Try to write out difficult sections (pen & paper) to get started.
I've found that gives my brain the time it needs to get a handle on overly complex or boring texts.
Assume it's going to take you time so don't aim for completing too much the first few times. Don't worry about how much time it's taking, just worry about getting a couple of conceptual wedges in place. Follow pomodoro method.
Speculation based on a coherent story is a short-cut when I am deferring actual research: a back of envelope calculation.
So, you got me: I didn't actually research the events :)
But, where would I start with such research?[0] It seems like articles are written with a specific narrative in mind: either Jobs as genius or Jobs as copy cat.
Is there anything I could look at that's sort of independently verified/agreed upon as being the truth? Does such a thing even exist? I hope it does.
It feels like these events have gone into annals of legend, not history :)
I went with the "engineers" label in response to the "business people" label by parent. I like neither when ascribing intents to actions.
Anyway, I like to give benefit of doubt when attributing intent to people's actions. As evidenced by the responses, seems like I'm off the mark here. Over and out :)
I realize that. Thanks for the condescension. But, you realize that people aren't motivated by just one thing, right? Even if they are business people, right?
Anyway, knowing what we know about Job's obsession with getting things right (as he saw it), you do think that his sniping at specific look and feel issues was just to put the engineers down?
To me, it's a more cohesive picture if I interpret his actions as being motivated by obsession to UX/asking more of engineers ( I know these guys weren't working for him).
Also interesting is how Kay dismisses Job's objections as being motivated by needing to put someone down.
I can as easily see them being constructive usability criticisms: details that the engineers steeped in developing it missed, but concrete things that would stop actual customer adoption.
Something I've noticed: in the US people generally have an aversion to being even mildly uncomfortable.
And, it's culturally acceptable to be on medication so people take it for basically any inconvenience.
Sweating a little? Crank the AC. Small headache? take a pill. Bad day? Have a drink. Workout left muscles sore? Another pill. Sprained ankle? Obviously you need pain medication!
It's easy to see how there is a low threshold to abusing pain medication.
:( This post rubs me wrong. Maybe because it's so centered on author while purportedly under a parenting blog. Maybe because it's screaming that the author is the type of "smart" person that gives them/(us?:)) a bad name.
To anyone nodding along to the post, because you are so special that you don't have friends: "smart" people everywhere have gone through feeling isolated from their age peers. Smarter people figure out how to navigate the shortfall rather than increasing it. Feynman anyone?
As an aside, I have a kid starting kindergarten this year who's been reading/writing for 2 years now. At home (and at pre-school by request) we make it a point not to over-praise this.
Because I don't want one innate attribute warping his whole identity.
I hope he settles, quickly and with a massive payout from United. I hope he laughs all the way to the bank.
That might make it more probable, as compared to a protracted legal battle that just drops out of sight, that a random person will challenge United when put under the same circumstances.
The real culprit here are the LEOs. They had no business getting involved. And, even less business using force. It's another case of LEOs unlawfully escalating to violence. Here I would agree with you: he shouldn't quietly settle his case with CPD.
The average 4th year US service member will probably have put up with massively more crap than the average college graduate. Which makes them tough in a specific way. That seems plausible enough :)
What I was objecting to
A) "Life is tough/ college isn't".
Put in those terms, "Life is tough, X isn't" works for basically anything. And, I would argue, military service is closer to college (specific schedules, insulated from real world, the amount of time spent on PS/XBOX) than real life.
B) the tone that seems to indicate that the military has a monopoly in all types of toughness.
I was in this situation. Was told they were transitioning to a new stack, but that never happened.
I gave it(wasted) 1 year.
But, in retrospect, I waited too long. If anything, after 3 months, I should have said: "My expertise is X. I want to work on it. I'd be happy to come back when you guys are actually doing X."
I recommend interviewing at other places asap. Life's too short.
I've found that gives my brain the time it needs to get a handle on overly complex or boring texts.
Assume it's going to take you time so don't aim for completing too much the first few times. Don't worry about how much time it's taking, just worry about getting a couple of conceptual wedges in place. Follow pomodoro method.