I was more disappointed by the inconsistency of their claims.
On the front page, they said that, they gave their livestock the highest quality feed and kept them happy in an open environment.
Upon reading further, they changed their tone to keeping them in small cages, followed with stuff like, "don't worry, you won't taste it".
They, as a company, lost credibility. Definitely not buying from them.
I honestly like the cognitive load. Just not when I am at the workplace, having to deal with said load, with the office banter in the background and (not so) occasionally, being interrupted for other stuff.
And my cognitive load is not even about the memory allocations, most of the time.
Off topic:
I think, if one is seriously learning programming from a young age, it is better to start with C, make a project, big enough to feel the difficulty and understand what the cognitive load is all about and get used to it, hence increasing their mental capability. Then learn the memory safe language of their choice.
I never made a big enough project in C, but you can get to feel the load in C++ too.
It's not just about bad/good C programmers.
It's also about how much of the context, the given C programmer has read to make sure they know enough of what they are doing.
No matter how good one is at Programming, they need to make sure to read and remember what is happening in relevant parts of code, while making their one off contribution.
That's where the part of "leaving it to the computer" comes in. Hence, the usefulness of code checkers and even better if the compiler itself enforces the stuff. As long as the rules are good enough.
Let's just hope we are not jumping to another language 20 years down the line.
Even if you manage to keep all memory accesses in your memory, while writing the code, there's a good chance you'll forget something when reviewing another person's MR.
That's probably the main problem creator.
Still, a language that you are familiar with, is better than a new language that you haven't finished reading the specifications of. And considering that adding new maintainers comes with a major effort of verifying trustworthiness, I get how it would be harder to switch.
It is "guessed" using whatever mathematical model that matches the system.
Of course, if our whole theory is wrong, then the guess will be wrong and we won't know unless some condition arises where the predicted result and the observed result are different.
Ah right, I should have said that too: don't care about the dimensions. Just make a shape similar to that, which can be done using the vertices/dots in the provided paper (otherwise the print will be useless for the purpose of making the learning process easier).
You are just trying to learn how to draw nicely, right? You don't really need to care about properly matching some random example I casually picked off google images. You can change the dimensions at will as long as you understand what you are doing.
At least in this case, you are using the same basics over and over again.
What to put where, is your imagination. The first 2 steps just explain how to put the stuff there. And since I recommended an eraser, I would expect you to know to use it when it comes to the point.
Since you desire to git gud at drawing, I would expect you to be good at imagining, which is the prerequisite.
So yeah. I this case, the rest of the owl is the same as the first circle and ellipse.
Oh and ignore the shadows. That comes in a completely different territory. You will need to learn shading, first. I'd never bother with that and just use a CAD software.
If you are filling your PSU with tar from cigarette smoking, yes, its max wattage will go down over time.
It's like making the marathon runner inhale your smoke while running the marathon.