Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.

count0

Moderators
  • Content count

    3,424
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About count0

  • Rank
    Veteran Member

Personality

  • MBTI
    INTj
  • Enneagram
    5w4

Converted

  • Location
    Calgary, Boston
  • Occupation
    Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

2,138 profile views
  1. I'm about halfway through and so far I'm liking the game. -I didn't really notice major facial animation issues. I don't really see what the big deal was. -Really enjoying the gameplay. -Most of the sidequests feel somewhat meaningful. Although there are a few "scan this thing" sidequests, but they still manage to incorporate some story elements into them. Unlike the terrible FFXV sidequests which added absolutely nothing to the game except tedious play time. Some of the sidequests are really fucking sweet. Raiding Kett bases is a lot of fun. -I'd like to see a bigger variety of enemies to fight. -The story has a ton of potential, but unfortunately it fails to really deliver on it. I feel like the whole game was a set up for selling DLC packages down the line, where if you are interested in finding out more about a particular story arc, you'll have to buy an expansion pack. Or something like that. -The content isn't really all that balanced. Some areas are just overwhelmingly massive, while others are really small. Again, it makes me feel like if I want another big planet to explore, I'll have to buy a DLC later.
  2. This, along with all the lesbian alien sex in the original trilogy, gives me hope.
  3. Soooo... anyone know if you can romance your sister in the game?
  4. Attempts have been made to professionalize software engineering over many years, but all have failed thus far. Professionalization implies the formal codification and standardization of knowledge, tools, and techniques that are standardized across the procession such that when you hire a member of a profession you can be guaranteed that the project will turn out as you expected that it would. The problem with software engineering is that it is still changing too quickly to develop lasting standards and practices. Professionalization can't and won't happen until the industry reaches a level of maturity where the tools and methods stop changing. That said, I do think software engineering eventually will become a profession - as you said, some techniques within software engineering have become foundational and mature - but it will take a long time before that happens the the discipline as a whole.
  5. I really haven't experienced the issues you are bringing up. Just about every women I've worked with has been very professional and has been capable of separating domestic issues from work - maybe they get their husbands to deal with that stuff. What I have found is that my female coworkers are much more detail oriented than their male counterparts and are less likely to embroil themselves in corporate power struggles. Maybe it's your company hiring policies that need to be looked at.
  6. Will definitely pick this up next week, combat looks bad ass.
  7. Another way of looking at things is scientists examine observed phenomenon to try and understand them, usually by picking apart complex systems to test hypotheses, while engineers take that understanding and use it to create new products and systems. INTJs are good systems people and could probably do well in either profession but, being more practical and results driven, I think the majority of INTJs would prefer to be engineers as scientific work is generally less extrinsically rewarding.
  8. Neural networks used in commercial applications have a surprising amount of structure, and that structure is often architected specifically for the application. So it's more like some data enters the neural network through one layer, some data enters the network through some other layer, the outputs are passed through several hidden layers with each hidden layer having some additional structure, perhaps some of the output is fed back into the neural network through another layer. It gets very complicated very quickly.
  9. A cleaning business you say? Well I have a business plan for you. Step 1: Collect underpants Step 2: ??? Step 3: Profit Foolproof!
  10. I don't think technological advancement is a problem or destructive to society as a whole, and so long as the pace of technological advancement does not happen too quickly the distribution issues can be dealt with. I still believe that. I also held a belief that the rate of technological change is somewhat self regulating, but I'm not 100% sure about it. My confidence in self regulating mechanisms that limit the rate of technological change is wavering somewhat.
  11. I read a great article on this on Medium that is making me rethink some of my views on this. https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/what-costs-more-what-costs-less-magic-boxes-and-the-modern-economy-a8ed3fdfac6d#.vfwh9ilg3
  12. I see what you're getting at. I think you should note that I did not specify the specific role that government should have, just that some form government must exist to manage externalities. I'm not advocating for governments to take over means of production so they can produce in an environmentally friendly way, or start constructing buildings themselves in order to make sure sure those buildings are attractive. Those goals are best achieved by oversight and enforcement of regulations. Accountability for those regulations can be provided by elections, but elections themselves are not perfect, and yes, elections (not to mention the operating costs of government) are expensive. However, I'd argue that the benefits of government usually exceed the costs of governments, so long as governments do not overreach to far into the economy. I'd also argue that would be impossible to have a functioning anarchist society that provided it's citizens with much more than a sustenance living.
  13. Perhaps in small farming communities or tribal hunter gather communities you don't need commerce, but I'm talking about any modern society. You don't need a government in a community of 100 people or so living in a sustenance environment. In practice, these types of small communities operate as collectives, because it's the strong community ties that hold them together. Governments don't always do a great job of addressing externalities, but they often do offer workable solutions. I think saving the ozone layer is a pretty good example of a success story. To say government is one large problem of the commons will require some more explanation on your part if you expect such a statement to be a serious point of debate.
  14. I went through a libertarian phase, but I eventually realized that it's flawed in the same sense that pure socialism is flawed. It works well in theory under certain assumptions, but those assumptions are not grounded in reality. The free market is powerful and highly efficient, but can only function if there is commerce. Commerce is not a purely economic force, as anyone who has participated in a complex deal or negotiation can tell you. There are legal, social, cultural, and technological systems that underpin it, and these systems can be messy and require some oversight. Aside from the need to facilitate commerce, the government has a role in maintaining social stability. This is going to be controversial to free marketers, because social stability is linked to inequality. This means that some effort must be put into alleviating inequality, or the poor and disadvantaged will riot and the whole thing will come crashing down. There is also the matter of externalities that anarchists and libertarians don't have good answers to.