Becoming one of the best ever is only possible if your IQ is one of the best ever. There is going to be some biological upper limit. Minds like Torvalds, Richie, Thompson are rare; and there is nothing you can do to reach that level if your own source code isn't on the same level. However, there is a lot of great advice here that can take you to your full potential, whatever that may be. That's important too, because it sure it easy to keep yourself well below that level.
Going a bit OT, but what do you think makes these minds so rare? They're obviously pretty smart, maybe even very smart - you have to be smart enough in order to become so accomplished after all - but I wonder whether people don't often simply mistake accomplishment with brilliance. I'm pretty sure you could find other people who, being in the right place at the right time and with enough endurance, would be able to fill their shoes. You can't become as accomplished as Torvalds is by simply repeating what he did with Linux since 1991, but today; that niche's already taken, Torvalds 2.0 would be just one of many kernel devs now and their own version control system wouldn't even have an advantage of being used by Linux.
I’m reasonably sure it’s been proven that IQ score is a poor measure of intelligence.
Although I believe there is some truth in what your saying, that those engineers had minds which are rare, I personally don’t believe it’s all genetics. Practice, experience, craftsmanship and purpose will lead a person to the same outcome.
I think he has a point there. If he did not pay for, it may be an even trade.
You'd just have to compare the cost per acre per month of machine maintenance vs the cost to maintain a well fed flock for a month; including land costs and property taxes if you own the land.
> I think he has a point there. If he did not pay for, it may be an even trade.
Not really - the cost of food for goats is fairly marginal all things considered. For this kind of service you have to account for transport, setup (usually fencing of some sort has to be put up), etc. as well as ongoing medical and shelter costs for when they aren’t working.
I second the recommendation. Don't be put off by Jeremy Clarkson and his persona, seeing a motorhead with a big ego trying to run a farm and make a profit is what makes the show. Thankfully, he's paired with someone that knows their stuff, with a sharp enough wit...
Just started watching it and it's great and hilarious! I guess one of the things that I'm enjoying a ton is that I also don't know anything about farming so I'm as surprised at Clarkson is. It's humbling (seems for Clarkson too) to see that I don't know everything...
It really is - because not only is it hilarious, it also highlights just how difficult modern farming has become - razor thin margins, at the whims of the weather, dealing with vandlism from local youths with nothing better to do etc. etc.
When was farming not on razor thin margins at the whims of the weather? At least US history is full of sharecropping where the farmers barely making ends meet and those with enough capital to own their own small farms not doing much better. Some of those who owned a lot of land with sharecroppers managed to do ok though. It's similar today, except sharecropping has gone out of style, I think. Big farms and little farms are on very thin margins, but thin margins on a small farm mean Clarkson made like a hundred pounds or something after a year (probably ignoring his capital costs).
Is leaving a job we're you're not a good fit not sincere and honest, as opposed to slacking until fired? Is accepting to leave your own job and source and revenue when you know it's necessary despite the difficulty it will create for you, especially when in a difficult situation like an ex con, not heroic?
1 - don't smoke pot (if you are doing so) and don't drink alcohol every day
2 - listen to Jordan Peterson lectures on youtube and read 12 Rules For Life
3 - be honest about your own IQ and choose your path accordingly - education and hours can only take you to the limit of your innate intelligence; minds the likes of Linus Torvalds, Don Knuth, Ken Thompson, Larry Wall are extremely rare
4 - run a mile a day and do weight training 5 days a week - watch Pumping Iron to get in the mood
5 - cut down on the hours - look him in the eye and with confidence tell the owner of your company - "Listen, I can solve your problems, but I cannot do it by myself anymore. Here's what I'm going to need from you to guide you down the path to success...<junior dev>, etc."
I think it's more biological than cultural. Men evolved with preference for solving the production problem (are we creating enough?), and women evolved with preference for solving the distribution problem (does everyone have enough?). But as with everything, the behaviors are described by a normal distribution, and these two curves with offset means overlap.
What's the evidence for this evolution preference? I am skeptical, because historically, women were substantially involved in agriculture and textile production.
I think one piece of evidence would be the studies in psychology on the "big five" personality characteristics that show women scoring higher than men on agreeableness. But this is more of my guess on how things work.
And it's probably not a massive offset in the bell curves; your examples would not be in conflict.
It wasn't my intention to limit my comments on this to statements for which I have links to supporting academic studies. I wanted to propose my guesses, because it's fun to see who else has arrived at the same spot. I was careful to start with "I think it's" rather than "it is true that" or "consensus exists that".
Your "I think" described the conclusion. I didn't read it as describing your explanation for that conclusion, which you seemed much more confident about.
I left Atlanta for the Gulf Coast a few months ago. Guns are irrelevant, it's the quality of people that matters. From now on I'll adhere strictly to the creed, "live among people that think like you do" and I will only maintain residence in a conservative geography.
