The autodidacts produce far better code in my experience.

As a non-engineer I will take this as encouragement.

From what I've seen around me, the ones holding the engineering titles simply are more methodical in how they search for a pattern or key to how something works. They will have a better vocabulary to explain themselves too.

But maybe they aren't as good in thinking outside the box?

Kind of like how someone who has completed a formal philosophical education will usually be better figuring out the ins and outs of a particular text but not necessarily will have what it takes to come up with their own? Not sure - I'm a humanities kind of guy who works with engineers.

Not to discourage you, but I've also observed the same pattern of autodidacts being better than traditional engineers... at least for those who stay in tech.

I've seen a lot of self-taught developers or bootcamp grads switch industry or try to move to "tech-adjacent" roles. Making it as an individual contributor is, in my experience, pretty rare.

That was by design wasn't it...

I interpreted left/right to be corresponding curves of wealth distribution.

FSD ... ?

I'm sure most autodidacts can appreciate this, but I can't help but consider:

He is paid to teach - is he performing that role effectively if his students aren't learning?

Was his recent teaching (or attempts to teach) substantially different from what it was 5-10 years ago, when he (seemingly) was considered satisfactory?

Or were the students he was given this year academically weaker, and just too pissed off with the whole COVID / remote learning / student debt / etc. situation (none of which was his fault) to put up with a weeder course (which OC always is) where the professor was too idealistic / stubborn / whatever to lower the standard "as far as it took"?

There are comments from more than ten years ago complaining about the unfairness of exams being on matter which wasn't even seen, so it may just be accumulation of complaints and previous conflicts with university administration coming to a head.

Faster growth is generally less dense growth as well. In the physical sense that is - tree rings are bigger, the material is lighter, and as you might guess - weaker.

And before social media they were losing it on web forums, and before the web forums on the telephone, and before the telephone on the bible.

I don't think kids doomscrolled the bible.

Have you ever read the thing! Plenty of doom to go around.

I considered the explanation was simply that diagrams created in UML are unreadable to lay persons.

Excessive use of visual jargon, and changing standards combine to make everybody a lay person, even those versed in a particular version of UML when confronted with a different version.

They are pretty trivial to understand.

I agree with him. They always had like 5 different types of arrow that had various easily forgettable meanings.

Not just forgettable, but vastly different meanings. And these meanings have changed between versions. You really have to get close to the spec to grok what is actually being conveyed.

The devil is in the details - if you have to understand the details like the right arrows for relationship types and visibility modifiers, then it gets much less trivial.

And if you're going to omit those details, then do you really need a standard for your adhoc boxes and arrows diagram?

You can add a legend at the side of the diagram, problem solved.

Are you suggesting the vaccines have effects against bacterial infections?