Agreed. You lose all the benefits of live coding, imo. This is a way to fake live coding for an image of capability, but there's no point. You may as well just scroll through your already-typed code, if you're going to use this.
Would that not cut off the possibility of live questions? I always prefer learning from teachers who stop & start, and are flexible enough to incorporate difference from the script in their demonstrations.
Interesting question and idea. Organized sport, at least, is a big one. It over-occupies potential leaders and warriors, drowning them in luxury and focusing them on themselves, diverting our attention to them instead of actual heroes and noble pursuits. I'm sure there are a lot more examples of this kind of thing.
I wonder what is the worst picture in its source. I managed to find a bird being flipped in one (as the pointing finger). How deep does this rabbit hole go?
I have a feeling that to do it right, it'd have to be a collaboration with an enthusiastic private partner, if for no other reason than available expertise. One city, Hamilton, Ontario, years ago tried out free public wifi. Great idea, but this was way back before smartphones were as big, so basically everyone used computers to access the internet. Not a huge deal, but the city rolled it out so poorly that the end result was signal strength that was only usable outside. Since few, again because of the time in which this happened, use an internet connection outside, few people were able to use the service, and it eventually just went away. A week of testing would have found this issue, but nobody in the city thought of doing so, likely because nobody technical enough with enough time was involved in the entire project -- it was simply a great idea, but nothing to back it up.
Indeed, we have been given convenience and a promise of security, but the way in which we operate is not sustainable for the vast majority of people, over a long enough timeline, imo.
As to what I'd prefer (my not having the slightest clue as to how to operate within it notwithstanding): barter and trade. Yes, I know that a lot of the things we enjoy now wouldn't be easy under such a setup, but as with all things that make life easier, there's always a cost in the end. Bargaining with the devil always seems like a great idea until you read the whole story.
I know it's a system that hangs together and (locally) makes sense, but I'm still cynical about the mental gymnastics necessary to "properly" explain a system that started with dishonest gold vault operators, pretending they had more than they did. That perspective still applies to modern banks, but what can you do.
Not having supportive, competent peers can be soul-eating. Financial comfort is non-negotiable, but if something else exists with that and other good aspects, that can be a good direction in which to move.
I feel you. I'm in a similar position pay wise (my benefits kind of suck though, especially family health insurance). At least know this, and possibly use it for encouragement: I'm going down the road of re-learning all the data structures and algorithm stuff, aiming at a FAANG job, at this age. It's possibly an easier jump (emotionally) for me, given that I know my earning potential is higher elsewhere, and benefits in my case will be many times better. Nonetheless, it is a challenge, and someone in your age group (older, really) has rightly or wrongly decided to undertake it, so anything potentially is possible :)
>At least in the US, my lay-intuition is that you wouldn't see much of a difference between average Americans between urban, suburban, and rural settings.
It wouldn't surprise me, but that would call into question the entire notion that the article is attempting to create -- that urban (and therefore non-urban) is the key factor in the differences it mentions in gut flora.
In-my-40s dev here. Believe me, having a parking space you don't have to pay for is far under-rated, and riding a bike to work blows when you're old. Of course, I'd still rather be working from home, by my employer strictly doesn't do this.
>Hundreds of cubicles — the spacious old-school kind with the high walls
Remember when "cubicle" was a curse word? I long for those days of some measure of privacy, personalization capability of a space, and greater probability of focusing (i.e., being left alone a little bit longer). Open offices suck, and white noise generators make me want to die, some days.
Sure, having your own office is better than a cubicle, but having a cubicle is much better than this awful dormitory- / prison yard-style of workspace we have now in offices. I can't believe "we have an open office design!" was once pumped as a selling point of a potential employer, like a factory farm slaughterhouse might sell their feces-covered lots by using a big salt lick with nails embedded in it.
I shouldn't say more overall, but the difference among people who have a similar diet and circumstances, but differ by housing culture, would be interesting to observe. I'd like to see apples to apples, if indeed the theorized reason of where gut differences come from is strictly (or mostly) urban vs. rural. Is it that country people are around more dirt, or that city people have different stressors, or maybe both are included? It'd be easier to tell if other differences are eliminated, imo. I've long preferred country life, having spent roughly half of my life in cities and the other half in the country, so maybe some personal interest is there too, to be honest. I do feel a lot healthier living in the countryside, perhaps my gut has something to do with that.
Or perhaps, as is becoming pretty ubiquitous in tech: the people who communicate things don't have nearly as much understanding as the people who do them. It was not always this way, but it seems the communication department in an organization is becoming the dumping ground for people who flunked out of doing the hands-on hard work but for one reason or another, have some support to retain them.
Note: I'm not criticizing tech writing. Just what tech writing has become.
It's interesting both that they do that and that we've been so conditioned to think that it's somehow a necessity. I once watched a breakdown of population and housing, and the author of the piece calculated that everyone currently living on earth could live in a one-story comfortable family house, with a yard and space for community parks and gardens, and the entire population of the planet would fit inside of Texas, with some tens of thousands of acres left over in the state. It blew my mind, and made me really ponder the nature of why we live the way we do in some cases.
Ever since learning of the Mouse Utopia (where did "mouse 'heaven'" come from?) experiment, I found it interesting that its results spoke more directly of LOCALIZED overpopulation. In a human context: cities. Many of the pathologies observed in the experiment are very starkly displayed in human cities. I've always found it odd that those most interested with overpopulation concerns also advocate for cities as part of a way to solve the issue, when they really only exacerbate the problem.
By "question," I mean "question," not "detract." Questioning is never unhealthy, because questioning is looking critically (which also has no natively negative connotation).
I was being asked to pretend to be someone I was not, in order to fool a company to which an applicant was applying. I may not have described it well and perhaps this lead to the confusion, but what I was approached for was most definitely fraud.
Tailoring applications certainly makes sense, so long as the output still reflects the skills and qualifications of the applicant.
It's so easy to look at decades old successes and scoff at opponents, but without hindsight it's easy to appreciate criticism. We're no smarter or more sophisticated than anyone back then, and shouldn't use a story like this to justify making fun of opponents of new projects, today. I'm certain that there are 10 boondoggles to every success like this, and if we took those into account, maybe we'd be a bit more sober about our criticism of people whom we've never met who healthily question everything.
There are a lot of dumb middle managers out there. In some cases, the position and the intelligence are co-dependent, I suspect. It's truly terrifying, if you think about it.
I was recently approached by a firm that it seems does a similar thing to what you've described. As a native english speaking tech professional, they wanted me to assist others in initial video interviews for tech positions. I don't know how any amount of spin or perspective could sell such a thing as anything but fraud. I honestly couldn't even put together how it would work long term, but I suppose with the nature of some remote work, it might be possible by a committed actor or agency. It's creepy as heck, and reminds me of that movie "Gattica."
Bless you for being a rare person who understands the semantics of such things. For too long passenger carrying airplanes has struggled under such a weight.