A friend posted an interesting two-part article from Psychology Today about cheating in science. Part 1 Part 2. Coincidentally, this dovetails with another story about cheating (in journalism) posted by CNN a few days back.
I am happy to report that I did not witness - or at least was not aware - of any fraud during my time at Cornell. It might be harder to get away with in astronomy and the natural sciences, as opposed to the behavioral sciences discussed in the articles, simply because there are fewer excuses for nonrepeatability of results. Mice could behave differently, but photons generally don't.
That said, it's an opportunity to share my personal experiences with cheating. Rather, it's a single experience, but it's bothered me enough to admit it.
I never cheated on any homework or test in K-12. In fact, I even turned in a poor guy who was cheating on an 8th grade science test. I did it discreetly, and I have hope that the teacher was gentle, but I still feel guilty about it. I should've approached him directly. But I didn't, maybe because I had a rigid view of right and wrong, and maybe because I was particularly hierarchical in my value system.
Thanks to a belief in both Harvey Mudd's Honor Code and my own (somewhat unrealistic) belief in my own abilities, I never cheated in college. There were a few reported incidents of cheating by peers in college, but they were largely regarded as one-offs. I'm sure it happened, but, charitably, I'd like to think it happened less frequently than at other colleges.
At Cornell, I remember the stress, panic, and depression starting to set in toward the end of the first semester. My grades were reasonably good, but my research was not, and the doubts I had about pursuing astronomy were beginning to be confirmed. It was perhaps a product of my decreasing confidence that I cheated for the first and last time on an academic test. I don't recall which class it was, but I recall using outside materials and seeking outside help.
I felt terrible about it, terrible for a long time. It may or may not have made a difference in my final grade, but as the difference was perhaps between a B+ and a B, it didn't matter by grad school standards.
It did, however, profoundly impact my view of myself as an honest scientist.
Much later, I did hear about other tales at Cornell of academic dishonesty. They included the absurd - a former professor, well before my time, was caught double-billing his travel expenses to NSF. They also included the depressing - an employee admitted to working half-time for the last few years on a program, but then proceeded to hold the project hostage. Such are the perils of smaller research projects - one person really can be irreplaceable.
I was never, ever pressured to deliver results by others; in that, I think I was far more fortunate than most people in grad school. (It helped I had my own money - the NSF fellowship.) However, I can understand and sympathize with the self-imposed pressures of individuals - some of whom, let's admit frankly, are the product of a selection effect that discourages those who are well-rounded or have developed a healthy self-esteem across multiple areas - who would be so obsessed with academic approval that we would compromise our values to keep the supply flowing. This in no way applies to my former colleagues - most of whom, I confess, I was jealous of because they did seem pretty well-adjusted.
All this to say that self-imposed pressures can lead good people to cheat. And, like so many sins, once it is committed, it becomes easier to continue along that path.
I never cheated in school again - honestly, it wouldn't have helped. But I can imagine that those who find a way for it to work, those who have a combination of bad fortune to have an onerous PI, or uncooperative project, coupled with disinterest in making the project work, or perhaps a desperate need to be a "success", would feel that cheating was a way out.
Cheating, is of course, not limited to the sciences. As I mentioned earlier, there was a fascinating case about a journalist who fabricated stories for The New Republic - it's a worthy read for the psychological insight into the man and his motivations.
It also brings up the issue of redemption - in science, there is none for cheating. What about in the rest of life? Do we really believe in the possibility of transformation stories - to use a biblical reference, the conversion of Saul to Paul - or do we really ascribe to a view that reform is impossible?
I think our words and our actions reveal two different answers. For a Christian nation, we do believe in the death penalty, life without parole, incarceration over rehabilitation, and marking individuals who are released with their own version of Jean Veljean's yellow convict papers. We hold people's past misdeeds against them, and forget their good actions. We're bad at weighing things in a balanced fashion. There may be evolutionary reasons for this, but I'd hope that we depend upon more than evolutionary selection to base our moral philosophy.
Have you cheated? Academically? Personally? Did you feel remorse? Did you get away with it?
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Monday, December 12, 2011
Santa Monica, Faith, and the Great Recession
Today I write about the showdown in Santa Monica about Nativity Displays. A coalition of atheists has managed to secure the vast majority of permits for lots in a Santa Monica park, historically dedicated to nativity displays. It looks like yet another showdown between Christians and atheists. But I believe this is a great opportunity masquerading as a crisis. All parties currently involved, and those on the sidelines, to take the opportunity to use that space to serve those hardest hit by economic downturn.
I respect both the desire to celebrate faith and the desire to defend one’s right to not believe. As someone with scientific training and a religious upbringing, I’ve lived in both worlds, among both peoples. And I’ve found remarkable degrees of both compassion and rigid thinking in both camps. I have treasured friends and family members entrenched in both camps who each, in their way, demonstrate the great virtues of courage, compassion, and generosity. For them, I write this appeal.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if something positive could come of this? What if the churches used this as an opportunity to reassess the value of spending thousands on nativity scenes, and choose, at least this time, to use that money for a living testament to Christian faith? What if, in turn, the atheist organization used this opportunity to humanize their cause, to demonstrate that an absence of God does not mean an absence of values – perhaps one of the most vehement arguments leveled against atheists? What if, given the option between confrontation and cooperation, these two camps chose to spend their efforts fighting the poverty that now grips Santa Monica and our country in general?
I propose that the coming fights and lawsuits be abandoned, in favor of a hunger luncheon, sponsored by people of all faiths, and those of no faith, dedicated to the common cause of alleviating poverty and hunger in Santa Monica this season.
Churches have not been immune to the downturn. Though the bankruptcy of Crystal Cathedral ministries might be the most conspicuous victim, many smaller churches have struggled. Yet in the face of the hard times, some churches, reaffirming their values and recognizing an increased need, have actually increased their efforts to provide food assistance and shelter. Here is the opportunity once again to demonstrate the tradition of giving and service that is both in keeping with the spirit of the season and the finest traditions of the faith, admired by those of any creed.
The atheist coalition has already scored a valuable coup in securing the permits and space. But what will come of it? Will a large display of one community’s values be supplanted by another’s? And will this continue a trend whereby any space must be contested, lest an opposing view take it? Or, perhaps, will the opportunity be seized in order to make the point that social service need not be necessarily tied to a specific religious faith? I can think of no greater way to demonstrate the virtues of their cause than by graciously working with others to host a hunger lunch.
Santa Monica is a city whose recent history has seen controversy regarding its attitudes and approaches toward homelessness. It is also, from what I can tell, unusual, if not unique, in its use of an annual Homeless Count, currently scheduled for January 25, to monitor and track trends of homelessness and the effectiveness of its policies to alleviate it. Here is an opportunity to reaffirm its commitment to help those most at-risk in its community.
Our nation is tired of wars of bombs and words. We can scarcely afford either. And it has been known since the beginning of religion and philosophy that one cannot preach effectively to a hungry person. Feed the hungry, and then, if necessary, make the case for your cause.
This season belongs to everyone. So, too, do the poor. Here’s hoping Santa will bring Santa Monica the gift of common purpose.
I respect both the desire to celebrate faith and the desire to defend one’s right to not believe. As someone with scientific training and a religious upbringing, I’ve lived in both worlds, among both peoples. And I’ve found remarkable degrees of both compassion and rigid thinking in both camps. I have treasured friends and family members entrenched in both camps who each, in their way, demonstrate the great virtues of courage, compassion, and generosity. For them, I write this appeal.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if something positive could come of this? What if the churches used this as an opportunity to reassess the value of spending thousands on nativity scenes, and choose, at least this time, to use that money for a living testament to Christian faith? What if, in turn, the atheist organization used this opportunity to humanize their cause, to demonstrate that an absence of God does not mean an absence of values – perhaps one of the most vehement arguments leveled against atheists? What if, given the option between confrontation and cooperation, these two camps chose to spend their efforts fighting the poverty that now grips Santa Monica and our country in general?
I propose that the coming fights and lawsuits be abandoned, in favor of a hunger luncheon, sponsored by people of all faiths, and those of no faith, dedicated to the common cause of alleviating poverty and hunger in Santa Monica this season.
Churches have not been immune to the downturn. Though the bankruptcy of Crystal Cathedral ministries might be the most conspicuous victim, many smaller churches have struggled. Yet in the face of the hard times, some churches, reaffirming their values and recognizing an increased need, have actually increased their efforts to provide food assistance and shelter. Here is the opportunity once again to demonstrate the tradition of giving and service that is both in keeping with the spirit of the season and the finest traditions of the faith, admired by those of any creed.
The atheist coalition has already scored a valuable coup in securing the permits and space. But what will come of it? Will a large display of one community’s values be supplanted by another’s? And will this continue a trend whereby any space must be contested, lest an opposing view take it? Or, perhaps, will the opportunity be seized in order to make the point that social service need not be necessarily tied to a specific religious faith? I can think of no greater way to demonstrate the virtues of their cause than by graciously working with others to host a hunger lunch.
Santa Monica is a city whose recent history has seen controversy regarding its attitudes and approaches toward homelessness. It is also, from what I can tell, unusual, if not unique, in its use of an annual Homeless Count, currently scheduled for January 25, to monitor and track trends of homelessness and the effectiveness of its policies to alleviate it. Here is an opportunity to reaffirm its commitment to help those most at-risk in its community.
Our nation is tired of wars of bombs and words. We can scarcely afford either. And it has been known since the beginning of religion and philosophy that one cannot preach effectively to a hungry person. Feed the hungry, and then, if necessary, make the case for your cause.
This season belongs to everyone. So, too, do the poor. Here’s hoping Santa will bring Santa Monica the gift of common purpose.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Testicles
At this time, it may pay to remember that Greece, for all its present troubles, was the birthplace of some of the greatest figures in history. We remember Themistocles who fought at Marathon, successfully foresaw the need to create a massive navy and defeated the greatest military power on Earth at Salamis, and experienced a tragic defeat politically that left him exiled and in service to the very power he had defeated. We remember Alcibiades for his brilliance and unorthodox tactics, as well as his lack of loyalty to any one power.
But history has neglected one famous figure who has much to teach us about Greece’s, and the world’s, present crisis.
I speak, of course, of Testicles.
The story of Testicles can be summed up as follows:
As a young man, Testicles was a harmless, innocent member of society, overly sensitive and not particularly useful, as seen by his peers. Scorned, ridiculed, and misunderstood, Testicles would flee from the cold world into a warm, inner world fueled by growing hatred. One day, Testicles descended into the Underworld, seeking fame and glory to rid him of the taint of worthlessness ascribed to him by his fellow villagers.
No one knows quite what happened next. Some said the Gods took pity on him and endowed him with greater vigor and aggressiveness, to correct for his previous timidity. Others say he slew and drank the blood of Cerberus, taking on the fiend’s strength and power, at the cost of furriness. Whatever the case, the world would be forever changed by Testicles’ descent.
For after this time, Testicles was no longer content to engage in the day-to-day chores and menial labor that characterized his previous experience. Returning, stronger, larger, and more aggressive to his home village, he shunned the acts of farming and fishing to seize power from the wise council of elders that had led through years of peace and modest prosperity. And, once seizing control of the body politic, Testicles was not content to stop at his home village. He sought new conquest, and new glory, abroad.
There was initial shock of seeing the outcast in a position of command and dominance. Yet the people forgive and forget, especially as victory followed victory and the village grew to the center of a kingdom, with Testicles in charge. Testicles’ people grew rich, and forgot the wisdom of the elders, and celebrated their new lives as conquerors in conflict and commerce.
All the lands around the village now followed Testicles. Yet Testicles, never one for genuflection or to solicit outside advice, sought more. Attempts to moderate Testicles' impulses fell short; having spent most of his life in the shadows, Testicles refused to be handled by anyone.
Year after year, his empire grew. And with every conquest, Testicles felt he could do no wrong, and that he was destined to be a God. People worshiped Testicles, and he celebrated that the taint of failure that characterized his early life receded further and further behind.
But, as tyrants often do, he ultimately overreached.
After conquering a vast empire, he now sought to conquer the Undeworld itself. By overthrowing Hades, the God of Death, he believed he would become immortal and a God himself.
Testicles raised a massive army. The people, blinded by their loyalty to their Testicles, followed him into the underworld. Again, no one knows precisely what happened. But legend says that, in pitched battle, Hades himself smote Testicles, and kicked him into the fiery pits of Tartarus, where fire consumed Testicles, and the smell of burning fur and flesh terrified the army into fleeing.
In the aftermath, the empire disintegrated, and humbled, the Council of Elders was reconstituted. To this day, Greek schoolchildren in the small village remember the defeat by kicking Testicles in effigy over and over, and finally burning the effigy of Testicles, complete with fur and animal flesh, so that their children remember, viscerally, the horror of the defeat. As the Elders say, it is a painful, but necessary, reminder of the dangers of hubris, and the importance of being content with modest blessings.
Hopefully, we, too, can learn the lesson from this tale of what happens when we let Testicles guide our destiny.
But history has neglected one famous figure who has much to teach us about Greece’s, and the world’s, present crisis.
I speak, of course, of Testicles.
The story of Testicles can be summed up as follows:
As a young man, Testicles was a harmless, innocent member of society, overly sensitive and not particularly useful, as seen by his peers. Scorned, ridiculed, and misunderstood, Testicles would flee from the cold world into a warm, inner world fueled by growing hatred. One day, Testicles descended into the Underworld, seeking fame and glory to rid him of the taint of worthlessness ascribed to him by his fellow villagers.
No one knows quite what happened next. Some said the Gods took pity on him and endowed him with greater vigor and aggressiveness, to correct for his previous timidity. Others say he slew and drank the blood of Cerberus, taking on the fiend’s strength and power, at the cost of furriness. Whatever the case, the world would be forever changed by Testicles’ descent.
For after this time, Testicles was no longer content to engage in the day-to-day chores and menial labor that characterized his previous experience. Returning, stronger, larger, and more aggressive to his home village, he shunned the acts of farming and fishing to seize power from the wise council of elders that had led through years of peace and modest prosperity. And, once seizing control of the body politic, Testicles was not content to stop at his home village. He sought new conquest, and new glory, abroad.
There was initial shock of seeing the outcast in a position of command and dominance. Yet the people forgive and forget, especially as victory followed victory and the village grew to the center of a kingdom, with Testicles in charge. Testicles’ people grew rich, and forgot the wisdom of the elders, and celebrated their new lives as conquerors in conflict and commerce.
All the lands around the village now followed Testicles. Yet Testicles, never one for genuflection or to solicit outside advice, sought more. Attempts to moderate Testicles' impulses fell short; having spent most of his life in the shadows, Testicles refused to be handled by anyone.
Year after year, his empire grew. And with every conquest, Testicles felt he could do no wrong, and that he was destined to be a God. People worshiped Testicles, and he celebrated that the taint of failure that characterized his early life receded further and further behind.
But, as tyrants often do, he ultimately overreached.
After conquering a vast empire, he now sought to conquer the Undeworld itself. By overthrowing Hades, the God of Death, he believed he would become immortal and a God himself.
Testicles raised a massive army. The people, blinded by their loyalty to their Testicles, followed him into the underworld. Again, no one knows precisely what happened. But legend says that, in pitched battle, Hades himself smote Testicles, and kicked him into the fiery pits of Tartarus, where fire consumed Testicles, and the smell of burning fur and flesh terrified the army into fleeing.
In the aftermath, the empire disintegrated, and humbled, the Council of Elders was reconstituted. To this day, Greek schoolchildren in the small village remember the defeat by kicking Testicles in effigy over and over, and finally burning the effigy of Testicles, complete with fur and animal flesh, so that their children remember, viscerally, the horror of the defeat. As the Elders say, it is a painful, but necessary, reminder of the dangers of hubris, and the importance of being content with modest blessings.
Hopefully, we, too, can learn the lesson from this tale of what happens when we let Testicles guide our destiny.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Admittedly armchair economics - taxes and jobs
Tax policy should always be on the table. I'm tired of listening to people who admittedly have the job of fighting tax increases. I'll do my job, and dig past the repeated boilerplate about taxes killing investment and hiring.
American business have practically zero interest rates and historically low tax rates. And yet businesses are (perhaps rationally) not hiring. No wonder - the customer that represents 25% of the economy said it is tightening their belt, and probably going to fire a bunch of employees and close many positions held by current retirees. (That's the government - local, state, and federal.)
Let's step aside from the somewhat artificial government/private sector separation. Lewis Black put it best here (starting around 0:41): whether it's government, or the private sector, there are people who do the job, and there are rules that are either followed or broken.
So let's ditch whether a job is public sector or private sector for a second. Fiscal tightening is probably going to be bad for employment in the near to mid-term, whatever its impact longer term on the economic health of the country.
I'm wondering if it's possible to construct a tax that incentivizes hiring and capital investment now, rather than later. I'm going to avoid changing taxes on earned income, and explore policies to move money that is sitting in cash/short-term bonds.
Let's say, hypothetically, I'm a major company in America, continuing to make significant profits and sitting on a pretty hefty cash reserve. Policy is enacted such that my effective cost to hire and buy equipment will increase next year and stay higher. This gives me an incentive to do as much purchasing and hiring this year as seems reasonably prudent. Maybe there's equipment that I need. Maybe I need to hire to replace retiring employees.
How would this be done? There are carrots, and there are sticks.
Carrots are gifts above and beyond what is currently given. It might be a direct tax break for hiring or captial spending. It might be targeted subsidies for industries that can scale up quickly (construction, as opposed to, say, advanced research).
Sticks would involve taking away existing breaks, or imposing completely new taxes. It could involve ending the current tax credit for hiring new employees. It could be an increase in Medicare contributions to apply to new hires after a certain date, or an increase in sales tax. It could be a change in depreciation rules for capital purchases. It could be a change in environmental or labor regulations that will exempt those hired before a certain date.
Naturally, it wouldn't make sense to make the trigger date too soon. For example, if the sticks came with hiring in one week, there wouldn't be time to really increase hiring and purchasing before the cost of hiring/purchasing increased, which could, indeed, hinder recovery. But it wouldn't make sense to make it so far into the future that the change was discounted - actuarily as well as psychologically - to the point that it didn not change behavior. One to three years seems reasonable; perhaps over a longer period and involving increases over a period of time.
Carrots require more government spending and breaks, and probably more deficits. It's a bit odd that the party most concerned with government spending wants more work on one side of the ledger, and in a way that could potentially increase deficits.
I'm not exploring the moral fairness angle, or the effectiveness long-term of such policies. I'm also not exploring the political tractability of such a proposal (though it might be better than it seems at first glance, if one chooses to fight for it). I'm just wondering how it could be done.
Too often the focus is on changes on taxes on earned or unearned income. But if the goal is to change the behavior of companies that have cash on hand, then the tools used have to operate on that cash, and not only on the promise or reality of future profits.
Would love some informed, well-reasoned thoughts on this.
American business have practically zero interest rates and historically low tax rates. And yet businesses are (perhaps rationally) not hiring. No wonder - the customer that represents 25% of the economy said it is tightening their belt, and probably going to fire a bunch of employees and close many positions held by current retirees. (That's the government - local, state, and federal.)
Let's step aside from the somewhat artificial government/private sector separation. Lewis Black put it best here (starting around 0:41): whether it's government, or the private sector, there are people who do the job, and there are rules that are either followed or broken.
So let's ditch whether a job is public sector or private sector for a second. Fiscal tightening is probably going to be bad for employment in the near to mid-term, whatever its impact longer term on the economic health of the country.
I'm wondering if it's possible to construct a tax that incentivizes hiring and capital investment now, rather than later. I'm going to avoid changing taxes on earned income, and explore policies to move money that is sitting in cash/short-term bonds.
Let's say, hypothetically, I'm a major company in America, continuing to make significant profits and sitting on a pretty hefty cash reserve. Policy is enacted such that my effective cost to hire and buy equipment will increase next year and stay higher. This gives me an incentive to do as much purchasing and hiring this year as seems reasonably prudent. Maybe there's equipment that I need. Maybe I need to hire to replace retiring employees.
How would this be done? There are carrots, and there are sticks.
Carrots are gifts above and beyond what is currently given. It might be a direct tax break for hiring or captial spending. It might be targeted subsidies for industries that can scale up quickly (construction, as opposed to, say, advanced research).
Sticks would involve taking away existing breaks, or imposing completely new taxes. It could involve ending the current tax credit for hiring new employees. It could be an increase in Medicare contributions to apply to new hires after a certain date, or an increase in sales tax. It could be a change in depreciation rules for capital purchases. It could be a change in environmental or labor regulations that will exempt those hired before a certain date.
Naturally, it wouldn't make sense to make the trigger date too soon. For example, if the sticks came with hiring in one week, there wouldn't be time to really increase hiring and purchasing before the cost of hiring/purchasing increased, which could, indeed, hinder recovery. But it wouldn't make sense to make it so far into the future that the change was discounted - actuarily as well as psychologically - to the point that it didn not change behavior. One to three years seems reasonable; perhaps over a longer period and involving increases over a period of time.
Carrots require more government spending and breaks, and probably more deficits. It's a bit odd that the party most concerned with government spending wants more work on one side of the ledger, and in a way that could potentially increase deficits.
I'm not exploring the moral fairness angle, or the effectiveness long-term of such policies. I'm also not exploring the political tractability of such a proposal (though it might be better than it seems at first glance, if one chooses to fight for it). I'm just wondering how it could be done.
Too often the focus is on changes on taxes on earned or unearned income. But if the goal is to change the behavior of companies that have cash on hand, then the tools used have to operate on that cash, and not only on the promise or reality of future profits.
Would love some informed, well-reasoned thoughts on this.
Monday, August 29, 2011
Why you should hug a math major today (and maybe even scientists and engineers)
I've been working on Slader, a website where you answer math questions and get paid a bit per solution. There's more comprehensive information in a review here, if you're interested.
Anyway, it occurred to me that the math majors/grad students I know are absolutely, totally nuts.
Look, I like LaTeX. It makes things pretty, especially equations. I've had to use quite a bit of it to write papers which, though scientifically moribund, were at least formatted (roughly) according to ApJ standards.
But you math people are totally ridiculous.
I remember one of my suitemates (let's call him "Jeff", because that's actually his name) had to write homework solutions in LaTeX. This was for an upper-division math class taught by a very assertive (though quite nice) Chinese professor. (Direct quote from the professor in my multivariable math class explaining derivatives: "e^x is like a strong child; you hit it and it stays the same. ln x is like a weak child; it dies and gets buried underground.)
So I'm sure he, and the other math majors I know, had to do LaTeX all the time.
Anyway, I just solved a part of a calculus problem. It involves determining where a function is concave up. It's part 1 of five. After completing it, I realized that it was totally not worth 75 cents.
Here's what the solution looks like:
Now wait a minute, you might say. That looks not bad. Well, it's actually quite bad, as in I did a crappy job. It's sparse on the explanations. I should add in subsections indicating that you need to test for the cases when x>0 and x<0. But I got tired. And here's why. Here's the LaTeX source code that I used to actually write the solution.
Now this isn't bad if you're a computer scientist, or a mathematician, or an engineer. But I taught high school for the last year. I have no fucking clue how people handle coding all day. Maybe it's like French; I don't know how the hell it works, but I guess if you do it long enough, it makes sense to you, even if it makes you seem mechanical (programming) or pretentious (French).
Anyway, I have a whole new sympathy for math people who do this every goddamn day, for many hours of said goddamn day. So go hug one. Maybe it will help with the carpal tunnel and eyestrain.
Anyway, it occurred to me that the math majors/grad students I know are absolutely, totally nuts.
Look, I like LaTeX. It makes things pretty, especially equations. I've had to use quite a bit of it to write papers which, though scientifically moribund, were at least formatted (roughly) according to ApJ standards.
But you math people are totally ridiculous.
I remember one of my suitemates (let's call him "Jeff", because that's actually his name) had to write homework solutions in LaTeX. This was for an upper-division math class taught by a very assertive (though quite nice) Chinese professor. (Direct quote from the professor in my multivariable math class explaining derivatives: "e^x is like a strong child; you hit it and it stays the same. ln x is like a weak child; it dies and gets buried underground.)
So I'm sure he, and the other math majors I know, had to do LaTeX all the time.
Anyway, I just solved a part of a calculus problem. It involves determining where a function is concave up. It's part 1 of five. After completing it, I realized that it was totally not worth 75 cents.
Here's what the solution looks like:
Now wait a minute, you might say. That looks not bad. Well, it's actually quite bad, as in I did a crappy job. It's sparse on the explanations. I should add in subsections indicating that you need to test for the cases when x>0 and x<0. But I got tired. And here's why. Here's the LaTeX source code that I used to actually write the solution.
Now this isn't bad if you're a computer scientist, or a mathematician, or an engineer. But I taught high school for the last year. I have no fucking clue how people handle coding all day. Maybe it's like French; I don't know how the hell it works, but I guess if you do it long enough, it makes sense to you, even if it makes you seem mechanical (programming) or pretentious (French).
Anyway, I have a whole new sympathy for math people who do this every goddamn day, for many hours of said goddamn day. So go hug one. Maybe it will help with the carpal tunnel and eyestrain.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)