datashovel

It may be a diagnose-able issue :) but I was a wreck (literally) when I first started driving because I would lose focus on the road.

Manual transmission, it seems to me, gives me a far better "feel" for the current state of the car. How fast I'm going, and because I have to change gears it keeps me more focused on the monotony of driving.

So far in my recent search I've been reluctant to even consider an automatic transmission because of what may or may not be just a psychological crutch.

1) Many people at top of the talent pool know that the internet makes it possible for them to not only make huge differences at companies they work for, but they can also (if allowed) make enormous differences to the entire world. If they don't have to compromise their free time in order to do that, it's an enormous benefit.

2) The people a company like Apple wants to hire are interviewing the company just as thoroughly as they are interviewing the candidate. If the candidate has not already seen a large portfolio of their work there's no real guarantee (even if you're Apple) that you can convince them that they'll be working on amazing teams with amazing engineers.

3) When you're at the top of the talent pool your goals and incentive structure are almost certainly not tied directly to compensation. Of course you want to be compensated fairly, but when it comes down to it you're passionate about what you do, and as a consequence you've become great at what you do. You generally don't become the best at something because you believe it will compensate you better.

I, as probably most others on this forum, would not put our future livelihoods in the hands of anonymous comments.

That said, I think an open forum conversation brings a lot of perspectives (useful and not) to the table that can help in one way or another.

After all, this is the future POTUS we're talking about.

I doubt there is a single thing on this planet that Trump values more than his name. Thus the precarious nature of being politically active during this President's term. Unless citizens are protected. I just don't know what those protections / limitations are.

On the other side of the coin Trump never had issues calling the Affordable Care Act "Obamacare" so maybe there are laws that protect this sort of thing? Sure he said he took the name affectionately, but we all know it was originally created to slander his name.

I respect the opinions / knowledge produced on this forum, but will never put my future livelihood in its hands.

Having lived for the last several years in a very rural area of the midwest I would say that not only do you need the right mechanisms in place to sort through / vet candidates, but you also need to be willing to constantly venture outside your comfort zone. Why are you always recruiting locally? Why aren't you willing to look in all locations throughout the country? To be frank, I would guess that almost never do you find a "diamond in the rough" outside of large metropolitan areas, but my personal experience is that as soon as I work with a team in a metropolitan area I realize I'm almost always substantially ahead of the game in terms of best practices / capacity, etc. I would probably argue that I'm an exception to the rule, but (not to be political) the recent US election leads me to believe that the "norm" is not the "norm" any more. People are thinking outside the box and we (as recruiters / employers) need to realize this and not instantly discount a person just because of where they live (btw I'm pretty strongly Dem living in a mostly Rep world).

Ok, I'm on board with all of those... Then, besides a few other points, it just gets worse and worse the further into it you go.

If he accomplishes all 6, or even half, that's great. I just hope he won't have enough time to ruin everything else. At least now (especially after Dubya) we know we need outsiders vigilantly watching every move (and non-move) he makes.

From the article:

  He often said, “It’s not enough to win—all others must fail.”

If the argument is presented as if something is and will always be a certain way (or even if the argument is presented without admitting that something may change) it can probably lead a lot faster to groups of people assuming the argument will be valid forever.

EDIT: Or can be misinterpreted that someone presenting an argument believes the argument will remain valid forever.

btw. never saw the talks the author cites, and have not followed the trade agreements very closely so I'm only speaking generally here.

http://robrhinehart.com/?p=570

I've been drinking Soylent since the early days. At times I've almost exclusively drank soylent. Since the first early adopters received their first shipments almost 1 year later than originally anticipated.

The one thing that has caused mild indigestion for me was when I was drinking Soylent almost exclusively in combination with energy drinks. Specifically Monster Lo-Carb (1 each morning on weekdays). Once I eliminated energy drinks from my diet the indigestion stopped.

Otherwise my personal impression (given my mostly eventless but extensive history with soylent, along with an inability of the company to precisely define the source of the issue) is that a lot of the bad press is a smear campaign.

EDIT: Another thing that has crossed my mind is that the American diet is notoriously bad. When switching diet from mostly bad to mostly good a person should expect a change of the composition of the bacteria in their stomach. Which could lead to the sensation / symptoms of indigestion.

My initial reaction was that it would very likely lead to a nuclear holocaust.

The reason I ask is because I've implemented similar techniques in projects before, and from experience I ran into a few situations where (for example) text would wrap at undesirable locations (such as titles / headings) during the transition while I would resize the window's width. So if anything it may be interesting to extrapolate this technique so that the derivative of the function is slightly smaller on the small end of the spectrum, and slightly larger on the big end. Or maybe a shape similar to a sigmoid function?

1) I want innovation. I want new features for the web. I don't want innovation to be hampered by the priority of making features cross-browser compatible.

2) I want cross-browser compatibility. I don't want to have to develop N apps (N representing the total # of browsers my website / app supports).

Personally I don't care if X browser has feature Y. As a developer, if I find a feature I want to program into my website / application, I don't want to have to wait for N-1 other browsers to implement this feature before I start using it.

I want to be able to "declare" or send a "hint" in my HTTP headers (or meta tags?) telling the browser that my site is supported by X,Y,Z browser engines. Each browser would implement a bare bones interface that decouples the "chrome" of the browser window from the "application" window, and makes the application window interchangeable (plug n play) with other browser engines. This would make browser engines interchangeable without requiring a user to close one browser and open another.

Granted, if a user doesn't have browser engine 'X', and refuses to download / install it, that's my loss as a developer / website owner. Or of course I could write some graceful degradation into my app / website. Already I hear some folks saying "but this is what we do now". Not quite. It's a subtle but I think important difference. Most people are willing to install (or already have installed) all major browsers on their computers. The point is, currently we must develop for / test for all major browsers to get the desired reach (or to prevent a user from having to switch browsers). This alternative approach moves the needle when a user installs a browser, not when they use the browser. So if there are a substantial # of people who have both Chrome / Firefox installed on their computers, but 'X'% of those people regularly use Firefox, I can still develop ONLY for Chrome and still get the desired reach into the world's population who have internet access.

There are of course going to be pros / cons no matter what you do, but given the above priorities, and the predispositions of all actors involved (web browser developers, web browser users, website / web app developers) I really think this is going to be the most scalable, least intrusive / obstructive path forward.

Don't get me wrong. Some people will embrace this. Namely those who aren't interested in managing others. But it seems a bit disingenuous to say you can "level the playing field" by having a value structure that doesn't map well to how most other companies' value structure is set up.

This is what a function call looks like in PHP:

  myfunc($arg1,$arg2);

Functions can represent any subset of computation within a program, or in some cases a function can represent all of the computations of an entire program. If you're hung up on small nuances of a language, you're probably just not doing it right. That's not a bad thing. A lot of people find themselves in this position, but the bottom line is you're probably just not writing your programs with the correct lower level abstractions.

That's it. It's not magic, but it's not always easy either. You shouldn't feel bad about it. Just keep trying and one day you'll realize that very little of what makes a great programmer has anything to do with the language you're using.

NOTE: This isn't in response to the author. They appear to have a strong reputation within the PHP community. This is really just a general response to all of the PHP hate in this thread.

In the end I have to believe people are measuring the value based almost exclusively on the website's "traction". Frankly, I think "traction" is an outdated metric (especially when it comes to the web).

I almost feel like I have to remind folks here (who are arguing against the premise that we're in the middle of a period of extraordinarily excessive valuations) that the web provides an almost frictionless environment to change. If tomorrow someone launches a better LinkedIn, there is ZERO reason I can't switch over (or use both) that same day).

In tomorrow's world I see individual engineers (or surely teams of less than 10) will have the capacity to build a product better than LinkedIn, at and beyond the scale of LinkedIn, in their garage (thanks to the cloud). With little to no investment.

In the future (by my estimation the not-too-distant future) $20+ billion for a resume website will be unconscionable (if it isn't already).

A bunch of my co-workers and I were out to lunch with a new member of our team (management level). The conversation turned to the real estate boom that we were in the middle of. The new guy had already, during the conversation, let us all know he had made a nice chunk of change in real estate recently, and was in the middle of looking for a new house with his wife. They apparently had their eye on a few really nice waterfront properties. That sort of got a few folks talking "bubble". He laughed it off and smugly told us all that (paraphrased) "in reality the market is just going to keep going up."

Famous last words, he ended up closing a few months before the crash.

  "Developers Developers Developers Developers!"
    --Tim Cook WWDC 2016