I'm starting physics at university in about 5 months. When I visiting one university to see how well I might like it there, I had a conversation with one of the professors about the employment value of a physics degree. He said something to the effect of "As a physicist you're very desirable. the only one who knows more math than you is the mathematician, the only one who knows more engineering than you is the engineer, the only one who knows more computer science than you is the computer scientist." This impressed me and made me more optimistic about my prospects, until afterwards I put on my economics hat and figured that by comparative advantage I'd be better off just doing math or engineering or compsci.

Physical theories represent pinnacles of human achievement

It's intellectually stimulating

It has a reputation for being a subject that smart people do

3 biggest reasons I chose physics right there. Have I made a horrible mistake?

I'll ROT-13 my own answers to the questions, but I strongly recommend that you do your best to figure out your own answers to them before decrypting mine. Trying to figure out plausible mechanisms for magic tricks is a way of calibrating your rational thinking skills, in the presence of an adversary (the magician) who is trying to use all your perceptual biases and cognitive shortcuts against you. If you find yourself seriously considering hypotheses like micromuscle reading or subliminal suggestion, then that's probably because the magician has managed to slip a false assumption past your defences!

Svefg, Qnivq Sebfg. Guvf, V jvyy fnl hc sebag, vf gur bar V'z yrnfg pbasvqrag nobhg. Ohg zl gurbel vf guvf. N pung fubj yvxr Sebfg'f glcvpnyyl unf fbzr xvaq bs cercnengvba orsberunaq: abg n fpevcgrq erurnefny, ohg n pbairefngvba va juvpu gur ubfg naq gur thrfg jbex bhg jung xvaqf bs fhowrpgf gurl ner tbvat gb pbire. Va gur erurnefny, Qreera qbrf fbzr zntvp gevpxf naq va gur pbhefr bs guvf ur fbzrubj sbeprf gur jbeq Zvyna ba Sebfg va fbzr jnl gung Sebfg guvaxf vf enaqbz. (Ubj? N obbx grfg? V qba'g xabj.) Qreera fgnegf gb thrff jung vg vf, ohg gura fnlf, "Ab, V'yy gel naq thrff gung yngre ba gur fubj". Gura, qhevat gur yvir erpbeqvat, ur tbrf guebhtu n zvaq-ernqvat nggrzcg gung tbrf onqyl (gur pvtne) ohg qhevat gur pbhefr bs guvf ur qebcf uvagf nobhg n cynpr, juvpu Sebfg vavgvnyyl qravrf: "Vg'f n cynpr bs fbzr fbeg" "Ab" "BX, pna lbh tb onpx va lbhe zvaq. V guvax gurer jnf n cynpr." "Ab, nf fbba nf lbh nfxrq zr V'ir bayl gubhtug bs guvf bar guvat." Qreera trgf vg jebat, ohg gura ur fnlf, "Gurer jnf n cynpr. V guvax gurer jnf n cynpr, gubhtu, gung jrag guebhtu lbhe urnq. Whfg tb onpx va lbhe zvaq naq whfg sbphf ba n cynpr sbe n frpbaq." Abj Sebfg nterrf gung gurer jnf n cynpr. Jul vf gung? Vg'f orpnhfr abj gung gur gevpx vf bire naq Qreera snvyrq, Sebfg ernyvmrf gung ur'f orvat cebzcgrq gb guvax onpx gb gur cynpr gung jnf pubfra rneyvre, naq abj Qreera thrffrf vg. Sebfg vf vzcerffrq orpnhfr ur qvqa'g fcbg gur sbepr, ohg jr ner rira zber vzcerffrq orpnhfr jr qba'g xabj nobhg gur erurnefny naq jr guvax Qreera jnf thrffvat pbyq. Sebfg vf gbb zhpu bs n cebsrffvbany gb fcbvy gur rssrpg ol gnyxvat nobhg gur erurnefny (naq Qreera bs pbhefr xabjf guvf).

Frpbaq, gur crg. 1. Qreera cvpxrq n jbzra jub jnf fubegre guna uvz fb gung ur pbhyq rnfvyl oybpx ure ivrj qhevat uvf rkcynangvba. 2. Qreera cvpxrq gur zna orsber tvivat gur rkcynangvba fb gung gur zna jbhyq unir n ybat jnvg bss pnzren. 3. Qreera fgrcf sbejneq gbjneqf gur jbzra, gbhpuvat ure fb nf gb pbzcyrgryl bpphcl ure nggragvbaf. Fur qbrf abg frr jung unccraf gb gur zna. 4. Arvgure qb jr, ohg zl gurbel vf gung Qreera'f "cebqhpre" yrnqf gur zna gb gur fvqr naq fnlf "jr arrq lbh gb ernq guvf eryrnfr sbez, cyrnfr". Gur zna ybbxf ng gur "eryrnfr sbez" naq vg fnlf, "Jrypbzr, ibyhagrre! Gbtrgure, lbh naq V ner tbvat gb tvir guvf jbzna na nznmvat rkcrevrapr: sbe n zvahgr be gjb fur vf tbvat gb oryvrir gung fur pna ernq lbhe zvaq. Nyy lbh unir gb qb vf nterr jvgu rnpu bs ure thrffrf. Orfg bs yhpx, Qreera"

Guveq, gur pybja. 1. Qreera vf qerffrq nf n pybja orpnhfr vg tvirf uvz na rkphfr gb chg urnil znxr-hc ba naq nebhaq uvf yvcf. 2. Vg'f n perrcl pybja fb gur znxr-hc pna or oynpx. 3. Ur jnirf uvf unaqf nebhaq fb gung gurl bsgra bofgehpg gur pnzren'f ivrj bs uvf zbhgu. 4. Jvgubhg gur fbhaq, vg'f pyrne gung lbh pna'g frr uvf yvcf pyrneyl be bsgra rabhtu gb irevsl gung ur'f fcrnxvat gur jbeqf ba gur fbhaqgenpx. Zl gurbel vf gung gur npghny qvnybthr vf pbzcyrgryl qvssrerag sebz gur fbhaqgenpx, naq qbrf abg unir nalguvat gb qb jvgu zvaq-ernqvat ng nyy. Creuncf Qreera fgnegf, "Rkphfr zr, Zvff, jbhyq lbh yvxr gb urne n wbxr?" naq fur fnlf "Hu-uhu" naq bss gurl tb. Gur zvaq-ernqvat qvnybthr vf gura jevggra naq qhoorq ba nsgrejneqf, gnxvat pner gb zngpu gur yvcf va gur oevrs frpbaqf jura jr pna frr gurz.

I strongly disagree with the approaches usually recommended online, which involve some mixture of sites like CodeAcademy and looking into open source projects and lots of other hard-to-motivate things. Maybe my brain works differently, but those never appealed to me. I can't do book learning and I can't make myself up and dedicate to something I'm not drawn to already. If you're similar, try this instead:

1. Pick a thing that you have no idea how to make.
2. Try to make it.

Now, when I say "try"... new programmers often envision just sitting down and writing, but when they try it they realize they have no idea how to do anything. Their mistake is that, actually, sitting down and knowing what to do is just not what coding is like. I always surprise people who are learning to code with this fact: when I'm writing code in any language other than my main ones (Java, mostly..), I google something approximately once every two minutes. I spend most of my time searching for how to do even the most basic things. When it's time to actually make something work, it's usually just a few minutes of coding after much more time spent learning.

You should try to make the "minimum viable product" of whatever you want to make first.

If it's a game, get a screen showing - try to do it in less than an hour. Don't get sidetracked by anything else; get the screen up. Then get a character moving with arrow keys. Don't touch anything until you have a baseline you can iterate on, because every change you make should be immediately reflected in the product. Until you can see quick results from your hard work you're not going to get sucked in.

If it's a website or a product, get the server running in less than an hour. Pick a framework and a platform and go - don't get caught on the details. Setting up websites is secretly easy (python -m SimpleHTTPServer !) but if you've never done it you won't know that. If you need one set up a database right after. Get started quickly. It's possible with almost every architecture if you just search for cheat sheets and quick-start guides and stuff. You can fix your mistakes later, or start again if something goes wrong.

If you do something tedious, automate it. I have a shell script that copies some Javascript libraries and Html/JS templates into a new Dropbox folder and starts a server running there so I can go from naming my project to having an iterable prototype with some common elements I always reuse in less than five minutes. That gets me off the ground much faster and in less than 50 lines of script.

If you like algorithms or math or whatever, sure, do Project Euler or join TopCoder - those are fun. The competition will inspire some people to be fantastic at coding, which is great. I never got sucked in for some reason, even though I'm really competitive.

If you use open source stuff, sure, take a look at that. I'm only motivated to fix things that I find lacking in tools that I use, which in practice has never lead to my contributing to open source. Rather I find myself making clones of closed software so I can add features to it..

Oh, and start using Git early on. It's pretty great. Github is neat too and it basically acts as a resume if you go into programming, which is neat. But remember - setting it up is secretly easy, even if you have no idea what you're doing. Somehow things you don't understand are off-putting until you look back and realize how simple they were.

Hmm, that's all that comes to mind for now. Hope it helps.

$250 a year for glasses seems high given that my $90 glasses have been fine since 2008. I do have an extra pair ($40, not titanium framed) for backup, and should get new ones to update my prescription, but $250/year?

If you hate glasses then lasik might be worth it, but I doubt it's cheaper for many people.

I've never been to a Seattle meetup but I mean to come to this. Maybe a good way to get in the habit.

"Pretty cheap"? I looked up the prices once in the name of VoI and saw numbers in the range of $2,500. I'm pretty sure I can improve my life more than LASIK would with $2,500 worth of other improvements.

This is an exceptional first LW post! I like the hypothesis in Section 2, that "be yourself" unpacks into "stop transparently optimizing to fit a cached identity".

My main suggestion is that a long post with multiple distinct points is better off split into several posts, because people will start skimming instead of reading after a while, and points 2 and 3 won't get as much attention/feedback as if they'd stood alone.

Regardless of whether cold fusion is possible (who knows), and regardless of whether I am qualified to think it is possible (moderately so), and regardless of whether I think it possible (I certainly don't think anyone has managed it), I would never be convinced by this post.

You seem to think your argument is pretty convincing. Suppose it is. Suppose 99% of laypeople who have no idea if cold fusion is real believe it. Or 100%, or whatever. That has no bearing on whether cold fusion is real or whether I should believe it to be real from your post.

I would believe cold fusion is true on the word of others if they were experts (in nuclear physics). Your argument can convince any number of laypersons, but if it can't convince a significant portion of experts (and there's no reason it would, since it's just appeals to authority and very unconvincing hearsay) then I have no interest in it.

and then it’s obvious that the ass can be “stuck.”

...seriously?

I enjoy Graham's essays and find many of them quite insightful, but they tend to be rather light on empirical evidence, which makes it hard to say how much of the insight is real.