Just like the old fortune teller said!

This guy gets it, try to really dig into your conclusions before investigating anything & anytime someone provides good reasons they aren’t actually true. Get really belligerent and obstinate when someone traps you with ‘logical reasons’ or ‘convincing evidence’. Then you too can maintain an irrational childish perspective through adulthood & never have to challenge your beliefs or learn anything even slightly uncomfortable.

I think he goes to camp

Handheld Zelda link’s awakening for the Gameboy hits me the hardest as it was the first I owned myself bought with my first jobs mowing lawns and delivering papers.

Console, NES contra watching my older brothers get way further than I could at the time & teach me the Konami code

PC xwing, I had a f16 flight stick and my siblings would play splitting weapons/shield/engines distribution to a copilot and the pilot flying and aiming. That mission where you have to fly back and forth protecting the Corvette from imperial attacks from both sides jumping in and out of the area was peak retro space combat gaming.

More libraries for more things, physical and digital. Some traditional libraries have expanded to other media, tools, etc but it’s really just scratching the surface on community sharing of reusable resources, mostly limited by funding for staff and space for public libraries.

Access to resources for scientific reproducibility studies. Publish or perish models are based around publishing novel research in for profit journals. Peer reviews generally do not reproduce the study or experiment as they are not paid for that work and can only review the paper on it’s merits itself. This leads to bad actors who submit research that can get past review and remain cited for potential years before someone attempts to and fails to reproduce their work, and it’s getting worse with for example comp sci research not including publishing code or software projects with their research. If there were a way to fund reproducibility studies you could open a new path for a scientifically trained workforce and improve the quality of available research in general.

And on scientific research for profit peer review journals themselves. They could be replaced by nonprofit organizations relying on more digital spaces like arXive.org or sci-hub to add credential and public review on top of available research, but nothing has been reputable enough to really break past mass adoption in most scientific fields.

If you want examples of what people work on check out the public github repositories, they range from big open source projects with multiple developers, testers, etc to small projects only one person has worked on.

Many languages/build chains will provide template projects these days to give you some baseline to build from instead of an empty directory. Maven archetypes for example in Java or https://start.spring.io/ for spring projects in Java/kotlin/groovy. But that’s just to give you some structure and frameworks so you’re not starting with a blank canvas.

Different languages will appeal to different practices too, like a compiled language you’ll want to leverage debuggers and logging, but an interactive language, or one that offers both compiled and interactive, may have a REPL or command line prompt to work against to try out ideas before saving them in a script or class file.