When I see something like this I wonder if there are people out there who actually go chapter-by-chapter from start to finish, spending dozens of hours learning the content a random GitHub repo claimed was important.
You can always go for the fundamentals and go through DDIA. It is heavy on foundations but does not really give examples of specific real world systems. For that, Alex Xu’s books are probably the most popular.
This repo is a very high level collection of topics with short descriptions rather than a learning source. You can skim it a couple of minutes. But if you're curious about a topic, why wouldn't you read a free resource on it if the quality seems good?
“quality seems good” is the point of contention here; how would you know? You’re either already knowledgeable about this topic and therefore necessarily didn’t learn it from here or you’re not and therefore unqualified to judge its quality at all.
That applies to everything we learn. Most of us use previous experience to make an educated guess. Someone just coming into software won't be reading this, but it can be good start to know what one could dig deeper into.
Most content on any topic is bullshit, and in tech quickly outdated. What's your gripe with this particular one? I have several similar repos starred for future reference, because why not? Could be useful.
You never answered how you learn? Because I assume you still do? Since you have opinions on how others do it maybe you have better approaches you'd like to share?
Could be useful? Could be misleading, wrong, outdated, manipulated… there’s a reason these people are self publishing.
You asking me how I learn is the very problem, in fact. When the consequences of being wrong are basically zero, the incentives are not aligned for me to provide you with anything resembling quality.
Avoid individuals entirely, and focus on institutions who are meaningfully harmed by their inaccuracy if discovered.
> there’s a reason these people are self publishing.
??? What in the paranoia is this, do you think the same of Jeff Erickson who self publishes his book on Algorithms? Or no, because he's a professor?
I get that you need to use surface-level signals to determine if something is worth your time, but the opposite is not "this is crap" the opposite is "I don't know if this is good"
You seem to have high views of institutions, and low self-esteem on your own ability to assess information. Take nothing at face value, and learn from multiple sources. Those institutions you claim have no incentives are just as likely trying to monetize you and lock you into their walled gardens. To each their own I guess.
Nope! You entirely misunderstand; it’s about incentive and consequence, not self esteem or reverence.
Those institutions exist as a result of their reputation, and that reputation is harmed by giving bad instruction. This random Internet stranger has no reputation whatsoever, so there is zero incentive for them to operate honestly, beyond whatever self imposed morality they may have.
Your method relies on good nature and blind faith, and leaves you open to manipulation, ignorance and misunderstanding; what I describe uses societal forces and self interest to ensure quality. I’m sure you can guess which had better outcomes…
> Your method relies on good nature and blind faith, and leaves you open to manipulation, ignorance and misunderstanding; what I describe uses societal forces and self interest to ensure quality. I’m sure you can guess which had better outcomes…
Is that how you read "take nothing at face value"? I question everything, so should you. Which are these infamous institutions you praise? Maybe some of them are among the sources this random internet stranger referenced at the end?
Linus Thorvalds once was a random internet stranger, now the world runs on his kernel. Your world view is very black/white. Most of the best content I've read are from random internet strangers, and not institutions. They're often from hands-on experience and not written for PR purposes.
I'm not misunderstanding anything, you're claiming I am just to "win" some internet points. How many times do I have to write "don't take anything at face value"? I assess the content (from multiple sources) not the messenger, of course the messenger counts but that goes both ways (bias is a thing).
You claim Docker is pushing Docker desktop over Podman or even their own daemon is out of goodwill and not for telemetry? You have to go out of your way to find the instructions for just the daemon without the bloat. But you're paranoid some blog will trick you into running 'rm -rf /' as root because the source is an "individual"? (straw-man yes, but lacking examples I have to make one up).
You won't even provide a single example of a better source when asked, just hand-waving "institutions good, individuals bad". There's nothing constructive in this chain, and we're going in circles. I'm genuinely curious of your examples, so if you want to be constructive instead of focusing on my worries please provide some. If not, I wish you the best day.
Either you are an expert on the topic of systems engineering and can assess the quality of this submission but don’t need it as you have better sources, or you are not an expert and can therefore not assess its quality (it comes from a random person on the Internet, after all) and therefore can’t safely use it.
As for Internet points, or arguments, or winning, why do you care? Why even bring it up?
I pity you for having such a simple view of things. Even if I've designed systems for a decade I still find different approaches and other peoples' experience interesting. Don't tell me your time is too precious, because obviously you have time for this useless discussion.
You don't have to be an expert to make assumptions of the content, learning is incremental. I'll give you an example, I've never dabbled with AI, but I could get a decent feel of the quality of a blog post on the subject. Maybe there's a mistake in there that I'll encounter and have to fix. To me that's a win, because then I know WHY I do something, as opposed to just being told THE way to do something and missing the details.
As for why I care? I'm trying to help you broaden your perspective, if possible, maybe it brings me good (real life) karma. The way you word yourself sounds like you're still early in the Dunnin-Kruger scale.
Some random internet stranger puts time and effort into creating this repository and sharing it for free. You see it, find no interest in reading it but instead of scrolling past you have to question why anyone else would. I tell you what value it could give others, and you double down, leaning on "trust" and "reputation" of mysterious "institutions".
Still waiting for your reputable institutions, or anything resembling a useful response. I've asked what gripes you have with the repository, but crickets. If you aren't even going to try to be constructive why are you wasting your precious time? What are you gaining from this?
> I still find different approaches and other peoples' experience interesting
...except this is the literal opposite of that, this is presented as an introductory resource. The literal opposite of "other peoples' experience", it's an intro into the topic.
> You don't have to be an expert to make assumptions of the content, learning is incremental.
My entire argument is that you must make evaluations about the source of the content, so I think it's clear you completely missed what I actually said for what you wanted to believe I said.
> As for why I care? I'm trying to help you broaden your perspective, if possible, maybe it brings me good (real life) karma.
No, I didn't ask why you cared about talking to me, I asked why you cared about Internet Argument Points. You brought them up, then got pissy about me caring about them.
> Still waiting for your reputable institutions, or anything resembling a useful response.
I don't owe you shit and this is manipulative. You don't get to tell me what to do or how I engage in a conversation.
> I've asked what gripes you have with the repository, but crickets.
"This is from an anonymous source who has no incentive to be accurate, so it is of unknown quality." is my "gripe". It's the gripe you replied to originally, so stop gaslighting.
> If you aren't even going to try to be constructive why are you wasting your precious time? What are you gaining from this?
> ...except this is the literal opposite of that, this is presented as an introductory resource. The literal opposite of "other peoples' experience", it's an intro into the topic.
We're discussing this in a broader sense than the OP right? Individuals vs institutions (whatever those are) and if the former can be useful. You claim they never are, because experts don't need them and novices can't assess the quality.
> My entire argument is that you must make evaluations about the source of the content, so I think it's clear you completely missed what I actually said for what you wanted to believe I said.
I understand you as dismissing anything not from a reputable institution. Is that not what you meant by "Avoid individuals entirely, and focus on institutions who are meaningfully harmed by their inaccuracy if discovered."? I read you literally. I don't see examples in the real world of institutions being meaningfully harmed by mistakes, ever.
> No, I didn't ask why you cared about talking to me, I asked why you cared about Internet Argument Points. You brought them up, then got pissy about me caring about them.
What?
> I don't owe you shit and this is manipulative. You don't get to tell me what to do or how I engage in a conversation.
No you don't but it would be much better use of your time to just define these institutions. I claim their "monetary incentive" you mentioned mean they push you into their walled gardens, like AWS, Oracle and others. As I see it unbiased sources don't exist, and all sources have to be taken with a grain of salt. I would love to be proven wrong, why the hesitation to share an example? Was I close with the Docker one?
Maybe we're even in agreement but you've painted yourself in a corner? What other conclusions can I draw after all this back and forth?
> "This is from an anonymous source who has no incentive to be accurate, so it is of unknown quality." is my "gripe". It's the gripe you replied to originally, so stop gaslighting.
"Hence nobody else in the entire world should see any value in it either, because anonymous internet stranger."
- Zetice
With such deep thoughts you should consider running for president, you'll be in good company. You probably understand that everyone starts as a nobody, how are they supposed to build said reputation if nobody ever evaluates them on their work? Chicken and the egg. Maybe that's his incentive? Build reputation, or land a job, or a million other reasons. I don't judge anything on shallow requirements like reputation, it can be a useful metric but never necessary. I would miss a lot of great content if I did.
> We're discussing this in a broader sense than the OP right?
No.
> I understand you as dismissing anything not from a reputable institution.
Nope.
> What?
I said, I didn't ask why you cared about talking to me, I asked why you cared about Internet Argument Points. You brought them up, then got pissy about me caring about them.
> it would be much better use of your time to just define these institutions.
Nope.
> I claim their "monetary incentive" you mentioned mean they push you into their walled gardens, like AWS, Oracle and others. As I see it unbiased sources don't exist, and all sources have to be taken with a grain of salt. I would love to be proven wrong, why the hesitation to share an example? Was I close with the Docker one?
...no. Literally any top 100 university (and their related CS departments) in the world would be a more correct example.
> Maybe we're even in agreement but you've painted yourself in a corner?
Nope.
> "Hence nobody else in the entire world should see any value in it either, because anonymous internet stranger." - Zetice
Nope.
Turns out I was right, and you have no clue at all what I wrote, despite it being plain and straightforward. What should concern you is the dozen or so people who agreed with me enough to upvote my original comment; what are they getting that you aren't?
Yes we are, at least I am. Or did someone borrow your account when you said "Avoid individuals entirely"? If we discussed the OP we would be discussing the details of the repo, but when I asked you to elaborate on that all I got was "This is from an anonymous source who has no incentive to be accurate, so it is of unknown quality.". I don't see any other way to read you.
> ...no. Literally any top 100 university (and their related CS departments) in the world would be a more correct example.
Nice, we're getting somewhere. There's good content coming from universities, but relying only on them isn't going to work in a fast moving industry like this. They do not cover everything. My experience is that it's a good starting point but the work is learned by practice, making mistakes and improving. Only then does that knowledge reach universities, but by that time it might be (probably is) outdated. They rarely go deep into the nitty gritty, why PostgresQL over SQLite and similar?
I'm sure you've heard the saying "Those who can do, those who can't teach". Hyperbole but there's some truth to it, they aren't really innovators in the field these days. Don't misunderstand me as dismissing them though, but I couldn't get anything done if that was the only source I'm allowed to read.
> Turns out I was right, and you have no clue at all what I wrote, despite it being plain and straightforward.
Yes, and I read you literally, see my quotes above. You can always correct me or rephrase them if you want.
> What should concern you is the dozen or so people who agreed with me enough to upvote my original comment; what are they getting that you aren't?
I don't find comfort in internet consensus. The majority of people are reactionary and can't form an original thought to save their lives. Tell them the internet is bad and they'll ask for a ban. Sure I find that concerning but not for the reasons you think, it's the reason democracy will never work, but that's a topic for another discussion.
Studies have shown that negative/inflammatory comments get more engagement than constructive ones. Do what you will with that. This post did reach the front page, but I'm sure you'll dismiss that.
I've quoted you several times asking for clarification, in almost every reply, but I'll bite because I appreciate the more constructive turn this is taking.
> Avoid individuals entirely, and focus on institutions who are meaningfully harmed by their inaccuracy if discovered.[1]
> "This is from an anonymous source who has no incentive to be accurate, so it is of unknown quality." is my "gripe". It's the gripe you replied to originally, so stop gaslighting.[2]
The incentive in this case being monetary (even though OP sells the book to those who are willing to pay, as I understand you he has no incentive to be as correct as possible). And because I either know nothing, or everything about a subject it's either completely useless to me because I already know it all, or dangerous because I won't spot mistakes.
> Either you are an expert on the topic of systems engineering and can assess the quality of this submission but don’t need it as you have better sources, or you are not an expert and can therefore not assess its quality (it comes from a random person on the Internet, after all) and therefore can’t safely use it.[3]
I don't agree it's that simple, knowledge is a spectrum and I will never be done learning. I'm also confident in my ability to sift through bullshit and don't need to be spoonfed from an institution with a stamp of approval to find value.
Based on that I'm not even extrapolating, I'm reading you literally that content should be avoided purely based on the messenger and not the content itself.
And to avoid getting misunderstood, I understand bias is a thing but it goes both ways. I'm not trying to argue individuals are better than corporations or institutions. Good content exists from all sources. I enjoy reading post-mortems from FAANG, but take them with a grain of salt. And I also have some repos starred containing similar content I'd like to dig deeper into at some point.
Some of the best content I've read are from passionate individuals who like to poke around the edges, they are the innovators as I see it. But I'm bullish on open-source and free software, so there's my bias. Universities are often outdated, Institutions (for example the FSF) have their agenda and corporations push their stack. I still read them all, but with a conscious mind.
To summarize: I'm arguing your claim that individuals can't be trusted and should (always) be dismissed based on WHO they are, and not WHAT they write. You're of course free to have that view, and I get the gist of what you're trying to say, but to dismiss that content completely is extreme. If you would've just said "not for me" and moved on, or a comment on some of the content in OP I would have no opinion what so ever. But you're claiming it should have no value, for anyone, ever. That's what I'm questioning.
Ah, so you have no clue what I said. Thanks for clarifying, makes it easy to dismiss your emotional outbursts as such.
Let me know if you figure out what my argument was, and maybe we can discuss, but it honestly seems out of your grasp at the present moment, given how focused you are on "winning Internet points".
So what did you say if not what I quoted? Why is it up to me to figure it out, just clarify for me? There's no emotion from me in fact I find this somewhat stimulating, otherwise I would've left long time ago, but I see the urge to dismiss me entirely as being emotional. I'm just a random internet stranger after all, and it's easier that way. Anyway it was fun, I wish you the best.
The fact that you can't even tell how emotionally invested you got here is probably the main takeaway from this conversation, for you.
You took what I said, that blindly trusting a random source on the Internet to the point of spending hours judiciously studying its contents is, to me, not a wise way to spend time, and continually interpreted a vastly more extreme and broad version with the clear intent to pick a fight.
If you can't see how you took this incredibly personally, that's going to be a major issue for you moving forward. You can't behave like this in the real world and expect positive outcomes.
This took a strange turn. How are your exact words, over several comments "interpreting vastly more extreme and broad version"?
Yes, I tend to remind people to be constructive, "be the change you want to see" and all. You resorting to ad hominem rather than staying on subject is the only emotion here, all the repetition is slightly annoying though, but no more than the buzz of a mosquito at night. Don't take yourself too seriously.
Anything else you need to get off your chest while you're at it?
