goes with SiMa Yi and ZhuGe Liang, at least from the TV show "JunShiLianMeng"(Alliance of Strategists). The famous SanGuo Yanyi story - KongChengJi (Ruse of the Empty City). SiMa Yi did not enter the city even though he know ZhuGe Liang was bluffing, and ZhuGe Liang knew that he knew. Strategically, if SiMa Yi kills ZhuGe Liang, he would won the war against Han, and CaoCao would have no use for a powerful strategist who has won people's heart - SiMa Yi would surely be killed. It's a great modern TV show.
First of all, the popular empty-city story is made up by the author of "Romance of Three Kingdom." It actually was Zhao Yan, a general in the same faction as ZhuGe Liang, who pretended to have an empty fortress and repelled an attack. Needless to say, there is no truth whatsoever to alternative "truth" that drama speculated.
Second, by the time Sima Yi commanded a large field army, Cao Cao had died for a long time. Sima Yi represented powerful large land-owners who would gain monopoly on official positions during Cao Pi's reign, Cao Cao's son. It is a recipe for weakening imperial authority and endangering emperors. Historians argue that Cao Cao passed up the chance to become emperor because he would not countenance such policy.
Third, that TV show is like so much of Chinese TV that is a wasteland. It is melodramatic, ludicrous, and laughably bad acting. I am sorry, but it is unwatchable, not just the show, even the trailer. Compare the stylized combat and bloodletting to the realism of "Game of Throne" (yes, I am ware of the irony of calling historical drama fake and fantasy real); there is no comparison. Nothing there is believable, much like every word out of CCP's mouth. It is sad, really.
It is bad on many levels - inconsistent camera positioning is a rookie mistake and is wearing on the viewer, and much of the exposition is painfully heavy-handed, while much (most?) of the dialog is propagandistic.
On the other hand, GoT does the same sort of thing in reverse; technical polish and a realistic aesthetic are the vehicle for a different set of propositions about how the world works. One genre uses fantastical formalism while another relies on fantastical plots.
It's interesting to contrast these two with more subversive explorations of the same forms, like Shadow and Watchmen (the movie; I haven't seen the TV reimagining yet though people seem to be raving about it).
I knew what you said just FYI. I wouldn't treat the book or show too seriously... it's just entertainment, not history.
The show's main character is SiMa Yi, which is kind of new to me. It's like a retold of "Romance of Three Kingdom" from a SiMa family and Cao family perspective. Though I hated a lot of Chinese TV shows, this one I actually like and would recommend. I can't remember any combat in this show though, probably fairly average. I wouldn't compare it to Game of Thrones, maybe House of Cards is a closer genre.
Sorry if I come across a bit strong. I am a something of a history buff, and the liberty that some Chinese historical shows take is shocking to me. I am like you, curious about different interpretations of familiar events.
I know it's just fyi. I understand the frustration that one of your favorite parts of history is being stumped on by bad TV shows. Any kind of "YanYi" is pretty just entertainment show. Some are not too bad, some are just aweful. In recent years, these bad shows are just getting worse. I think "JunShiLiangMeng" is better than most. Characters looked normal rather than hair-dyed XiaoXianRou with no facial expressions.
Then of course there's the gathering of arrows, but there are too many good stories to talk about. Just look in one of my brocade sacks, each has a useful story! (Chapter 54)
The story I am familiar with emphasizes different aspects but illustrate the same point.
Cao Cao volunteered for assassination mission but asked Wang Yun for a renowned sword/knife as the assassination weapon. As he entered Dong Zhou's chamber he encountered general Lu Bu, a fearsome warrior and Dong Zhou's personal body guard. Cao Cao told Lu Bu that he wanted to try out a famously fast horse of Dong Zhou and asked the general to fetch it. When Cao Cao failed to kill Dong Zhou, he pretended that he was gifting the famous (assassination weapon) sword as a token of respect. Then he went outside and jumped on the famously swift horse general Lu Bu just brought at Cao Cao's request and fled, while Dong Zhou and Lu Bu were puzzled by Cao Cao's action.
I cannot vouch for the story's authenticity, but what a fascinating story.
If you talk to physicists and they tell you we've got something right, stop talking to them.
Every good(!) one knows that we got it wrong. Just a little less wrong than in the previous model. You cannot get it right. It wouldn't be a model but reality as a whole if you got it right. So the only questions are how you can get it less wrong than the last model, and which of the available models is most useful for the problem you are currently tackling. So yes, sometimes you even want to use a more-wrong model because it fits your problem better.
edit: thought about bringing in an example, but honestly it would need too much googling to be precise enough.
The problem for game libraries in general is that game dev lives in c++ world and c++ is awful for libraries. Most c++ devs I know would rather start writing a program by defining string than by learning to handle proper library management tooling. I'm not an expert so I'm not sure if it's just a culture thing or if there are inherent features in the language that make library usage hard, but yeah. That's that.
It’s pretty inherent to the tooling around the language. Basically because theres a lack of “standard” tooling, so you either go lowest-common-denominator (header only), or you have to fuss with very gross build systems that have weird quirks on different platforms.
C is easier in this regard just because the language evolves so slowly that even though the build and library systems are bad, theyre a known bad that people can work around. No such luck with C++, where its bad and ever changing.
Is a federated system like Mastodon not setup in a way that users have access lists and if one server is down they simply connect to the next? I would expect to just limit the access to my server in a way that no illegal content is added to its storage and I don't have to pay horrendous fees for the network traffic and then just let the DDOS happen. At some point it needs to stop since the DDOSer will find nicer targets and the source of your problem will not have enough funds left. And then your service simply continues.
That's at least how I think a federated system should work. Not sure if reality matches that.
From my understanding of Mastodon, you register an account with an instance and that's where your account and data are stored. You then get an address which is something like me@instance.tld. Federated instances can then connect together to read and exchange information, but for the most part your data doesn't leave your instance. I imagine the idea behind this is you can choose (or host) where your data sits, but still interact with a large network of individuals. That said, my understanding of Mastodon is limited.
If you want to just have a piece of official documentation, why not. And if you know Putin and Xi personally maybe you even have a chance to get the DDOSer.
Well, yes and no. Nowadays it's possible to serve all niches and the mainstream market together at the same time, through the same general service offering, simply by filtering and sorting the content according to user data.
Therefore I would assume that we can't fully apply the traditional media experience to the current streaming wars.
So yes, I think there's a way to become a chess master. You just need to go one level deeper and accept that there might be multiple topics that each will need half a decade to learn good enough to be useful.