About
This is the demo site for Fuwari.
Waiting for api.github.com...
Sources of images used in this site
Categories
Tags
This is the demo site for Fuwari.
Sources of images used in this site
This is the demo site for Fuwari.
Sources of images used in this site
Cover image source: Source
This blog template is built with Astro. For the things that are not mentioned in this guide, you may find the answers in the Astro Docs.
,girl,_Blue,yellow,green,cyan,purple,red,pink,_best,8k,UHD,masterpiece,male%20focus,%201boy,gloves,%20ponytail,%20long%20hair,.jpeg){kind=link}
---
+Simple Guides for Fuwari - Jack's Leadership Blog Categories Tags 160 words1 minutesSimple Guides for FuwariCover image source: Source
This blog template is built with Astro. For the things that are not mentioned in this guide, you may find the answers in the Astro Docs.
Front-matter of Posts
---
title: My First Blog Post
published: 2023-09-09
description: This is the first post of my new Astro blog.
@@ -12,4 +12,4 @@
└── post-2/
├── cover.png
└── index.md
-
Simple Guides for Fuwarihttps://leadership.qubitpi.org/posts/guide/
\ No newline at end of file
+My background of Physics told me to truly master a concept, one cannot ignore its origin. If I teach you Maxwell equations now you would end up with a blank mind. You need to start with “what is an electric charge”, “what is a field”, and “how a moving charge could produce magnetic field” so on and so forth. At the end of the day, you will be making a perfect sense of what Maxell equations mean. It it only through this way you can start applying Maxwell’s equations and solve real-worl problems.
Management, and everything else in our live, goes like this.
The field of management originated in ancient China, including possibly the first highly centralized bureaucratic state, and the earliest (by the second century BC) example of an administration based on merit through testing. Some theorists have cited ancient military texts as providing lessons for civilian managers. For example, Chinese general Sun Tzu in his 6th-century BC work The Art of War recommends[citation needed] (when re-phrased in modern terminology) being aware of and acting on strengths and weaknesses of both a manager’s organization and a foe’s.
《孙子兵法，孙膑兵法》下载
The writings of influential Chinese Legalist philosopher Shen Buhai (申子) may be considered to embody a rare premodern example of abstract theory of administration.
Key Takeaway多读一读诸子百家的书籍，发掘里面的管理学经验
Various ancient and medieval civilizations produced “mirrors for princes” books, which aimed to advise new monarchs on how to govern. Examples includes The Prince by Italian author Niccolò Machiavelli
in the De Administrando Imperio of Constantine Porphyrogenitus. Constantine had this written/compiled as advice to his son, Romanus. It functions as a practical manual, with a heavy foreign policy emphasis, on how to be a good emperor. Unlike some advice written by emperors and historians, this one is not a panegyric or solely praise; rather, it is candid and informative policy. Furthermore, it is (mostly) secular and research-based; though, the bit on the “obscene” and “blasphemous” Mohammed is obviously biased.
R.J.H. Jenkins, in his introduction to the De Administrando Imperio, describes Constantine’s attempt at teaching “practical wisdom” to his son by:
Scrutiny of the historical documentswriting or causing to be written histories of recent events and manuals of technical instruction on the various departments of business and administration… Documents from the files of every branch of the administration, from the foreign ministry, the treasury, the offices of ceremonial, were scrutinized and abstracted.
One of its key elements was a “summary of the recent internal history, politics, and organization within the borders of the empire.” Far from being a piece of rhetoric or self-absorbed thought, the document contains enormous, albeit intermittently erroneous, research and careful analysis. This is “no partial document of propaganda… to impress domestic or foreign circles.”
From Jenkins,
Provincial governors and imperial envoys wrote historical and topographical reports on the areas of their jurisdiction or assignment. Foreign ambassadors were diligently questioned as to the affairs of their respective countries.
One of the interesting things to note about the Administrando was its secret nature, having been written as advice for Constantine’s son, Romanus; it acts as part succession letter, part compilation, and part “confidential” advice/information.
As the emperor puts it,
On “Knowing the difference between being-managed”it is not for those who wish to govern lawfully to copy and emulate what has been ill done by some out of ignorance or arrogance, but rather to have the glorious deeds of those who have ruled lawfully and righteously as noble pictures set up for an example to be copied, and after their pattern to strive himself also to direct all that he does… it may greatly advantage you… [to know] the difference between other nations, their origins and customs and manner of life, and the position and climate of the land they dwell in…
My background of Physics told me to truly master a concept, one cannot ignore its origin. If I teach you Maxwell equations now you would end up with a blank mind. You need to start with “what is an electric charge”, “what is a field”, and “how a moving charge could produce magnetic field” so on and so forth. At the end of the day, you will be making a perfect sense of what Maxell equations mean. It it only through this way you can start applying Maxwell’s equations and solve real-worl problems.
Management, and everything else in our live, goes like this.
The field of management originated in ancient China, including possibly the first highly centralized bureaucratic state, and the earliest (by the second century BC) example of an administration based on merit through testing. Some theorists have cited ancient military texts as providing lessons for civilian managers. For example, Chinese general Sun Tzu in his 6th-century BC work The Art of War recommends[citation needed] (when re-phrased in modern terminology) being aware of and acting on strengths and weaknesses of both a manager’s organization and a foe’s.
《孙子兵法，孙膑兵法》下载
The writings of influential Chinese Legalist philosopher Shen Buhai (申子) may be considered to embody a rare premodern example of abstract theory of administration.
Key Takeaway多读一读诸子百家的书籍，发掘里面的管理学经验
Various ancient and medieval civilizations produced “mirrors for princes” books, which aimed to advise new monarchs on how to govern. Examples includes The Prince by Italian author Niccolò Machiavelli
in the De Administrando Imperio of Constantine Porphyrogenitus. Constantine had this written/compiled as advice to his son, Romanus. It functions as a practical manual, with a heavy foreign policy emphasis, on how to be a good emperor. Unlike some advice written by emperors and historians, this one is not a panegyric or solely praise; rather, it is candid and informative policy. Furthermore, it is (mostly) secular and research-based; though, the bit on the “obscene” and “blasphemous” Mohammed is obviously biased.
R.J.H. Jenkins, in his introduction to the De Administrando Imperio, describes Constantine’s attempt at teaching “practical wisdom” to his son by:
Scrutiny of the historical documentswriting or causing to be written histories of recent events and manuals of technical instruction on the various departments of business and administration… Documents from the files of every branch of the administration, from the foreign ministry, the treasury, the offices of ceremonial, were scrutinized and abstracted.
One of its key elements was a “summary of the recent internal history, politics, and organization within the borders of the empire.” Far from being a piece of rhetoric or self-absorbed thought, the document contains enormous, albeit intermittently erroneous, research and careful analysis. This is “no partial document of propaganda… to impress domestic or foreign circles.”
From Jenkins,
Provincial governors and imperial envoys wrote historical and topographical reports on the areas of their jurisdiction or assignment. Foreign ambassadors were diligently questioned as to the affairs of their respective countries.
One of the interesting things to note about the Administrando was its secret nature, having been written as advice for Constantine’s son, Romanus; it acts as part succession letter, part compilation, and part “confidential” advice/information.
As the emperor puts it,
On “Knowing the difference between being-managed”it is not for those who wish to govern lawfully to copy and emulate what has been ill done by some out of ignorance or arrogance, but rather to have the glorious deeds of those who have ruled lawfully and righteously as noble pictures set up for an example to be copied, and after their pattern to strive himself also to direct all that he does… it may greatly advantage you… [to know] the difference between other nations, their origins and customs and manner of life, and the position and climate of the land they dwell in…
Brook, Andrew and Julian Wuerth, “Kant’s View of the Mind and Consciousness of Self”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2023 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.)
In general structure, Kant’s model of the mind was the dominant model in the empirical psychology that flowed from his work and then again, after a hiatus during which behaviourism reigned supreme (roughly 1910 to 1965), toward the end of the 20th century, especially in cognitive science. Central elements of the models of the mind of thinkers otherwise as different as Sigmund Freud and Jerry Fodor are broadly Kantian, for example.
Three ideas define the basic shape (‘cognitive architecture’) of Kant’s model and one its dominant method. They have all become part of the foundation of cognitive science.
These three ideas are fundamental to most thinking about cognition now. Kant’s most important method, the transcendental method, is also at the heart of contemporary cognitive science.
TIPTranslated into contemporary terms, the core of this method is inference to the best explanation, the method of postulating unobservable mental mechanisms in order to explain observed behaviour.
To be sure, Kant thought that he could get more out of his transcendental arguments than just ‘best explanations’. He thought that he could get a priori (experience independent) knowledge out of them. Kant had a tripartite doctrine of the a priori. He held that some features of the mind and its knowledge had a priori origins, i.e., must be in the mind prior to experience (because using them is necessary to have experience). That mind and knowledge have these features are a priori truths, i.e., necessary and universal. And we can come to know these truths, or that they are a priori at any rate, only by using a priori methods, i.e., we cannot learn these things from experience (B3) (Brook 1993). Kant thought that transcendental arguments were a priori or yielded the a priori in all three ways. Nonetheless, at the heart of this method is inference to the best explanation. When introspection fell out of favour about 100 years ago, the alternative approach adopted was exactly this approach. Its nonempirical roots in Kant notwithstanding, it is now the major method used by experimental cognitive scientists.
IMPORTANTOther topics equally central to Kant’s approach to the mind have hardly been discussed by cognitive science. These include a kind of synthesis that for Kant was essential to minds like ours and what struck him as the most striking features of consciousness of self. Far from his model having been superseded by cognitive science, some things central to the model have not even been assimilated by it.
The major works so far as Kant’s views on the mind are concerned are the monumental Critique of Pure Reason (CPR) and his little, late Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View, first published in 1798 only six years before his death. Kant’s view of the mind arose from his general philosophical project in CPR the following way. Kant aimed among other things to,
Kant accepted without reservation that “God, freedom and immortality” (1781/7, Bxxx) exist but feared that, if science were relevant to their existence at all, it would provide reasons to doubt that they exist. As he saw it and very fortunately, science cannot touch these questions. “I have found it necessary to deny knowledge, … in order to make room for faith.” (Bxxx, his italics).
Laying the foundation for pursuit of the first aim, which as he saw it was no less than the aim of showing why physics is a science, was what led Kant to his views about how the mind works. He approached the grounding of physics by asking: What are the necessary conditions of experience? Put simply, he held that for our experience, and therefore our minds, to be as they are, the way that our experience is tied together must reflect the way that, according to physics, says objects in the world must be tied together. Seeing this connection also tells us a lot about what our minds must be like.
In pursuit of the second aim, Kant criticized some arguments of his predecessors that entailed if sound that we can know more about the mind’s consciousness of itself than Kant could allow. Mounting these criticisms led him to some extraordinarily penetrating ideas about our consciousness of ourselves.
In CPR, Kant discussed the mind only in connection with his main projects, never in its own right, so his treatment is remarkably scattered and sketchy. As he put it, “Enquiry … [into] the pure understanding itself, its possibility and the cognitive faculties upon which it rests … is of great importance for my chief purpose, … [but] does not form an essential part of it” (Axvii). Indeed, Kant offers no sustained, focussed discussion of the mind anywhere in his work except the popular Anthropology.
In addition, the two chapters of CPR in which most of Kant’s remarks on the mind occur, the chapter on the Transcendental Deduction (TD) and the chapter on what he called Paralogisms (faulty arguments about the mind mounted by his predecessors) were the two chapters that gave him the greatest difficulty. (They contain some of the most impenetrable prose ever written.) Kant completely rewrote the main body of both chapters for the second edition (though not the introductions, interestingly).
In the two editions of CPR, there are seven main discussions of the mind. The first is in the Transcendental Aesthetic, the second is in what is usually called the Metaphysical Deduction. Then there are two discussions of it in the first-edition TD, in parts 1 to 3 of Section 2 and in the whole of Section 3 and two more in the second-edition TD. The seventh and last is found in the first edition version of Kant’s attack on the Paralogisms, in the course of which he says things of the utmost interest about consciousness of and reference to self. (What little was retained of these remarks in the second edition was moved to the completely rewritten TD.) For understanding Kant on the mind and self-knowledge, the first edition of CPR is far more valuable than the second edition. Kant’s discussion proceeds through the following stages.
Kant calls the first stage the Transcendental Aesthetic. It is about what space and time must be like, and how we must handle them, if our experience is to have the spatial and temporal properties that it has. This question about the necessary conditions of experience is for Kant a ‘transcendental’ question and the strategy of proceeding by trying to find answers to such questions is, as we said, the strategy of transcendental argument.
Here Kant advances one of his most notorious views: that whatever it is that impinges on us from the mind-independent world does not come located in a spatial nor even a temporal matrix (A37=B54fn.). Rather, it is the mind that organizes this ‘manifold of raw intuition’, as he called it, spatially and temporally. The mind has two pure forms of intuition, space and time, built into it to allow it to do so. (‘Pure’ means ‘not derived from experience’.)
The Aesthetic is about the conditions of experience, Kant’s official project. The chapter leading up to the Transcendental Deduction, The Clue to the Discovery of All Pure Concepts of the Understanding has a very different starting point.
Starting from Aristotelian logic (the syllogisms and the formal concepts that Aristotle called categories), Kant proceeds by analysis to draw out the implications of these concepts and syllogisms for the conceptual structure (the “function of thought in judgment”) within which all thought and experience must take place. The result is what Kant called the Categories. That is to say, Kant tries to deduce the conceptual structure of experience from the components of Aristotelian logic.
Thus, in Kant’s thought about the mind early in CPR, there is not one central movement but two, one in the Transcendental Aesthetic and the other in the Metaphysical Deduction. The first is a move up from experience (of objects) to the necessary conditions of such experience. The second is a move down from the Aristotelian functions of judgment to the concepts that we have to use in judging, namely, the Categories. One is inference up from experience, the other deduction down from conceptual structures of the most abstract kind.
Then we get to the second chapter of the Transcendental Logic, the brilliant and baffling Transcendental Deduction (TD). Recall the two movements just discussed, the one from experience to its conditions and the one from Aristotelian functions of judgment to the concepts that we must use in all judging (the Categories). This duality led Kant to his famous question of right (quid juris): with what right do we apply the Categories, which are not acquired from experience, to the contents of experience?. Kant’s problem here is not as arcane as it might seem. It reflects an important question: How is it that the world as we experience it conforms to our logic? In briefest form, Kant thought that the trick to showing how it is possible for the Categories to apply to experience is to show that it is necessary that they apply.
TD has two sides, though Kant never treats them separately. He once called them the objective and the subjective deductions. The objective deduction is about the conceptual and other cognitive conditions of having representations of objects. It is Kant’s answer to the quid juris question. Exactly how the objective deduction goes is highly controversial, a controversy that we will sidestep here. The subjective deduction is about what the mind, the “subjective sources” of understanding, must as a consequence be like. The subjective deduction is what mainly interests us.
Kant argues as follows. Our experiences have objects, that is, they are about something. The objects of our experiences are discrete, unified particulars. To have such particulars available to it, the mind must construct them based on sensible input. To construct them, the mind must do three kinds of synthesis. It must generate temporal and spatial structure (Synthesis of Apprehension in Intuition). It must associate spatio-temporally structured items with other spatio-temporally structured items (Synthesis of Reproduction in the Imagination). And it must recognize items using concepts, the Categories in particular (Synthesis of Recognition in a Concept). This threefold doctrine of synthesis is one of the cornerstones of Kant’s model of the mind. We will consider it in more detail in the next Section.
”Embarrassingly I introduced a “common” library, named as such, in a team environment a couple of decades back. I didn’t really understand the dynamics back then of what could happen in a loosely-coordinated team setting in just a matter of months.
When I introduced it I thought I made it clear and also documented that it’s for things we’d all agree we find useful on a daily basis, that it’s intended to be a minimalist library, and that the library should depend on nothing else besides the standard library so that it’s as easy to deploy as possible in new projects. My thinking at the time was that it was our own little extension to the standard library for things that, in our particular domain, we found useful on a daily basis.
And it started off well enough. We started off with a math library (common/math*) of routines which we all used on a daily basis, since we were working on computer graphics which was often heavy on the linear algebra. And since we were often interoping with C code, we agreed on some useful utility functions like find_index which, unlike std::find in C++, would return an index to an element found in a sequence instead of an iterator which mimicked how our C functions worked — things of this sort — a little bit eclectic but minimalist and widely used enough to remain familiar and practical to everyone, and instant familiarity is an extremely important criteria as I see it in trying to make anything that is “common” or “standard” since if it truly is “common”, it should have that familiar quality about it as a result of its wide adoption and daily usage.
But over time the design intentions of the library slipped out of my fingers as people started to add things they used personally that they merely thought might be of use to someone else, only to find no one else using it. And later someone started adding functions that depended on OpenGL for common GL-related routines. Further on we adopted Qt and people started adding code that depended on Qt, so already the common library was dependent on two external libraries. At some point someone added common shader routines which was dependent on our application-specific shader library, and at that point you couldn’t even deploy it in a new project without bringing in Qt, OGL, and our application-specific shader library and writing a non-trivial build script for your project. So it turned into this eclectic, interdependent mess. Later on people even added GUI-dependent code to it.
But I’ve also found by debating what should and shouldn’t go into this library that what is considered “common” can easily turn into a very subjective idea if you don’t set a very hard line rule that what’s “common” is what everyone tends to find useful on a daily basis. Any loosening of the standards and it quickly degrades from things everyone finds useful on a daily basis to something a single developer finds useful that might have the possibility of being beneficial to someone else, and at that point the library degrades into an eclectic mess really fast.
But furthermore when you reach that point, some developers can start adding things for the simple reason that they don’t like the programming language. They might not like the syntax of a for loop or a function call, at which point the library is starting to get filled with things that’s just fighting the fundamental syntax of the language, replacing a couple of lines of straightforward code which isn’t really duplicating any logic down to a single terse line of exotic code only familiar to the developer who introduced such a shorthand. Then such a developer might start adding more functionality to the common library implemented using such shorthands, at which point significant sections of the common library become interwoven with these exotic shorthands which might seem beautiful and intuitive to the developer who introduced it but ugly and foreign and hard to understand for everyone else. And at that point I think you know that any hope of making something truly “common” is lost, since “common” and “unfamiliar” are polar opposite ideas.
So there’s all kinds of cans of worms there, at least in a loosely-coordinated team environment, with a library with ambitions as broad and as generalized as just “commonly-used stuff”. And while the underlying problem might have been the loose coordination above all else, at least multiple libraries intended to serve a more singular purpose, like a library intended to provide math routines and nothing else, probably wouldn’t degrade as significantly in terms of its design purity and dependencies as a “common” library. So in retrospect I think it would be much better to err on the side of libraries which have much more clear design intentions. I’ve also found over the years that narrow in purpose and narrow in applicability are radically different ideas. Often the most widely applicable things are the narrowest and most singular in purpose, since you can then say, “aha, this is exactly what I need”, as opposed to wading through an eclectic library of disparate functionality trying to see if it has something you need.
Also I’m admittedly at least a little bit impractical and care maybe a bit too much about aesthetics, but the way I tend to perceive my idea of a library’s quality (and maybe even “beauty”) is judged more by its weakest link than its strongest, in a similar way that if you presented me the most appetitizing food in the world but, on the same plate, put something rotting on there that smells really bad, I tend to want to reject the entire plate. And if you’re like me in that regard and make something that invites all sorts of additions as something called “common”, you might find yourself looking at that analogical plate with something rotting on the side. So likewise I think it’s good if a library is organized and named and documented in a way such that it doesn’t invite more and more and more additions over time. And that can even apply to your personal creations, since I’ve certainly created some rotten stuff here and there, and it “taints” a lot less if it’s not being added to the biggest plate. Separating things out into small, very singular libraries has a tendency to better decouple code as well, if only by the sheer virtue that it becomes far less convenient to start coupling everything.
TIPCode deduplication has been hammered into me over the years but I feel like I should try it this time around.
What I might suggest in your case is to start to take it easy on code deduplication. I’m not saying to copy and paste big snippets of poorly-tested, error-prone code around or anything of this sort, or duplicating huge amounts of non-trivial code that has a decent probability of requiring changes in the future.
But especially if you are of the mindset to create a “common” library, for which I assume your desire is to create something widely-applicable, highly reusable, and perhaps ideally something you find just as useful today as you do a decade from now, then sometimes you might even need or want some duplication to achieve this elusive quality. Because the duplication might actually serve as a decoupling mechanism. It’s like if you want to separate a video player from an MP3 player, then you at least have to duplicate some things like batteries and hard drives. They can’t share these things or else they’re indivisibly coupled and cannot be used independently of each other, and at that point people might not be interested in the device anymore if all they want to do is play MP3s. But some time after you split these two devices apart, you might find that the MP3 player can benefit from a different battery design or smaller hard drive than the video player, at which point you’re no longer duplicating anything; what initially started out as duplication to allow this interdependent device to split into two separate, independent devices might later turn out to yield designs and implementations that are no longer redundant at all.
It’s worth considering things from the perspective of the one using a library. Would you actually want to use a library that minimizes code duplication? Chances are that you won’t because one that does will naturally depend on other libraries. And those other libraries might depend on other libraries to avoid duplicating their code, and so on, until you might need to import/link 50 different libraries to just to get some basic functionality like loading and playing an audio file, and that becomes very unwieldy. Meanwhile if such an audio library deliberately chose to duplicate some things here and there to achieve its independence, it becomes so much easier to use in new projects, and chances are that it won’t need to be updated nearly as often since it won’t need to change as a result of one its dependent external libraries changing which might be trying to fulfill a much more generalized purpose than what the audio library needs.
So sometimes it’s worth deliberately choosing to duplicate a little bit (consciously, never out of laziness — actually out of diligence) in order to decouple a library and make it independent because, through that independence, it achieves a wider range of practical applicability and even stability (no more afferent couplings). If you want to design the most reusable libraries possible that will last you from one project to the next and over the years, then on top of narrowing its scope to the minimum, I would actually suggest considering duplicating a little bit here. And naturally write unit tests and make sure it’s really thoroughly tested and reliable at what it’s doing. This is only for the libraries that you really want to take the time to generalize to a point that goes far beyond a single project.”
”Embarrassingly I introduced a “common” library, named as such, in a team environment a couple of decades back. I didn’t really understand the dynamics back then of what could happen in a loosely-coordinated team setting in just a matter of months.
When I introduced it I thought I made it clear and also documented that it’s for things we’d all agree we find useful on a daily basis, that it’s intended to be a minimalist library, and that the library should depend on nothing else besides the standard library so that it’s as easy to deploy as possible in new projects. My thinking at the time was that it was our own little extension to the standard library for things that, in our particular domain, we found useful on a daily basis.
And it started off well enough. We started off with a math library (common/math*) of routines which we all used on a daily basis, since we were working on computer graphics which was often heavy on the linear algebra. And since we were often interoping with C code, we agreed on some useful utility functions like find_index which, unlike std::find in C++, would return an index to an element found in a sequence instead of an iterator which mimicked how our C functions worked — things of this sort — a little bit eclectic but minimalist and widely used enough to remain familiar and practical to everyone, and instant familiarity is an extremely important criteria as I see it in trying to make anything that is “common” or “standard” since if it truly is “common”, it should have that familiar quality about it as a result of its wide adoption and daily usage.
But over time the design intentions of the library slipped out of my fingers as people started to add things they used personally that they merely thought might be of use to someone else, only to find no one else using it. And later someone started adding functions that depended on OpenGL for common GL-related routines. Further on we adopted Qt and people started adding code that depended on Qt, so already the common library was dependent on two external libraries. At some point someone added common shader routines which was dependent on our application-specific shader library, and at that point you couldn’t even deploy it in a new project without bringing in Qt, OGL, and our application-specific shader library and writing a non-trivial build script for your project. So it turned into this eclectic, interdependent mess. Later on people even added GUI-dependent code to it.
But I’ve also found by debating what should and shouldn’t go into this library that what is considered “common” can easily turn into a very subjective idea if you don’t set a very hard line rule that what’s “common” is what everyone tends to find useful on a daily basis. Any loosening of the standards and it quickly degrades from things everyone finds useful on a daily basis to something a single developer finds useful that might have the possibility of being beneficial to someone else, and at that point the library degrades into an eclectic mess really fast.
But furthermore when you reach that point, some developers can start adding things for the simple reason that they don’t like the programming language. They might not like the syntax of a for loop or a function call, at which point the library is starting to get filled with things that’s just fighting the fundamental syntax of the language, replacing a couple of lines of straightforward code which isn’t really duplicating any logic down to a single terse line of exotic code only familiar to the developer who introduced such a shorthand. Then such a developer might start adding more functionality to the common library implemented using such shorthands, at which point significant sections of the common library become interwoven with these exotic shorthands which might seem beautiful and intuitive to the developer who introduced it but ugly and foreign and hard to understand for everyone else. And at that point I think you know that any hope of making something truly “common” is lost, since “common” and “unfamiliar” are polar opposite ideas.
So there’s all kinds of cans of worms there, at least in a loosely-coordinated team environment, with a library with ambitions as broad and as generalized as just “commonly-used stuff”. And while the underlying problem might have been the loose coordination above all else, at least multiple libraries intended to serve a more singular purpose, like a library intended to provide math routines and nothing else, probably wouldn’t degrade as significantly in terms of its design purity and dependencies as a “common” library. So in retrospect I think it would be much better to err on the side of libraries which have much more clear design intentions. I’ve also found over the years that narrow in purpose and narrow in applicability are radically different ideas. Often the most widely applicable things are the narrowest and most singular in purpose, since you can then say, “aha, this is exactly what I need”, as opposed to wading through an eclectic library of disparate functionality trying to see if it has something you need.
Also I’m admittedly at least a little bit impractical and care maybe a bit too much about aesthetics, but the way I tend to perceive my idea of a library’s quality (and maybe even “beauty”) is judged more by its weakest link than its strongest, in a similar way that if you presented me the most appetitizing food in the world but, on the same plate, put something rotting on there that smells really bad, I tend to want to reject the entire plate. And if you’re like me in that regard and make something that invites all sorts of additions as something called “common”, you might find yourself looking at that analogical plate with something rotting on the side. So likewise I think it’s good if a library is organized and named and documented in a way such that it doesn’t invite more and more and more additions over time. And that can even apply to your personal creations, since I’ve certainly created some rotten stuff here and there, and it “taints” a lot less if it’s not being added to the biggest plate. Separating things out into small, very singular libraries has a tendency to better decouple code as well, if only by the sheer virtue that it becomes far less convenient to start coupling everything.
TIPCode deduplication has been hammered into me over the years but I feel like I should try it this time around.
What I might suggest in your case is to start to take it easy on code deduplication. I’m not saying to copy and paste big snippets of poorly-tested, error-prone code around or anything of this sort, or duplicating huge amounts of non-trivial code that has a decent probability of requiring changes in the future.
But especially if you are of the mindset to create a “common” library, for which I assume your desire is to create something widely-applicable, highly reusable, and perhaps ideally something you find just as useful today as you do a decade from now, then sometimes you might even need or want some duplication to achieve this elusive quality. Because the duplication might actually serve as a decoupling mechanism. It’s like if you want to separate a video player from an MP3 player, then you at least have to duplicate some things like batteries and hard drives. They can’t share these things or else they’re indivisibly coupled and cannot be used independently of each other, and at that point people might not be interested in the device anymore if all they want to do is play MP3s. But some time after you split these two devices apart, you might find that the MP3 player can benefit from a different battery design or smaller hard drive than the video player, at which point you’re no longer duplicating anything; what initially started out as duplication to allow this interdependent device to split into two separate, independent devices might later turn out to yield designs and implementations that are no longer redundant at all.
It’s worth considering things from the perspective of the one using a library. Would you actually want to use a library that minimizes code duplication? Chances are that you won’t because one that does will naturally depend on other libraries. And those other libraries might depend on other libraries to avoid duplicating their code, and so on, until you might need to import/link 50 different libraries to just to get some basic functionality like loading and playing an audio file, and that becomes very unwieldy. Meanwhile if such an audio library deliberately chose to duplicate some things here and there to achieve its independence, it becomes so much easier to use in new projects, and chances are that it won’t need to be updated nearly as often since it won’t need to change as a result of one its dependent external libraries changing which might be trying to fulfill a much more generalized purpose than what the audio library needs.
So sometimes it’s worth deliberately choosing to duplicate a little bit (consciously, never out of laziness — actually out of diligence) in order to decouple a library and make it independent because, through that independence, it achieves a wider range of practical applicability and even stability (no more afferent couplings). If you want to design the most reusable libraries possible that will last you from one project to the next and over the years, then on top of narrowing its scope to the minimum, I would actually suggest considering duplicating a little bit here. And naturally write unit tests and make sure it’s really thoroughly tested and reliable at what it’s doing. This is only for the libraries that you really want to take the time to generalize to a point that goes far beyond a single project.”
You can add dynamic cards that link to GitHub repositories, on page load, the repository information is pulled from the GitHub API.
Create a GitHub repository card with the code ::github{repo="<owner>/<repo>"}.
::github{repo="saicaca/fuwari"}
+Markdown Extended Features - Jack's Leadership Blog Categories Tags 153 words1 minutesMarkdown Extended FeaturesGitHub repository cards
You can add dynamic cards that link to GitHub repositories, on page load, the repository information is pulled from the GitHub API.
Waiting for api.github.com...Create a GitHub repository card with the code ::github{repo="<owner>/<repo>"}.
::github{repo="saicaca/fuwari"}
Admonitions
Following types of admonitions are supported: note tip important warning caution
NOTEHighlights information that users should take into account, even when skimming.
TIPOptional information to help a user be more successful.
IMPORTANTCrucial information necessary for users to succeed.
WARNINGCritical content demanding immediate user attention due to potential risks.
CAUTIONNegative potential consequences of an action.
:::note
Highlights information that users should take into account, even when skimming.
:::
@@ -14,4 +14,4 @@
> [!TIP]
> The GitHub syntax is also supported.
-
Markdown Extended Featureshttps://leadership.qubitpi.org/posts/markdown-extended/
\ No newline at end of file
+Paragraphs are separated by a blank line.
2nd paragraph. Italic, bold, and monospace. Itemized lists look like:
Note that --- not considering the asterisk --- the actual text content starts at 4-columns in.
Block quotes are written like so.
They can span multiple paragraphs, if you like.
Use 3 dashes for an em-dash. Use 2 dashes for ranges (ex., “it’s all in chapters 12—14”). Three dots … will be converted to an ellipsis. Unicode is supported. ☺
Here’s a numbered list:
Note again how the actual text starts at 4 columns in (4 characters from the left side). Here’s a code sample:
# Let me re-iterate ...
+Markdown Example - Jack's Leadership Blog Categories Tags 439 words2 minutesMarkdown ExampleAn h1 header
Paragraphs are separated by a blank line.
2nd paragraph. Italic, bold, and monospace. Itemized lists look like:
- this one
- that one
- the other one
Note that --- not considering the asterisk --- the actual text content starts at 4-columns in.
Block quotes are written like so.
They can span multiple paragraphs, if you like.
Use 3 dashes for an em-dash. Use 2 dashes for ranges (ex., “it’s all in chapters 12—14”). Three dots … will be converted to an ellipsis. Unicode is supported. ☺
An h2 header
Here’s a numbered list:
- first item
- second item
- third item
Note again how the actual text starts at 4 columns in (4 characters from the left side). Here’s a code sample:
# Let me re-iterate ...
for i in 1 .. 10 { do-something(i) }
As you probably guessed, indented 4 spaces. By the way, instead of indenting the block, you can use delimited blocks, if you like:
define foobar() {
print "Welcome to flavor country!";
@@ -16,4 +16,4 @@
balance wooden spoon precariously on pot handle
wait 10 minutes
goto first step (or shut off burner when done)
-
Do not bump wooden spoon or it will fall.
Notice again how text always lines up on 4-space indents (including that last line which continues item 3 above).
Here’s a link to a website, to a local doc, and to a section heading in the current doc. Here’s a footnote 1.
Tables can look like this:
size material color
9 leather brown 10 hemp canvas natural 11 glass transparent
Table: Shoes, their sizes, and what they’re made of
(The above is the caption for the table.) Pandoc also supports multi-line tables:
keyword text
red Sunsets, apples, and other red or reddish things.
green Leaves, grass, frogs and other things it’s not easy being.
A horizontal rule follows.
Here’s a definition list:
apples : Good for making applesauce. oranges : Citrus! tomatoes : There’s no “e” in tomatoe.
Again, text is indented 4 spaces. (Put a blank line between each term/definition pair to spread things out more.)
Here’s a “line block”:
| Line one | Line too | Line tree
and images can be specified like so:
Inline math equations go in like so: . Display math should get its own line and be put in in double-dollarsigns:
And note that you can backslash-escape any punctuation characters which you wish to be displayed literally, ex.: `foo`, *bar*, etc.
Footnotes
Footnote text goes here. ↩
\ No newline at end of file
+Do not bump wooden spoon or it will fall.
Notice again how text always lines up on 4-space indents (including that last line which continues item 3 above).
Here’s a link to a website, to a local doc, and to a section heading in the current doc. Here’s a footnote 1.
Tables can look like this:
size material color
9 leather brown 10 hemp canvas natural 11 glass transparent
Table: Shoes, their sizes, and what they’re made of
(The above is the caption for the table.) Pandoc also supports multi-line tables:
keyword text
red Sunsets, apples, and other red or reddish things.
green Leaves, grass, frogs and other things it’s not easy being.
A horizontal rule follows.
Here’s a definition list:
apples : Good for making applesauce. oranges : Citrus! tomatoes : There’s no “e” in tomatoe.
Again, text is indented 4 spaces. (Put a blank line between each term/definition pair to spread things out more.)
Here’s a “line block”:
| Line one | Line too | Line tree
and images can be specified like so:
Inline math equations go in like so: . Display math should get its own line and be put in in double-dollarsigns:
And note that you can backslash-escape any punctuation characters which you wish to be displayed literally, ex.: `foo`, *bar*, etc.
Footnote text goes here. ↩
Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (905 - 959) was the fourth Byzantine emperor of the Macedonian dynasty,
The Pechenegs and contemporary Asian polities circa 1000 CE.
’Ψπολαμβάνω γάρ κατά πολύ συμφέρειν αεί τω βασιλεΐ ‘Ρωμαίων ειρήνην έ&έλειν έχειν μετά τοΰ έ&νους τών Πατζινακιτών καί φιλικάς προς αύτούς ποιεΐσ&αι συνθήκας τε καί σπονδάς καί άποστέλλειν κα&* έκαστον χρόνον έντεΰ&εν προς αύτούς άποκρισιάριον μετά ξενίων άρμο- 6νΡ ζόντων ] καί πρός τό έ&νος επιτηδείων καί άναλαμβάνεσ&αι έκεΐθεν 20 ομήρους, ήτοι δψιδας καί άποκρισιάριον, οΐτινες έν τη &εοφυλάκτω ταύτη πόλει μετά τοΰ καθ-υπουργοΰντος εις ταΰτα συνελεύσονται, καί βασιλικών εύεργεσιών καί φιλοτιμιών τών επαξίων πάντων τοΰ βασι λεύοντος άπολαύσουσιν.
When the two are not at peace with each other, raid Russia hard
Russia have to maintain a relationship with Pechenegs because
IMPORTANTManaging relationships among parties is about prioritizing the power & strength among them
This guy of Porphyrogenitus keeps talking about the geography around his empire (The 1715 map above)
Do not send out these 3 things by excuses of holy emperor Constantine and God to any other nations
Porphyrogenitus, who values the power of learning, advices his son to learn as much as he can about the surrounding or nearby nations in terms of
Just copy the embed code from YouTube or other platforms, and paste it in the markdown file.
---
+Include Video in the Posts - Jack's Leadership Blog Categories Tags 61 words1 minutesInclude Video in the PostsJust copy the embed code from YouTube or other platforms, and paste it in the markdown file.
---
title: Include Video in the Post
published: 2023-10-19
// ...
diff --git a/rss.xml b/rss.xml
index b6956be5a..2d3d6ec8a 100644
--- a/rss.xml
+++ b/rss.xml
@@ -126,6 +126,140 @@ up for an example to be copied, and after their pattern to strive himself also t
greatly advantage you… [to know] the difference between other nations, their origins and customs and manner of life, and
the position and climate of the land they dwell in...
:::</p>
+Kant's View of the Mind and Consciousness of Self https://leadership.qubitpi.org/posts/kant-view-of-mind-and-consciousness/https://leadership.qubitpi.org/posts/kant-view-of-mind-and-consciousness/ Kant's View of the Mind and Consciousness of Self Wed, 24 Jul 2024 00:00:00 GMT <blockquote>
+<p>Brook, Andrew and Julian Wuerth,
+"<a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2023/entries/kant-mind">Kant's View of the Mind and Consciousness of Self</a>",
+The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2023 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.)</p>
+</blockquote>
+<h2>A Sketch of Kant's View of the Mind</h2>
+<p>In general structure, Kant's model of the mind was the dominant model in the empirical psychology that flowed from his
+work and then again, after a hiatus during which behaviourism reigned supreme (roughly 1910 to 1965), toward the end of
+the 20th century, especially in cognitive science. Central elements of the models of the mind of thinkers otherwise as
+different as Sigmund Freud and Jerry Fodor are broadly Kantian, for example.</p>
+<p>Three ideas define the basic shape ('cognitive architecture') of Kant's model and one its dominant method. They have all
+become part of the foundation of cognitive science.</p>
+<ol>
+<li>The mind is a complex set of abilities (functions). (As Meerbote 1989 and many others have observed, Kant held a
+functionalist view of the mind almost 200 years before functionalism was officially articulated in the 1960s by
+Hilary Putnam and others.)</li>
+<li>The functions crucial for mental, knowledge-generating activity are spatio-temporal processing of, and application of
+concepts to, sensory inputs. Cognition requires concepts as well as percepts.</li>
+<li>These functions are forms of what Kant called synthesis. Synthesis (and the unity in consciousness required for
+synthesis) are central to cognition.</li>
+</ol>
+<p>These three ideas are fundamental to most thinking about cognition now. Kant's most important method, the transcendental
+method, is also at the heart of contemporary cognitive science.</p>
+<ul>
+<li>To study the mind, infer the conditions necessary for experience. Arguments having this structure are called
+<em>transcendental arguments</em>.</li>
+</ul>
+<p>:::tip
+Translated into contemporary terms, the core of this method is inference to the best explanation, the method of
+postulating unobservable mental mechanisms in order to explain observed behaviour.
+:::</p>
+<p>To be sure, Kant thought that he could get more out of his transcendental arguments than just 'best explanations'. He
+thought that he could get <em>a priori</em> (experience independent) knowledge out of them. Kant had a tripartite doctrine of
+the <em>a priori</em>. He held that some features of the mind and its knowledge had <em>a priori</em> origins, i.e., must be in the
+mind prior to experience (because using them is necessary to have experience). That mind and knowledge have these
+features are <em>a priori</em> truths, i.e., necessary and universal. And we can come to know these truths, or that they are
+<em>a priori</em> at any rate, only by using <em>a priori</em> methods, i.e., we cannot learn these things from experience (B3) (Brook
+1993). Kant thought that transcendental arguments were <em>a priori</em> or yielded the <em>a priori</em> in all three ways.
+Nonetheless, at the heart of this method is inference to the best explanation. When introspection fell out of favour
+about 100 years ago, the alternative approach adopted was exactly this approach. Its nonempirical roots in Kant
+notwithstanding, it is now the major method used by experimental cognitive scientists.</p>
+<p>:::important
+Other topics equally central to Kant's approach to the mind have hardly been discussed by cognitive science. These
+include a kind of synthesis that for Kant was essential to minds like ours and what struck him as the most striking
+features of consciousness of self. Far from his model having been superseded by cognitive science, some things central
+to the model have not even been assimilated by it.
+:::</p>
+<h2>Kant's Critical Project and How the Mind Fits Into It</h2>
+<p>The major works so far as Kant's views on the mind are concerned are the monumental <em>Critique of Pure Reason (CPR)</em> and
+his little, late <em>Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View</em>, first published in 1798 only six years before his death.
+Kant's view of the mind arose from his
+<a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-development/">general philosophical project</a> in CPR the following way. Kant
+aimed among other things to,</p>
+<ul>
+<li>Justify our conviction that physics, like mathematics, is a body of necessary and universal truth.</li>
+<li>Insulate religion, including belief in immortality, and free will from the corrosive effects of this very same
+science.</li>
+</ul>
+<p>Kant accepted without reservation that “God, freedom and immortality” (1781/7, Bxxx) exist but feared that, if science
+were relevant to their existence at all, it would provide reasons to doubt that they exist. As he saw it and very
+fortunately, science cannot touch these questions. “I have found it necessary to deny <em>knowledge</em>, ... in order to make
+room for faith.” (Bxxx, his italics).</p>
+<p>Laying the foundation for pursuit of the first aim, which as he saw it was no less than the aim of showing why physics
+is a science, was what led Kant to his views about how the mind works. He approached the grounding of physics by asking:
+What are the necessary conditions of experience? Put simply, he held that for our experience, and therefore our minds,
+to be as they are, the way that our experience is tied together must reflect the way that, according to physics, says
+objects in the world must be tied together. Seeing this connection also tells us a lot about what our minds must be
+like.</p>
+<p>In pursuit of the second aim, Kant criticized some arguments of his predecessors that entailed if sound that we can know
+more about the mind's consciousness of itself than Kant could allow. Mounting these criticisms led him to some
+extraordinarily penetrating ideas about our consciousness of ourselves.</p>
+<p>In CPR, Kant discussed the mind only in connection with his main projects, never in its own right, so his treatment is
+remarkably scattered and sketchy. As he put it, “Enquiry … [into] the pure understanding itself, its possibility and the
+cognitive faculties upon which it rests ... is of great importance for my chief purpose, ... [but] does not form an
+essential part of it” (Axvii). Indeed, Kant offers no sustained, focussed discussion of the mind anywhere in his work
+except the popular <em>Anthropology</em>.</p>
+<p>In addition, the two chapters of CPR in which most of Kant's remarks on the mind occur, the chapter on the
+Transcendental Deduction (TD) and the chapter on what he called Paralogisms (faulty arguments about the mind mounted by
+his predecessors) were the two chapters that gave him the greatest difficulty. (They contain some of the most
+impenetrable prose ever written.) Kant completely rewrote the main body of both chapters for the second edition
+(though not the introductions, interestingly).</p>
+<p>In the two editions of CPR, there are seven main discussions of the mind. The first is in the Transcendental Aesthetic,
+the second is in what is usually called the Metaphysical Deduction. Then there are two discussions of it in the
+first-edition TD, in parts 1 to 3 of Section 2 and in the whole of Section 3 and two more in the second-edition TD. The
+seventh and last is found in the first edition version of Kant's attack on the Paralogisms, in the course of which he
+says things of the utmost interest about consciousness of and reference to self. (What little was retained of these
+remarks in the second edition was moved to the completely rewritten TD.) For understanding Kant on the mind and
+self-knowledge, the first edition of CPR is far more valuable than the second edition. Kant's discussion proceeds
+through the following stages.</p>
+<h3>Transcendental Aesthetic</h3>
+<p>Kant calls the first stage the Transcendental Aesthetic. It is about what space and time must be like, and how we must
+handle them, if our experience is to have the spatial and temporal properties that it has. This question about the
+necessary conditions of experience is for Kant a 'transcendental' question and the strategy of proceeding by trying to
+find answers to such questions is, as we said, the strategy of transcendental argument.</p>
+<p>Here Kant advances one of his most notorious views: that whatever it is that impinges on us from the mind-independent
+world does not come located in a spatial nor even a temporal matrix (A37=B54fn.). Rather, it is the mind that organizes
+this 'manifold of raw intuition', as he called it, spatially and temporally. The mind has two pure forms of intuition,
+space and time, built into it to allow it to do so. ('Pure' means 'not derived from experience'.)</p>
+<h3>Metaphysical Deduction</h3>
+<p>The Aesthetic is about the conditions of experience, Kant's official project. The chapter leading up to the
+Transcendental Deduction, The Clue to the Discovery of All Pure Concepts of the Understanding has a very different
+starting point.</p>
+<p>Starting from Aristotelian logic (the syllogisms and the formal concepts that Aristotle called <em>categories</em>), Kant
+proceeds by analysis to draw out the implications of these concepts and syllogisms for the conceptual structure (the
+“function of thought in judgment”) within which all thought and experience must take place. The result is what Kant
+called the Categories. That is to say, Kant tries to deduce the conceptual structure of experience from the components
+of Aristotelian logic.</p>
+<p><strong>Thus, in Kant's thought about the mind early in CPR, there is not one central movement but two, one in the
+Transcendental Aesthetic and the other in the Metaphysical Deduction. The first is a move up from experience (of
+objects) to the necessary conditions of such experience. The second is a move down from the Aristotelian functions of
+judgment to the concepts that we have to use in judging, namely, the Categories. One is inference up from experience,
+the other deduction down from conceptual structures of the most abstract kind.</strong></p>
+<h3>Transcendental Deduction, 1st Edition</h3>
+<p>Then we get to the second chapter of the Transcendental Logic, the brilliant and baffling Transcendental Deduction (TD).
+Recall the two movements just discussed, the one from experience to its conditions and the one from Aristotelian
+functions of judgment to the concepts that we must use in all judging (the Categories). This duality led Kant to his
+famous question of right (<em>quid juris</em>): with what right do we apply the Categories, which are not acquired from
+experience, to the contents of experience?. Kant's problem here is not as arcane as it might seem. It reflects an
+important question: How is it that the world as we experience it conforms to our logic? In briefest form, Kant thought
+that the trick to showing how it is possible for the Categories to apply to experience is to show that it is <em>necessary</em>
+that they apply.</p>
+<p>TD has two sides, though Kant never treats them separately. He once called them the objective and the subjective
+deductions. The objective deduction is about the conceptual and other cognitive conditions of having representations of
+objects. It is Kant's answer to the quid juris question. Exactly how the objective deduction goes is highly
+controversial, a controversy that we will sidestep here. The subjective deduction is about what the mind, the
+“subjective sources” of understanding, must as a consequence be like. The subjective deduction is what mainly interests
+us.</p>
+<p><em>Kant argues as follows. Our experiences have objects, that is, they are about something. The objects of our experiences
+are discrete, unified particulars. To have such particulars available to it, the mind must construct them based on
+sensible input. To construct them, the mind must do three kinds of synthesis. It must generate temporal and spatial
+structure (Synthesis of Apprehension in Intuition). It must associate spatio-temporally structured items with other
+spatio-temporally structured items (Synthesis of Reproduction in the Imagination). And it must recognize items using
+concepts, the Categories in particular (Synthesis of Recognition in a Concept)</em>. This threefold doctrine of synthesis is
+one of the cornerstones of Kant's model of the mind. We will consider it in more detail in the next Section.</p>
Managing Tech Assets - Is a Common Library a Good Idea? No https://leadership.qubitpi.org/posts/managing-tech-assets-common-lib-or-not/https://leadership.qubitpi.org/posts/managing-tech-assets-common-lib-or-not/ Managing Tech Assets - Is a Common Library a Good Idea? No Wed, 17 Jul 2024 00:00:00 GMT <h2>A Story - A Person Created a Common Library and Then...</h2>
<p>"Embarrassingly I introduced a "common" library, named as such, in a team environment a couple of decades back.
I didn't really understand the dynamics back then of what could happen in a loosely-coordinated team setting in just a
diff --git a/sitemap-0.xml b/sitemap-0.xml
index 60cfc2d67..e795238f2 100644
--- a/sitemap-0.xml
+++ b/sitemap-0.xml
@@ -1 +1 @@
-https://leadership.qubitpi.org/ https://leadership.qubitpi.org/about/ https://leadership.qubitpi.org/archive/ https://leadership.qubitpi.org/archive/category/Examples/ https://leadership.qubitpi.org/archive/category/Guides/ https://leadership.qubitpi.org/archive/category/Management/ https://leadership.qubitpi.org/archive/category/uncategorized/ https://leadership.qubitpi.org/archive/tag/Blogging/ https://leadership.qubitpi.org/archive/tag/Customization/ https://leadership.qubitpi.org/archive/tag/Demo/ https://leadership.qubitpi.org/archive/tag/Example/ https://leadership.qubitpi.org/archive/tag/Fuwari/ https://leadership.qubitpi.org/archive/tag/Management/ https://leadership.qubitpi.org/archive/tag/Markdown/ https://leadership.qubitpi.org/archive/tag/Technologies/ https://leadership.qubitpi.org/archive/tag/Video/ https://leadership.qubitpi.org/posts/guide/ https://leadership.qubitpi.org/posts/history-of-management/ https://leadership.qubitpi.org/posts/managing-tech-assets-common-lib-or-not/ https://leadership.qubitpi.org/posts/markdown-extended/ https://leadership.qubitpi.org/posts/markdown/ https://leadership.qubitpi.org/posts/reading-notes-de-administrando-imperio/ https://leadership.qubitpi.org/posts/video/ https://leadership.qubitpi.org/ https://leadership.qubitpi.org/about/ https://leadership.qubitpi.org/archive/ https://leadership.qubitpi.org/archive/category/Examples/ https://leadership.qubitpi.org/archive/category/Guides/ https://leadership.qubitpi.org/archive/category/Management/ https://leadership.qubitpi.org/archive/category/Theory/ https://leadership.qubitpi.org/archive/category/uncategorized/ https://leadership.qubitpi.org/archive/tag/Blogging/ https://leadership.qubitpi.org/archive/tag/Customization/ https://leadership.qubitpi.org/archive/tag/Demo/ https://leadership.qubitpi.org/archive/tag/Example/ https://leadership.qubitpi.org/archive/tag/Fuwari/ https://leadership.qubitpi.org/archive/tag/Management/ https://leadership.qubitpi.org/archive/tag/Markdown/ https://leadership.qubitpi.org/archive/tag/Technologies/ https://leadership.qubitpi.org/archive/tag/Theory/ https://leadership.qubitpi.org/archive/tag/Video/ https://leadership.qubitpi.org/posts/guide/ https://leadership.qubitpi.org/posts/history-of-management/ https://leadership.qubitpi.org/posts/kant-view-of-mind-and-consciousness/ https://leadership.qubitpi.org/posts/managing-tech-assets-common-lib-or-not/ https://leadership.qubitpi.org/posts/markdown-extended/ https://leadership.qubitpi.org/posts/markdown/ https://leadership.qubitpi.org/posts/video/