However, from what I can tell, the EPA numbers from all manufacturers are quite unrealistic, because the methodology doesn't match real-world driving.
My son (7 years old) is gifted in Math and as a parent I find it extremely hard to decide how much I should push him (register him to math competition, weekend math club ...) and how much I should just let him get 100% on exam and not accelerate the learning.
My own kid went to MathPath (middle school camp by same people as Epsilon Camp). Loved it. “Yes, dad really, I want to spent a whole month of my summer doing math.” The social experience is great for kids to be with other kids that like math.
Before that, I tended to write Python in a much more imperative style, since C++ is my main language; think for loops and appending to lists. Thanks to AoC, I'm now addicted to comprehensions for transforming and filtering, know the standard library cold, and write much more concise, Pythonic code.
There's also a reason why it's a standing goal, rather than a completed goal.
It does little or nothing really well, but it does everything kind of okay.
There's a lot of "alternatives", most of which do something much better, sometimes much much much better, than ROS, but none of which can replace it all completely. PyRobot, Viam, OROCOS, Webots, all of these do some things much better than ROS, but none of them can drop in and easily replace everything without a lot of developer time, often adding new features to the platform.
So ROS can get you past your A-round -- but count on addressing scalability and stability issues as go. Which is why "write out ROS" is on everybody's to-do list.
In any case, learning ROS is well worth it. As a hiring manager, I know I can easily teach you our system if you know ROS already.
Sometimes people fail to appreciate how insanely fast a predictable branch really is.
So on the topic of agenda... if what you are working on is your own agenda, you don't burn out. You might change the agenda by redefining goals, but in the end, you are sailing your own ship. Not only do you not burn out, it is curative. It is when you absorb someone else's agenda and make it your own to an unhealthy extent that you burn out. Always be computing that dot product between your employer's agenda vector and your own agenda vector. Don't over-invest beyond that dot-product.
Don't say "dissonance" (or explain what dissonance is)- that much is obvious, looking for something a bit more detailed, e.g. why 1-2-5 sounds brighter than 1-4-5
Gmail is not "crippled". A tiny but vocal community of old nerds have a petrified mental model of email that they associate with unix IMAP software from the 1990's, but those concepts do not appear in the IMAP standards anywhere.
For context: I spent 11 years at Intel managing pre-silicon and post-silicon processor validation. No processor that does only and exactly what the Programmers Reference Manual says, and takes the phrase "undefined behavior" seriously, will be successful. Google would do well to adjust their philosophy.