To maintain a collaborative atmosphere, consider whether there may be another way to ask your question without using the word "why". For example, asking "Why is this behind schedule?" can feel accusatory, while asking "What can get help us back on schedule?" might feel more supportive.

"Why" questions can help to assert authority, but they can also leave a negative aftertaste. Be intentional about the outcomes that you are seeking.

For example, when someone tells us "not to look", the first thing we want to do is look. Even when we know that what we're being asked not to look at is boring, it can be hard to move on. Speculating on what it is can be interesting in and of itself.

So, if you find yourself with a question that you can't answer, consider whether it's worth answering because someone may be using this dynamic strategically to capture your attention. Depending on the effort required and the value of the information, you may be better off leaving it unresolved.

When learning a new programming language, people usually start with the equivalent of "direct translation", before they can code using the ecosystem's tools (instead of fighting against them), even if it's awkward.

This is similar to how you can understand people who speak with an accent different from your own. They may pronounce words differently or use different grammatical constructions than you'd expect, but you can understand their intended meaning. To simplify maintenance and improve readability and understanding, software projects institute explicit style guides for how to contribute code.

Previously, I've had a couple reservations about giving old computers away:

1. I'm not 100% sure that I have a copy of all the data since I don't copy everything to my new computers.
2. I have sentimental attachment / I wonder if certain computers may become valuable antiques (e.g., original iBook).

If it's just the first case, go buy an external hard drive so you can be confident that you won't lose any data. Then, re-image your machine and give it away. You'll be doing your community and the planet a favor.

After all, during a chess game, both players have complete information about the pieces on the board and the outcome of the game is dependent only on the moves they make. In other words, there is no luck (other than the slight edge someone has when playing first).

However, it's more common for us to have incomplete information when making decisions. This is more similar to figuring out how to bet a poker hand. Even with a great strategy there is still an element of luck, which can lead to surprising wins and bad beats.

The exercise of compiling relevant data to the decision being made demonstrates a willingness to consider alternatives. This should both highlight areas for adjustment and build conviction in your own (potentially new) perspective. Continue surfacing facts until everyone agrees that there are nothing else that warrants consideration. By focusing on facts, the disagreement becomes less about questioning each other's judgment and more about finding the best path forward.

Instead of thinking about persuading others to your point of view, consider finding the facts that will help others to come to the same conclusion as you.

Honest people suffer consequences if they do not take credible actions to protect themselves. In other words, even though it's wrong for someone to enter your unlocked door and steal from your home, it's unlikely that anyone will have sympathy for you either emotionally or economically. To prevent this from happening, honest people need to invest in security.

Like most forms insurance, you hope to never need to benefit from paying your premiums. But sadly, security costs for honest people are inevitable and unavoidable, just like taxes.

Mutual friends (e.g., professors) are good at providing calibrated assessments; however, they're hard to find for every applicant. So without being able to use the same assessment methodology for all applicants, one can't help but question of the practical value of references (especially optional ones) that are provided by the applicant. The main thing it seems to assess is whether the applicant has self-awareness of how much those asked to serve as references want to help them.

Just food for thought - processes intended to provide more signal may not actually do that.

Reflecting on how often I talk about "who"s versus "them"s is an interesting way to assess how much I have in common with someone. A high ratio of "them" to "who" suggests that we have shared experiences or interests. And when the ratio is low, we need to make a concerted effort to find common ground or the relationship may not be worth investing in.

If you're looking for a way to increase the "who" to "them" ratio in a conversation, you may want to consider talking about sports or politics, since they always have new developments.

I'm curious how organisms from Earth (or elsewhere) evolve when put into different gravity environments with other variables held constant. It's a known phenomenon that human biology behaves differently in space; astronauts have an increased risk of bone demineralization and kidney stones. Overcoming these challenges is a key step in preparing for extended space missions.

This is a good example of when we don't know what we don't know. I'm looking forward to finding out how commonly held postulates are implicitly tied to Earth's gravity.