Your posts are read by other Sett readers. Even if you've never blogged before, people reading similar articles across the Sett network will find your post.
"I got more views in one hour than I got in a month." -Mariano
Growing up in the church I learned to "Love Jesus", but I never loved Jesus. I only loved the idea of everlasting life and he was the way to get it. Books like Ecclesiastes in the bible are the cause of such confusion. Jesus came to bring heaven to earth through love and grace, while Soloman(The writer of Ecclesiastes) sets his sights on heaven and dares to say that life on the Earth is utterly meaningless. This is an Old Testament Philosophy and must be treated as such. The minute we start confusing the context we start getting side tracked and loose sight of our true purpose. To love the Lord your God and Love your neighbor as yourself(What Jesus said were the two greatest commandments).
Now we are trapped in thinking that heaven is what we aim for and the way to get their is by believing that Jesus died to take away the sins of the world which will allow us to get into heaven. And the only way for the magic to work is to "believe in it". It's a very logical way of thinking. It's input and output; yes or no. Their is no gray area because Americans are western and westerners believe in set rules and systematic paths.
But Jesus never taught that. He never told you that the way to get to heaven was to believe in him dying for you, he said the way was to be like him. Love others unconditionally, love God, and show grace and mercy to the oppressed. Period.
People asked jesus all the time how to get into heaven, and he always diverted their attention back to Love. When everyone of his followers wanted rules and guarantees, he was giving out strict orders to Love each other.
The modern church is incredibly concerned with being "saved" and "saving others" but jesus was only concerned with "love" and "loving others". So no more tracts, no more alter calls, and no more mind games. Just teaching Christ-like love through demonstration.
One of the things I should really learn is how to prioritize. Sometimes I just feel overwhelmed by all the things I want to do/ learn. Right now I want to learn how to code, I want to push a affiliate-project, I want to start my own business, I want to travel more, I want to learn spanish, I want to spend time with my girlfriend, I want to spend time with my friends, I want to blog on a regular basis, I want to start with sports again ... and besides I work in a Startup which is also really timeconsuming.
I think having goals is a good thing but right now I have so many of them that I dont proceed in any of them...
Take the test below and find out your Real Age. Feel free to share :)
Real Age Test
As with any toolbox, you want to see a good range of tools. In the Skull toolbox, we also see a good range, and a nice place too see this is on the Hyper Physics webpage. Hyper Physics is a physics info. page, hosted be Georgia State University perhaps as an effort to make sure their students are at a similar level to our Skull Scholars.
The best part about Hyper Physics is it's layout. As you can see, it's set up in a spider-diagram arrangement, which is interactive and will take you to more spider-diagrams when you click on it. Visually the page is quite, quite dated, and looks like it was made in an old peoples home. It certainly has function over design, especially as it does function well.
If you are studying A-level or high school, then Hyper Physics is a good place to complement your studying. Alternatively, and this is a good one, if you've just left compulsory education, Hyper Physics is a really good place to allow to continue learning physics so you can move past Skull into the Bones. However, such a functional resource will seem rather dry, so remember to check out the other parts of Skull too, particularly those relevant to what you may be reading on Hyper Physics.
Despite it's dull appearance, Hyper Physics is a good tool, honest!
I've had an opportunity to be part of a team doing a lot of greenfield development on a new codebase at a client recently, and it's been a lot of fun. The client already has a codebase that's grown organically over a decade to meet the changing and complex needs of a highly successful company, and is in surprisingly good shape considering. Still: it's huge, incorporates several competing implementations of The One True Programming Style, the occasional flash of mad genius, and a lot of code that was written by very dedicated developers working very hard to make very tight deadlines.
The new codebase shares none of the constraints of the old one, and the team is keen to keep things as pristine as possible as long as possible. One of the best tools in our arsenal is the enforced code review. New code entering the codebase needs to have been reviewed, no exceptions - and the goal is that most of the team reviews each piece. So far it's working out spectacularly well.
LinkedIn tells me I've been working on teams that have tried to incorporate code reviews with varying degrees of success for almost 6 years now, sometimes in larger teams that were sat in the same office, sometimes in smaller ones that were internationally distributed, and sometimes when I've paid external developers to look at code I've been writing by myself for clients.
So, here's what seems to work:
Few people seem to enjoy code reviews. There's the mental effort of understanding what someone was trying to achieve, the cognitive load of understanding how a piece of the system you're not working on is meant to fit together, and it takes time away from the joyful process of actually programming.