If there is one thing I learned is that what makes you being pervecived as stupid is the way you are asking the qestion, rather than the thing you dont know.
For example for some bizzare reason I am percieved as strange bu very inteligent and yet when I ask the questions they are rarely percieved stupid.
Why I am not going out of my own way to sound smart or anything I display depth of knowledge at certain areas and the way I'm asking questions is in an honest inquisitive matter of fact way.
The other side of this is the way one perceives the reactions, for example they might not reacted as if one was stupid as much as they are confused at disparity between the question asked and the knowledge one has showcased before that question.
I've been using gtd + trello for over a year now in on off basis, and for me I found the following benefits
- closed loops for stuff that would otherwise occupy my thoughts while programming
- understanding and aplication of what makes me either not start or think about something (project) constantly
- ability to drop and return to it and just continue
- differentiation between what is a must do and nice to do
- separating emotional context for a protocol one ( usefull for things that upset me but must be dealt with)
Bad things
- overusing the system as it is very effective and placing way of the mark projects that you wish to do and that drag on to irrelevance, especially the inbox filled with thoughts rather than something useful.
- it requires at least weekly maintenance, especially when the structure is new to the user
- lists can get convoluted
, amended by understanding that you can and should add remove entire lists or even make lists context based.
Bad parts can be overcame but it requires a deeper understanding of gtd and knowing that your gtd flow is ment to be upgraded, reworked and much less structural and rigid in some places. I am currently at my v2 for gtd and it is much easier to maintain while providing me with pretty much same benefits, there is going to be v3.
Overall it helped me immensely to clear my ram when working and for that at least it is worth it
Before I though that programing in itself was not as hard to learn, that is until I started to tutor a person that has no technical background what so ever other that playing video games.
It was my undrrstanding at a time that the mindset one needed to play games, especialy those involving puzles and problem solving would have a somewhat natural attitude towards programmming.
And it is partially correct if you are a good tutor enough to make relations of one way of problem solving into what can be done in programing, which I found out I aint.
Where I was humbled in the attempt is when I was asked questions that I took for granted simply because of the years of programming, many things where just given, and while knowing then I had a very bad time properly expalining them to a absolute beginner.
This is what in my oppinion makes programming hard or easy, after that it is just layers of layers of that.
For me, now that I recall it, getters and setters in Java made no sense so much that I only got them after maybe a year, though I dont even know why didn't they make sense at the time.
I thing that a mentor has a lot of impact in how much programming is hard, be it a person, a course, or a book.
For me once I moved to zsh and added `oh my zsh` it really became so much easier.
I like the autocomplete, the fact that when cd-ing a known path you can just type the first leter of each directory with slashes, showing the git branch in working dir.
For example for some bizzare reason I am percieved as strange bu very inteligent and yet when I ask the questions they are rarely percieved stupid.
Why I am not going out of my own way to sound smart or anything I display depth of knowledge at certain areas and the way I'm asking questions is in an honest inquisitive matter of fact way.
The other side of this is the way one perceives the reactions, for example they might not reacted as if one was stupid as much as they are confused at disparity between the question asked and the knowledge one has showcased before that question.