I got this right, but ended up having to invent notation to keep track of the indirection in the last segment. I think it's likely a decent test of whether you're likely to quickly pick up an intuitive head for pointer math and a very basic variable name-value distinction, but it won't capture other forms of abstraction that're necessary for programming: loops, types, conditional branching, Boolean logic. You could probably get away with dropping conditionals (I get the impression they're fairly intuitive), but I've had trouble teaching the others in the past.

Has a bit of an old-school feel to it, too; I'd expect the results to correlate better with talent for C than they would with, say, Python.

You're perfectly comfortable with the indefinite article?

The word "is" in all its forms. It encourages category thinking in lieu of focussing on the actual behavior or properties that make it meaningful to apply. Example: "is a clone really you?" Trying to even say that without using "is" poses a challenge. I believe it should be treated the same as goto: occasionally useful but usually a warning sign.

You said that people told you that you "should" become a computer programmer. But it only makes sense if you enjoy programming 8+ hours a day (and have aptitude for it). Did you have fun learning Python or was it a chore?

I could imagine 7 having some difficulty. Could you elaborate or refer me to some references?

But this step-by-step guide actually seems quite reasonable.

Also, in 10 months, you could probably pick up a fair amount for programming for an IT job.

What would be the "next step" for pursuing an IT job if one is (1) generally "good at computers", (2) is capable of programming in PHP and JavaScript at an intermediate level, but (3) has taken only one actual class in computer science?

Even though people's intuitions do lead them to believe it is morally necessary for one to save the hypothetical drowning child, in that particular scenario, I wager that there are situations in which people's intuitions would lead to other conclusions. One relevant hypothetical scenario is one in which one is amidst a group of people who also are observing the drowning child, and who are better able to bear the economic hardship of losing a pair of dress shoes (I know that the phrase "economic hardship" sounds rather callous in this scenario, but I cannot think of a better phrase off the top of my head.) Hell, perhaps some of them own thousands of pairs, while you own only one pair.

I guess what I am trying to say is that I have a pet theory that people's objections to Singer's scenario, whether they know it or not, are largely game-theoretical. In light of this, I see debates over the the precise cost of a child-saving as being, not irrelevant, but at have little to do with a much more important objection to Singer's argument.

I was thinking about writing down everything I know. After reflecting a few seconds on that I realized what a daunting task I haveset out to do. Has anyone tried this or a suggestion how I should go about this if at all?

What are the advantages over pencil-and-paper? I can think of a couple, but would like to hear what a more frequent user says.

I truly haven't the slightest idea. I could see them to be attracted both to strong or weak-willed, well-built and chubby, rich or poor men. How could I find out?