# Catch-22 (by Joseph Heller) - had been seeing it mentioned on HN (and other sites) for years, I finally read it and it was one the best novels I've ever read.
# The Universe and Dr. Einstein (by Lincoln Barnett) - recommended for anyone who is interested about Einstein's thought process that gave birth to two great theories.
# What I Talk About When I Talk About Running (by Haruki Murakami) - it's my first book from H. M. and I really liked it. It's kind of a memoir and made me like Murakami and now I plan to read his novels too.
# How to Build a Car (by Adrian Newey) - that famous F1 car designer... Great read. Gives readers a chance to glimpse into both (technical) thought process behind designing a race car and human side of it.
# Basic Mathematics (by Serge Lang) - not *reading* exactly, working through it (to brush the rust off of my math fundamentals).
Someone recommend H.M. To me a few weeks back. Started w/ Kafka by the Shore and then finished Norwegian Wood a few days after that. Couldn’t put them down, both were terrific.
Murakami’s fiction novels are extremely different from “What I Talk About When I Talk About Running”. If you want to try another non-fiction book of his check-out “Underground : The Tokyo Gas Attack and the Japanese Psyche”, I loved it. If you go the fiction route “Kafka on the Shore” and “A Wild Sheep Chase” are a good starting point. Avoid some of his longer works unless you enjoy his style.
Thank you for your recommendations.
I am aware that his novels will be different. The (memoir) I mentioned just made me like the guy, so his other writings interest me now.
Looked up for "jeeves and wooster", so, you're British then. This makes this little conversation interesting for me, because I'm not American, not even European and so our exposure/approach to this novel is very different then, I guess. Even the language was a little over my head, since English is not my native tongue. However, I really enjoyed it. I liked Heller's style (prose?) and wit.
About Yossarian...yes, he's not a "perfect hero", but he is very human with all his earthly desires (I would say) and his struggles for staying righteous at the same time.
The chapter about thoughts crossed his mind & feelings he experienced while he was wandering in the cold, damp streets at night was peak for me. I might re-read that very chapter nowadays.
I think the thing that trips me up is that it feels like a collection of unrelated short stories mashed together. Worse (for me) is that those stories contradict each other.
I use Okular for that. It's open-source and present on three major platforms. I really got surprised to find out how feature-rich it is. It has a lot of basic/important features - like highlighting, underlining, strike through, inline notes, pop-up notes, freehand line drawing, inserting shapes (like arrow, rectangle, polygon) etc.
Tip: you actually don't need to install kde toolkit to be able to run Okular on Windows and macOS. Search for nightly builds - I'm on a nightly build and it's pretty solid.
>The professional therefore acts in the face of fear, when the amateur fears a big creative endeavor he waits for the fear to disappear, the professional knows this will never happen and starts anyway."
It sounds like the most fundamental and precise definition of (the reason of) procrastination.
Jane Austen was the first author to came to my mind as I saw this thread. I've read two of her books (Sense and Sensibility & Pride and Prejudice) ~2 years ago. What they made me realise was that people are not absolutely good or absolutely bad. Human character consists of so many gray areas (as americans or... I don't know... english-speaking world puts it), it's not like black/white.
The second one is Science and Method by Henri Poincare. I'm not in a position to fully understand and appreciate this book, but I just want to share a few quotes[0] that stood out for me when I read it:
"The subliminal ego is in no way inferior to the conscious ego; it is not purely automatic; it is capable of discernment; it has tact and lightness of touch; it can select, and it can divine. More than that, it can divine better than the conscious ego, since it succeeds where the latter fails. In a word, is not the subliminal ego superior to the conscious ego?"
"Under this second aspect, all the combinations are formed as a result of the automatic action of the subliminal ego, but those only which are interesting find their way into the field of consciousness. This, too, is most mysterious. How can we explain the fact that, of the thousand products of our unconscious activity, some are invited to cross the threshold, while others remain outside? Is it mere chance that gives them this privilege? Evidently not."
"All the difficulties, however, have not disappeared. The conscious ego is strictly limited, but as regards the subliminal ego, we do not know its limitations, and that is why we are not too loth to suppose that in a brief space of time it can form more different combinations than could be comprised in the whole life of a conscient being."
It refers to the human's cybersecurity technique of banning inter-computer communication. The ship Galactica survives the initial cylon attack because it's too old to have networked devices onboard.
> as a woman I was always better with words than numbers
As a man and a mechanical engineer, I was and still am way better with words than numbers and I think it's perfectly OK. Heck, I almost hate numbers and symbols without (the explanatory) words/paragraphs. I struggled at classes throughout all my years as a student since almost every topic in engineering is "applied", hence without a rigorous (theoretical) background and so much example/case based.
I wonder if it has something to do with how one's memory works. Isn't it easier for everyone to remember/visualize concepts and then deriving the formula than trying to remember the exact formula? (Writing this down, I imagine the people who do the former are better with words as the ones who do the latter are better with numbers). The derivation of equations governing the Hagen–Poiseuille flow is a good example, I presume[0].
> I almost hate numbers and symbols without (the explanatory) words/paragraphs.
The numbers and symbols only make sense in the context of some specific language game. If you work in a domain a lot, then repeated sequences of symbols and conventional naming of variables hints what language game you're playing. Without that, everyone needs the explanatory words/paragraphs.
> Isn't it easier for everyone to remember/visualize concepts and then deriving the formula than trying to remember the exact formula?
Yes. There's an interesting notion of a "recovery procedure" in Borovik's "Mathematics Under the Microscope" where he points out that mathematicians don't remember formulas and theorems, they remember simple procedures that recover them.
# The Universe and Dr. Einstein (by Lincoln Barnett) - recommended for anyone who is interested about Einstein's thought process that gave birth to two great theories.
# What I Talk About When I Talk About Running (by Haruki Murakami) - it's my first book from H. M. and I really liked it. It's kind of a memoir and made me like Murakami and now I plan to read his novels too.
# How to Build a Car (by Adrian Newey) - that famous F1 car designer... Great read. Gives readers a chance to glimpse into both (technical) thought process behind designing a race car and human side of it.
# Basic Mathematics (by Serge Lang) - not *reading* exactly, working through it (to brush the rust off of my math fundamentals).
reply