It was a great documentary. First, I really liked how they included a significant part to the entire U.S. spying on Brazil leak scandal. I actually remember this from when I was a kid and my parents talking about how the United States basically had control over everything that we were doing online. Second, I really liked learning more about the small things people can tap into. I think everyone has an idea that the NSA is capable of watching you if they really want to, but just watching the tiny things Snowden pointed out like disconnecting the hotel or hiding all the pro-bono lawyer phones was extremely interesting to me, it makes us all think about how we can be watched today and in what ways one can simply find out a lot about us.
Nonetheless, focusing more on his story than on the "espionage" specifics was a downside for me. On the perspective the documentary is filmed, they really emphasize how the government will try to make the story seem about Snowden and will try to make him the villain in order to shift the focus from how the government is conducting its observations. However, although the documentary does portray him as somewhat of a hero despite the government critique, they focus –for me– just a little bit on the specific leaks which made me want to dive deeper on them and not necessarily his story since, at the end of the day, that was his goal all along.
Although CS is not my major, I really enjoyed how the reading does offer advice that can be applied to other areas such an Engineering. I really connected to the advice on studying math. Taking classes ranging from Economics to Physics, I can completely see his point on how math is crucial to understanding a plethora of other things. Second, I connected a lot with my CMC experience when is mentioned that one must study other fields that are not necessarily in STEM. I completely agree with the position that intellectually challenging fields can aggregate a lot to one's experience.
I also really enjoyed learning more about how problem solving is crucial in future jobs, sometimes finding solutions to problems we might have, can lead to extremely impressive discoveries or solutions that can be applied anywhere. I do wish that the article had dived more deeply into specifics of one can become a better hacker without joining the CS field since that would be more applicable to my life.
I had heard a similar argument before several times, people that are bad at Maths, can get better, but there will always be those with more talent for it that will surpass them with less experience and practice. I really liked how this argument was expanded into programming (a lot of Maths in the field coincidentally), however, the author did not take such a bleak approach and really dove deep into a more people centered approach. I had never thought of the idea of falling in love with the other aspects of a subject in order to fully enjoy it, be that the business the people that work with it, or what goes behind it.
I think that this is can be applied to other areas as well and not just programming. Sometimes the best thing is taking a step back, another breath of air. Thus, something I disliked about the article was how short it was and I wished that the discussion could have went further, since I believe there is a lot more to this topic. The comment section is quite interesting and it is a 10/10 recommend.
I really enjoyed how this article gives a great example to two common misconceptions that it highlights. First, is that we can learn something extremely fast if we just follow a specific methodology. True, there are things that we can do to speed up our learning as the author himself highlights, but it is also extremely difficult to completely master a skill in such a short amount of time and this is applicable to too many situations not just programming. Second, I liked how in the steps the author suggests us taking in mastering programming there is a staunch correlation to elements of the other articles: both the idea of collaborating with others and learning other things that go behind or are similar to your area.
One thing that I actually disliked is the citing of the 10,000 thousand hour rule though. Several, sources actually refute this argument so I believe it made the author's point a little less convincing. Nonetheless, I do throughly agree with the point that experience is key to learning something and that knowing everything that comes from a book is not the best step to take when truly mastering a particular skill –not just programming.
Watching (non-fiction) 1 point:
CitizenFour (2014) CitizenFour (2014)):
It was a great documentary. First, I really liked how they included a significant part to the entire U.S. spying on Brazil leak scandal. I actually remember this from when I was a kid and my parents talking about how the United States basically had control over everything that we were doing online. Second, I really liked learning more about the small things people can tap into. I think everyone has an idea that the NSA is capable of watching you if they really want to, but just watching the tiny things Snowden pointed out like disconnecting the hotel or hiding all the pro-bono lawyer phones was extremely interesting to me, it makes us all think about how we can be watched today and in what ways one can simply find out a lot about us.
Nonetheless, focusing more on his story than on the "espionage" specifics was a downside for me. On the perspective the documentary is filmed, they really emphasize how the government will try to make the story seem about Snowden and will try to make him the villain in order to shift the focus from how the government is conducting its observations. However, although the documentary does portray him as somewhat of a hero despite the government critique, they focus –for me– just a little bit on the specific leaks which made me want to dive deeper on them and not necessarily his story since, at the end of the day, that was his goal all along.
Reading (Non-Fiction): 3 points
ESR's How to become a hacker:
Although CS is not my major, I really enjoyed how the reading does offer advice that can be applied to other areas such an Engineering. I really connected to the advice on studying math. Taking classes ranging from Economics to Physics, I can completely see his point on how math is crucial to understanding a plethora of other things. Second, I connected a lot with my CMC experience when is mentioned that one must study other fields that are not necessarily in STEM. I completely agree with the position that intellectually challenging fields can aggregate a lot to one's experience.
I also really enjoyed learning more about how problem solving is crucial in future jobs, sometimes finding solutions to problems we might have, can lead to extremely impressive discoveries or solutions that can be applied anywhere. I do wish that the article had dived more deeply into specifics of one can become a better hacker without joining the CS field since that would be more applicable to my life.
Jeff Atwood's How To Become a Better Programmer by Not Programming:
I had heard a similar argument before several times, people that are bad at Maths, can get better, but there will always be those with more talent for it that will surpass them with less experience and practice. I really liked how this argument was expanded into programming (a lot of Maths in the field coincidentally), however, the author did not take such a bleak approach and really dove deep into a more people centered approach. I had never thought of the idea of falling in love with the other aspects of a subject in order to fully enjoy it, be that the business the people that work with it, or what goes behind it.
I think that this is can be applied to other areas as well and not just programming. Sometimes the best thing is taking a step back, another breath of air. Thus, something I disliked about the article was how short it was and I wished that the discussion could have went further, since I believe there is a lot more to this topic. The comment section is quite interesting and it is a 10/10 recommend.
Peter Norvig's Teach Yourself Programming in Ten Years (not 21 days):
I really enjoyed how this article gives a great example to two common misconceptions that it highlights. First, is that we can learn something extremely fast if we just follow a specific methodology. True, there are things that we can do to speed up our learning as the author himself highlights, but it is also extremely difficult to completely master a skill in such a short amount of time and this is applicable to too many situations not just programming. Second, I liked how in the steps the author suggests us taking in mastering programming there is a staunch correlation to elements of the other articles: both the idea of collaborating with others and learning other things that go behind or are similar to your area.
One thing that I actually disliked is the citing of the 10,000 thousand hour rule though. Several, sources actually refute this argument so I believe it made the author's point a little less convincing. Nonetheless, I do throughly agree with the point that experience is key to learning something and that knowing everything that comes from a book is not the best step to take when truly mastering a particular skill –not just programming.
Total: 4 Points