So in my job search I've learned something important - I'm really really really bad at programming tests and interviews. Actually, I'm pretty decent at standard algorithms/data structures-related questions that come up on phone screens, but I'm awful when it comes down to ironing out the details and dealing with edge cases. Just now I horribly failed a take-home test and I feel like total shit right now.
I realize I need more practice, and I've heard from a lot of people that TopCoder's practice rooms are a great way to do it.
Here's the problem:
I find the problems, even the lower-point ones, to be WAY too fucking hard. Is there a similar place with problems that are easier, or at least less math-heavy?
Circular reasoning? Again?
I don't see where. There are some a priori beliefs, without them NOTHING CAN BE DONE. No science, no technology, nothing. And if you see something working, you can't make any judgements as to how or why. You're thinking about wrong things in a wrong way. Believers call such thoughts "mystical feeling".
Haha. If more seriously, 'mystical' is more close to refusing to define things. I'm all for having a few a priori beliefs as long as they match up with observable reality. I'm not absolutely against unfalsifiability though, because any final theories that we'll have will be like that (the limitations of philosophy of science, not that even science itself doesn't require a few such beliefs). You should stop now and ask yourself question "what is proof?" and then "circular reasoning? again?"
Proof is following rules which we find sound and acceptable and such rules have proven themselves to work. As I said before, some a priori beliefs are required, it's impossible to get anywhere without some. If they're well-chosen (as matching observable facts) and are not self-protecting (such as bad epistemologies of popular religions), you'll likely be fine with them. It's not exactly circular reasoning as one can choose ANY RULES and see what they give you, then pick those that you think match best with observation. You may even go meta and decide on heuristics about how to better pick the rules. I don't consider it 'circular reasoning' as I recognize exactly the starting premises which cannot be falsified (or if they can, have they been?), nor do I have any absolute beliefs (my beliefs are updatable and probabilistic).