Staler87
Warlord
I just started listening to the podcast, after posting on this thread for a while, I did read the article, and holy crap you sound just like the man in your profile picture.
I'm speaking about 99% of programmers. Unless you're in some cutting-edge research you usually face some new problem not often in more than half a year. If you're applications programmer and face significant problems more often than 1 per week, this usually means you're very ineffective programmer due lack of memorizing and search skills as these problems are very likely to be solved by someone already.
No, you are not. From all the programmers I know, including myself, 90+% is the opposite of what you say. Memorizing solutions in programming would be like memorizing formulas to be an excellent engineer... yeah, sure.
You start with architecture. Good architecture is those consisting from Patterns. Not only you save time thinking about problems already solved, but also using common pattern names makes architecture way more readable. With the amount of patterns available by now, inventing new ones is extremely rare situation.
Once you have good architecture, you normally have quite small methods, fulfilling a single operation. The situations where you need to actually invent new algorithms are very few - in most cases for anything complex you just add library or, in rare cases, implement some algorithm from a book. If you have to invent algorithms often, it's highly possible you're just unable to find it already implemented and from management standpoint that's ineffective.
I don't know which sphere you're working on, but I've working in large area of applications development (more as manager than programmer) and the most hard tasks were either finding the best solution from existing ones or fighting problems with 3rd party software/hardware.
There are some creative areas, like projecting real-life to models, but that's not generally "problem solving".
Here's an interesting article that links numerous studies suggesting our IQ has been slowly declining since the Victorian Era.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...uman-intelligence-victoria-era_n_3293846.html
There are some creative areas, like projecting real-life to models, but that's not generally "problem solving".
At the risk of taking things off topic again, I feel bound to say that the situation is more complex than it appears from that article. Intelligence is a cultural construct, and our notions of what it is, and how to measure it (if that is possible or desirable) are influenced by our culture. I treasure the story of the Western psychologists who tried to administer intelligence tests to some Pacific islanders, who took the tests away and filled them in *together*, as a group. Since they came from a collectivist culture, the idea of *individual* intelligence was quite alien to them. Rather belatedly, Western psychology began to realise that it was important to recognise that human beings actually do rather a lot of things in groups and not alone, and that Western individualism is not the only way.
I disagree, but perhaps our definitions of problem solving differ. Every shape or form of human action includes both past knowledge and known methods, but offers new challenges and requires problem solving. If there isn't a problem that needs to be solved, a machine can easily do it.
We've accumulated a lot of knowledge and Internet is the biggest leap in sharing it since Printing or even Writing.
No, the game has simply developed into a direction that you personally don't like while large parts of the Civ-Community are looking forward to it.
That's all there is.
What kind of a nonsensical statement is that? "That's all there is." is merely a closing statement, it does not have any merit on the argument that was made.Any "argumentation" that closes with "That's all there is" is self-defeating and does not merit any valuable response.
Not fallacious, but dismissive, yes. When the discussion has already been had but one side of the debate goes on to bring in evermore ridiculous arguments instead of just accepting that there's no "greater argument" to be had and that it's just their personal preference that isn't being catered to while most people seem quite happy with what they see there comes a point where any real response just doesn't have a place anymore, because you just know that no matter how reasonable and well thought-out of a counter-point you present the op will just move onto the next level of bs to continue the spiel.Apart from pointing out the fallacious characteristic of such statement, that is.
The sad thing is, I think we've been at that point since page 2.What kind of a nonsensical statement is that? "That's all there is." is merely a closing statement, it does not have any merit on the argument that was made.
Not that there was any argument in my post to begin with, I merely repeated what had already been concluded. Why? Because the video he linked literally doesn't have anything to do with anything, it's just another step down the road of nonsense so he doesn't have to admit the obvious - that Civ VI is, if we ignore the graphics-debate, highly anticipated in the western audience but has lost what made older Civs interesting for him personally somewhere down the line.
Not fallacious, but dismissive, yes. When the discussion has already been had but one side of the debate goes on to bring in evermore ridiculous arguments instead of just accepting that there's no "greater argument" to be had and that it's just their personal preference that isn't being catered to while most people seem quite happy with what they see there comes a point where any real response just doesn't have a place anymore, because you just know that no matter how reasonable and well thought-out of a counter-point you present the op will just move onto the next level of bs to continue the spiel.