snackable

 It's difficult for me to be proud of myself professionally. I enjoy what I do, I think it's important - but I don't feel worthy when I think about M' and the Kernel savvy folks I get to work around. I've never felt drawn to the subject. I don't particularly enjoy low level programming of any sort, reversing, exploiting, etc. I enjoy networks and Python, Clean Code, webdev, all that. Even though these are valuable skills, I still feel like they just aren't as appreciated. Why is that?  Are research and low-level inherently more difficult than development and Opera? Or is it a question of accessibility - those that break the barrier get the glory?  I think I need to decide that I am worthy, I do things that are important and no one else could do. But I can't convince myself that is true. The reason for this is the quantification issue. When someone has a certain skill that is rare, it is inherently more impressive. - because it's difficult to quantify...

 Certain things are factual. They exist.  We tend to represent things that exist in different ways. Our representations tend not to be true.  This isn't always the case - some representations can be tied in certain ways to the absolute truth. Here are some examples of things that are tightly dependent on the truth, and some that aren't. Let's start with code. Code is, by definition, the truth - what is written will happen. Sometimes code can be misleading though. Dirty, convoluted code can mislead us as to what is happening. We might interpret it in untruthful ways - there might be side effects we didn't notice, etc. This is why it's important to write clear, expressive code. Next up, we have documentation in code. Comments, docstrings, etc. These can be truthful - but certainly aren't the truth. There's a difference - and having a false piece of documentation can throw us off of our goal of quickly learning the truth when we are reading code. This can happe...