Korean adjectives (형용사) behave quite similarly to as verbs (동사), so much so the term 용언 refers to both (= 형영사 + 동사 + copula), and sometimes people use the term "descriptive verb" instead.
And then there's a different part of speech called 관형사 for noun-modifiers ("adnouns") that actually goes before the noun. 형용사 can be conjugated into 관형사, but so can 동사 (analogous to "running" in "the running car", say).
I wonder if I should just ditch the English words and use the correct Korean terms instead. I don't think the English terms are used consistently between different textbooks.
I think the top idea in my head now is Korean, despite the fact I barely get any practice and haven't improved much.
One thing that's always surprised me about things like contest math or chess or StarCraft is how people can express a personality through their play style. For something formalizable with a clearly defined objective function, it's still not clear to me a priori that should happen.
Maybe that's a symptom of depth to look for in domains --- whether it naturally lets people express unique personalities.
I've learned that it's easier to respond to emails and questions with "please provide 1000% more detail" or "I don't understand what you're asking" than to try to guess what the question is.
Trying to understand 는 것 in Korean and it reminds me so much of doing category theory.