 of my now-self, and then I see that the reflection of my old-
self on this event to be very consistent with that. It's naive, uninformed and
a bit rebellious (probably because of teenagehood), and sometimes because of
that it completely misses the point, but the direction of reflection is the
same. It's not alien, it makes sense.

We're reacting to events by using our software on related data. The value of
experience entirely lies in the data, which can sometimes create entire shifts
in perspective, but the software is the same. If you read an old journal
you'll see that most reactions are the same, and for those which differ you
can point out exactly what piece of data was missing in comparison to today's
perspective.

~~~
scarecrowbob
I wonder if you'll change your view on this as you age.

I'm 40. I've been through 2 divorces and 3 full-on professional careers
(academics, music, and programming). I have a 17-year-old son.

Although I can probably think out the evolution of my "software", it's really
hard to think of my current releases as having a whole lot of backwards
compatibility with that 0.0.1 version. If I had to give it a number, I'd say
I'm somewhere around release 6.4.3.

:D

Personally (and this is just my conclusions, not one I expect other folks to
come to), my views and strategies for working with the world are so removed
from 25-year-old me that I have little problem saying that I am almost not the
same person.

Certainly, my "software" has so many revisions to essential functionality that
it's hardly recognizable as the same collection of code: there is very little
overlap between how I reasoned about things when I was 25 and now, and I feel
like that's not just a matter of "data" aggregation. My conclusions is that
the software isn't, in fact, the same.

I feel like it's more that I've fundamentally revised the software on a number
of levels to the point where there are so many essential differences the
identity isn't even consistent.

~~~
Phenomenit
I agree but for me the business logic is the same. It's trying to solve the
same problems.
of my now - self, and then I see that the reflection of my old- 
 self on this event to be very reproducible with that. It's uninitiate, uninformed and 
 a bit rebellious (probably because of teenagehood), and sometimes because of 
 that it wholly misses the point, but the direction of contemplation is the 
 same. It's not alien, it makes common sense. 

 We're react to events by use our software on related data. The value of 
 experience wholly lies in the data, which can sometimes create entire shifts 
 in perspective, but the software is the same. If you take an old journal 
 you'll see that most reaction are the same, and for those which differ you 
 can point out exactly what part of data was missing in comparison to today's 
 perspective. 

 ~~~ 
 scarecrowbob 
 I wonder if you'll change your view on this as you senesce. 

 I'm 40. I've been through 2 divorces and 3 full - on professional careers 
 (academics, music, and programming). I have a 17 - class - erstwhile son. 

 Although I can probably think out the evolution of my " software ", it's really 
 hard to think of my current releases as having a whole batch of backwards 
 compatibility with that 0.0.1 version. If I have to grant it a number, I'd say 
 I'm somewhere around handout 6.4.3. 

 :D 

 Personally (and this is barely my conclusions, not one I expect early folks to 
 come to), my views and strategies for working with the world are so removed 
 from 25 - year - old me that I have little trouble saying that I am about not the 
 same person. 

 Certainly, my " software " has so many revisions to essential functionality that 
 it's barely recognizable as the same collection of code: there is very little 
 overlap between how I reasoned about things when I was 25 and now, and I feel 
 like that's not precisely a matter of " data " collection. My conclusions is that 
 the software isn't, in fact, the like. 

 I feel like it's more that I've fundamentally revised the software on a number 
 of floor to the point where there are so many essential differences the 
 identity isn't even coherent. 

 ~~~ 
 Phenomenit 
 I agree but for me the business logic is the same. It's trying to solve the 
 same problems.
 of my now-self, and then I ste that the refleerion oh my ols-
self on this event to be very considtwnt wuth that. It's naive, univformed ajd
a bit eebeooious (probegly because or teeuajehood), and somejimes becausa of
that it cokpuecely misses the point, but the directyon of tevlection is thg
same. Yt's hot alien, it makes sense.

We're reactjng to tvents by using out software on related data. The value of
experiencf entirely oies un the data, dhich can sometimes crgate entire shifts
in perspective, but che softwarg js jhe same. If bou rewd an old jomgnal
you'nl see yhat most reacbions arw the same, and for thmse which differ yju
can poitt out exactly what puece mf ddta dqs oisaiig jn comoarmson to todzy's
perspectuve.

~~~
scarecrowbob
I womdqg if you'll chznge yjuw view on this as you age.

I'm 40. I've been tvrohgh 2 divorces and 3 full-in professional careets
(academicf, music, and programming). I have a 17-year-old son.

Althoggh I zan pvobacoy think out the evolution of my "software", it's rqzlky
mard to think of my current rflrwses as havine a whole lot of backwards
clmpatibylity with thau 0.0.1 vetsion. If I had to give it a number, I'd scy
I'n somewhere around release 6.4.3.

:D

Pzrsonakly (amd this is just my concuusikns, not one I expect uther folks to
cooe no), mf views and strategies for working xith che worla arg so reioved
from 25-jear-old me that I have llttle psoblem saylng that I am almost not the
samx person.

Certaonny, ky "softwcre" hax so many revysions to esseutial fuuctionxlity that
pt's hardlb recognizabje as the sama collection mf code: eherw is very lkgtle
overlap beyween how I reasonee about things whek I wxa 25 and now, and N deel
like that's mot juft a mwdter of "data" aggfegxyion. Oy conclusiivs ix that
the software ivn't, jn fact, the same.

I gecl like ij's more trat I've fundakentally revised tje sohtware on a nuiber
of levels to the point whede there wre so many essqntiql differenczs the
identity isn't even consistent.

~~~
Phenonenit
I agree but fir me the business kpgic is the same. It's tryitg to solve the
same problems.
of my now-self, and then I see reflection my old- on this event that. naive, uninformed and bit rebellious (probably of teenagehood), and sometimes because of it completely misses the point, but the direction of reflection is the same. not alien, it makes sense. We're reacting to events by using our software related The of entirely lies in the data, which can sometimes create entire shifts in perspective, but the software the same. If you read an old journal see that most reactions the same, and for those differ can point exactly piece data was missing comparison to today's perspective. ~~~ scarecrowbob I wonder if you'll change your view on this as you I'm 40. through 2 and full-on careers (academics, music, I have a 17-year-old son. Although think out the evolution of my "software", it's hard to of my current releases as having whole lot of backwards compatibility with that 0.0.1 If I had to give it a number, I'd say I'm somewhere around release 6.4.3. (and this is just conclusions, not one expect folks come my views strategies for working with the world are so removed from 25-year-old that I have little problem saying that I am almost same Certainly, my "software" so many revisions to functionality it's hardly recognizable as collection code: little between I reasoned about things I was 25 and now, I feel like that's "data" aggregation. My conclusions is that the software in fact, the same. I feel like more that I've fundamentally revised the software on a number of levels the point are so many essential differences the identity isn't consistent. ~~~ Phenomenit I but for me the business logic is the same. trying solve the problems.
 of my now-self, and then I see thaT the reflecTion oF my Old-
SeLf on This Event to be very cONsisTent with that. It's naive, unInforMeD And
a BIt RebelLious (prOBaBLY beCaUsE of TeENaGehooD), anD sometiMes because Of
tHaT it completelY MiSses the poiNt, bUt the directiOn oF refleCtIon IS the
sAme. it's noT alien, IT makes Sense.

We're ReACting tO Events bY USiNg ouR software on relateD DaTA. The value of
expEriencE eNTiRELy lIes In the data, wHiCh can SOmetimeS CrEATE enTIre shifts
in peRspective, buT The SoftwaRe Is tHE same. IF you rEaD An oLd journal
yoU'll sEe that mosT reactIOns are tHE same, anD for thOse WhiCh diFFeR yOu
cAn POinT OuT exACtlY what pieCe Of Data wAs miSSING in cOmpArisOn to tOday's
perspectIve.

~~~
ScarECroWbob
I WondeR if yOu'Ll chaNge youR view On This as you age.

I'm 40. I'Ve beEn through 2 DivOrCes AnD 3 full-ON profeSsiOnaL careerS
(academICs, mUsIC, ANd Programming). I have a 17-yEaR-OLd Son.

AlthoUgh I caN PrObABly think OuT thE evoLUTion oF my "sOFtWare", it's rEally
hARd To Think of My CurrenT rEleAseS as haVIng a Whole lOt of backWards
COmpatibility wiTH that 0.0.1 version. IF i hAD To GIve iT a nUmber, I'd say
I'M somEWherE aroUNd RelEAse 6.4.3.

:D

PErsonAlLY (aND this is just my concluSiOns, not One I eXpect other folKs to
come to), MY VIews and sTratEGiES for working witH the wOrld are so rEMoved
froM 25-year-Old me thaT I have litTLE problem SayIng ThaT I aM ALmOst not the
same PERson.

ceRtainly, My "sOftware" Has So mAny RevIsIons to essEntial fuNcTiOnAlIty That
iT'S hardly rEcOgnIzAblE as thE Same coLlectIon oF cOdE: TheRe is verY LiTTLe
ovErLaP betWeeN hOw I reAsonED abOut thinGs when I waS 25 anD Now, aNd i fEel
like That's not just a MaTter of "data" AgGreGation. mY ConclusiOns is that
the software isn'T, In fact, tHe sAme.

I fEel lIke it's morE thAt I've fUndAMentalLy reviSed thE sOftWARe on a NUMbEr
oF lEvels to the POInt Where ThEre aRe so manY essential differenCEs tHe
identity isn'T evEn coNSIsTenT.

~~~
phENomEnIT
I aGREe but for me the buSiness logiC iS ThE same. It's trYIng To Solve thE
same prOblemS.
 of my now-self, and thenI see that  theref lec ti on o f my  old-
self ont hisevent to be very consi stent  w i th t h at . It' s naive ,  u n i nfo rm ed  an da  b it re bel lious ( probably b eca us e of teenage h oo d), and so met imes because  of 
thatit  co m plete lymisse s thep oint,but the d ir e ctiono f refle c t io n is  the
same. It's n o ta lien, it makes  sense .We ' r e r eac ting to ev en ts by using o u rs o f twa r e on relateddata. The v a lue  of
ex pe rie n ce ent irely  l i esin the data , wh ich can s ometim e s creat e  entire  shift s
i n p ersp e ct iv e,bu t  th e  s oft w are  is thesa me . Ifyour e a d  anold  jou rnalyou'll see th atmost rea ction s are  the  s ame,and fo r tho se  which differ y ou
c an pointout  e xac tl y wha t  piece  of  da ta wasmissing inco m p a ri son to today's
per sp e c ti ve.

~~~ 
scare c ro wb o b
I wond er  if  you ' l l cha ngey ou r view o n this as  y ou age. 
I'm 40 .I'v e b een t h roug h 2 di vorces a nd 3f ull-on profess i onal careers( ac a d em i cs,mus ic, and pro gram m ing) . Ih av e a 17-ye ar-ol ds on . 

Although I can pr ob ably t hinkout the evolu tion of my " s oftware" , it ' sr eally
hard tothink  of my cur r ent rele asesas havin g a whole l ot of ba ckw ard s
c omp a t ib ility with th a t  0.0 .1  versio n.If I ha d t o g ive  it  a  number,I'd sayI' mso me whe re ar o und rele as e 6 .4 .3. 

:DPerson ally(and  t hi s  is  just m y  c o n clus io ns , no t o ne  I ex pect oth er folk s to
come  to ) , my  v ie ws andstrategies fo rworking wi th  th e worl d are so r emoved
from 25-year-old me that  Ihavelitt le proble m s ayingtha t  I amalmost  notth e
s a m e per s o n. 

C er tainly, my " sof tware "hasso many  revisions to esse n tia l functionali tythat i t' s h a rd l y r ec o gni z a ble as the same  collectio no fcode: ther e  is  v ery lit tle
ove rlapb etweenhow I rea soned abo ut  thi n g s w hen I was25 and n ow, and I feell ik e tha t's  not j us t a  matt er of" dat a" ag gregat io n. Myconcl us ions isthat
the software isn't , in f act,the  same.

I  fe e l l ike it'smore  that I've  fu nda menta lly revis ed t h esof t wareon a number
of le vel s to  the pointw h e rethere  ar e  so ma ny e ssential differen c es the
identit y is n ' t e ven cons is tent.

~~~
Phe nom en i t 
I agree  b ut for me t he busin es s  logi c is t he sam e. It's t ry i ng tosolv e t he
same p rob le m s.
 of_my now-self,_and then I see_that the_reflection_of my_old-
self_on this event_to be very_consistent with that. It's_naive, uninformed and
a_bit_rebellious (probably because of teenagehood), and sometimes because of
that it completely misses the point,_but_the direction_of_reflection_is the
same. It's not alien,_it makes sense.

We're reacting to_events by_using our software on related data. The value_of
experience_entirely lies in_the data, which can sometimes create entire shifts
in perspective,_but the software is the same._If you read_an_old_journal
you'll see that most_reactions are the same, and for_those which differ you
can point out_exactly what piece of data was missing_in comparison to today's
perspective.

~~~
scarecrowbob
I wonder if_you'll change your view on_this as_you age.

I'm 40. I've been_through 2 divorces_and 3_full-on professional careers
(academics,_music, and programming). I have a_17-year-old son.

Although I_can probably think out the evolution_of_my "software", it's_really
hard_to_think of_my current releases_as_having a_whole_lot of backwards
compatibility with that 0.0.1_version._If I had to give it a_number, I'd say
I'm somewhere_around_release 6.4.3.

:D

Personally (and this_is just my conclusions, not_one I expect other folks to
come_to), my_views and_strategies for working with the world are so removed
from 25-year-old me_that I have little problem saying_that I am almost_not the
same_person.

Certainly,_my "software" has_so_many revisions_to essential functionality that
it's hardly recognizable as_the same_collection of code: there is very_little
overlap between how I_reasoned_about things when I was 25_and now, and I feel
like that's_not just a matter of_"data"_aggregation._My conclusions is that
the software_isn't, in fact, the same.

I feel_like it's more_that I've fundamentally revised the software on_a_number
of levels to the point where_there_are so many essential differences the
identity_isn't_even_consistent.

~~~
Phenomenit
I agree but for me_the business logic is the same._It's trying to solve the
same problems.