l_t

Check out Noita -- it's a pixel-art-style game where every pixel is subject to the physics engine. Leads to some cool emergent gameplay.

I believe you misquoted the source. The "Appropriate response..." quote is attributed to Google’s VP for Human Resources, Shona Brown, not Eric Schmidt.

Sounds like you might have been experiencing a bit of the Seattle Freeze [0].

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Freeze

Ah, that makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the very clear explanation! It makes me think perhaps that's one of the things that the Postgresql docs are so good at -- hitting that "B+X" quadrant in their reference docs. I'll definitely keep that in mind!

> Instead, I recommend starting by documenting the key behaviour of the program, describing its model of the world and defining terminology, and only then trying to document each function in terms of that model and terminology.

Can you explain in more detail how that's different from the approach described in "What nobody tells you about documentation"? [0] At first blush, your recommendation sounds pretty similar to what is suggested in that post.

Is this a critique of the guideline to "Give reference documentation the same structure as the codebase" that was in [0], or is it more like you think the importance of the "Explanation" section is underrated?

(This is coming purely from the perspective of somebody who is trying to write better documentation. I'm not trying to defend any particular stance, just interested in your opinion.)

[0]: https://www.divio.com/blog/documentation/

I meant the WWW. Thanks for checking!

This makes me wonder, though.

I wonder if you went back to the very earliest days of the WWW, did everyone see it as a toy? Or were there already people (those developing it, perhaps) who saw that it had awesome non-toy potential?

I suspect people brand new tech as "toys" when they're not, and I bet there's also developers that take their toys and call them products :)

Maybe the solution is to completely discard the "toy" / "non-toy" dichotomy. It seems like it just muddies the discussion when the important thing is to evaluate the actual merits of the product/technology in question.

I think this is a legitimate question. There's two main things smartphones and PCs have in common, but both are arguable:

1. They do the same things. Both are general purpose computers. For some use cases, they both work fine.

2. They're about the same cost: ~$800 or so. But that's comparing flagship smartphone costs with entry-level desktop PC costs.

I suppose from hte perspective of a large company, a smartphone sale seems like it might be more or less valuable than a desktop PC sale depending on a variety of factors. So I think it's safe to say they are similarly comparable in that sense.

I think the "looking like a toy" terminology is confusing the discussion.

From the article:

> Disruptive technologies are dismissed as toys because when they are first launched they “undershoot” user needs.

So instead of asking if it "looks like a toy", what if we asked, which of those products started out by "undershooting" user's needs?

In that lens, I think you could make arguments for a few of those having started by "undershooting." The most obvious example to me is Amazon starting out as an online bookstore.

edit: I just want to add that from my vantage point this might be a true idea, but it gives very little actionable information. Perhaps Christensen's books give better insight on why this is something we should care about.

This looks pretty neat! First I've heard of Ionic, and I want to use it. I have a question for anyone familiar with it.

I mostly make Web apps with very complex UIs that target desktop computers specifically. I'm not as concerned with the mobile app story right now, I just want a batteries included UI framework. Is that a valid use-case for Ionic, or should it only be used if cross-platform deployment is needed?

The biggest point of complexity, IMO, is the representation in which the characters to be matched are mixed in with the syntactical elements in a single string.

This tends to cause confusion, makes escaping complex, and is just really different from most other ways of expressing logic in programming.

Even advanced regex features like extended mode and named captures, which I love, don't get around this fundamental issue with the representation.

It does have advantages though, a big one being terseness, and the ability to be expressed in an implementation-independent way. Another is that for some types of regexes, the expression "sort of looks like" the strings it can match against, which can help intuition.

I think the way forward is to consider the existing syntax a "terse mode" and to use regex builder libraries [0] as a "verbose mode." The "terse mode" does have merits, though, and I wouldn't want to get rid of it or anything.

[0]: For example https://github.com/VerbalExpressions/JSVerbalExpressions is a library that lets developers express regexps using a fluent API. This changes things from being syntactic elements of a string to just being traditional function calls.

Of course. It's only natural for things to change, and it's only natural for people to talk about the changes.

I believe our language is almost like a living thing that we are stewards of. One of the ways we can help steward modern English is to discuss the good and the bad parts, and try to move the language toward the good, even just in our personal speech.

So don't take my comment as a criticism of the younger generation. It's a criticism of myself and my generation. I'm just talking about the language that's floating around all of us, right now, that we are all building together. And I want to make that language as "good" as it can be.

With Minecraft, even just watching a Youtube video and copying their build-style to make something cool is enough for a kid to learn that they can be a creator.

They realize that there's no magic; all it takes to make something nice is a little knowledge, and a lot of work.

From what I've seen of Fortnite, it promotes a different kind of creativity, which is more like creative problem solving (boxing people in, riding rockets, etc.) But it does have a sandbox mode that I've seen some interesting creations from.

I would love to see something with a Flash-like UI. I'm not sure if there is a place for it in the middle-school market anymore, though. I'll explain why:

I think an interesting part of my experience was that it started with watching. I just loved the videos and thought they were hilarious. I admired the people who made those videos and I wanted to join that circle of creators. And Flash didn't prevent me from doing that. Not only that, but it was a specific low-effort style of animation. The path from consumer -> producer was short.

So really, I think you have to look at what people are consuming, and then try and make it easy for them to "participate." I'm not sure if people are consuming Flash-style animations anymore. (Maybe they are, and I just aged out of the demographic.)

It seems like a lot of that creative energy has moved to sandbox games like Minecraft for now, where that community of creators and would-be creators still exists, and away from animation and Web design.

Thanks, I appreciate your perspective on that.

I don't believe that my points contradict each other. So I'm going to address that part of your post, to avoid any confusion. But I think the rest of your argument is great, I just want to explain myself a bit better.

For starters, simpler writing can indeed be more unclear (because it's less precise, as discussed). So "simpler, but unclear" isn't contradictory in that sense. In this case the lack of clarity comes from a mismatch in the shared understanding between the writer and the reader. The more "simple" a sentence, the easier it is to misunderstand (to a point, and with exceptions).

And with respect to idioms, I would say that "uses idioms" does not convey the same idea as "idiomatic." By "idioms" I refer to reasoning by a shared analogy. A random example is the idiom, "Like water off a duck's back." It conveys meaning by analogy. This is usually less precise than using a direct description ("He didn't seem to care at all.") Sort of a dumb example, but I hope it makes sense.

Finally, about jargon -- by definition jargon is not part of shared vocabulary outside of a certain field of expertise. I believe a lot of our most precise words, which previously were common usage, are now becoming jargon. This is fine for experts but it leaves non-experts with a paucity of words to express their ideas in novel domains.

(Once again, this is just my personal impressions, not based on studies or anything. So, don't take it too seriously!)

I had a formative experience with Flash as a middle schooler. I loved Albino Blacksheep, Newgrounds, etc. I thought the videos were hilarious and the stick-figure-style animation was approachable. So I acquired Flash, and I was blown away by how easy it was to create these silly animations. Automatic tweening was a miracle to me.

Since then I've done a lot of video editing with different tools, but I still think back to Macromedia Flash and how I, a child with no ability to code and no knowledge of HTML or Web tech, was able to make my imagination come to life on the screen.

I believe it's that powerful experience for novices that we're missing. I'm not sure how we should get it back.

(edit: phrasing)

Speaking of precision. I think a big problem with modern use of English is that it has reduced precision.

What reduces precision?

1. Increased reliance on idioms to communicate. Idioms use analogies, and usually reduce precision. Our increasingly shared cultural context via the Internet means that more and more idioms are entering common use and (IMO) reducing the clarity of communication.

2. Reduced general vocabulary. We have more jargon than ever before, but regular writing is simpler than ever. Generally speaking, a reduced vocabulary means more concepts are "mapped" onto the same words (like "great," a highly over-mapped word.)

3. Irony and sarcasm are abused as argumentation tools. Mocking a point is commonly accepted as arguing against it. I believe this stems from acceptance of irony as a normal way of communicating (as opposed to using it mainly for humor). This also results in many words having two opposite meanings, a "true" one and an ironic one. (ofc this happened in the past too, see history of the word "egregious.")

4. Ease of publishing. People put less effort into writing today because the barriers are lower. Yes, there are still authors who put a lot of thought into their work, but the Internet is awash in poorly-chosen words and ill-thought-out language that frankly didn't exist in the past. Poor language has poor meaning, and this actually damages the trust people have with the written word.

Of course, this is just my personal thoughts... I don't have strong problems with modern language. I think your question about "inferior" is a good one because superior vs. inferior doesn't make sense without metrics for comparison. If the metric is personal appreciation, then superior vs inferior is just subjective. If the metric is density of information transfer, I suspect we've improved.

Many new developments in the US do use buried wires. But a lot also still use poles. It's hit and miss.

From what I remember, PG&E is notorious for "procrastinating" on maintenance of its wires, as well. Wires need to be regularly checked and have nearby foliage trimmed to a safe distance. Keeping up on this maintenance would reduce the risk of fires, but California is big and the utility has decided it doesn't want to do that. So the poles are more dangerous than they should be.

Seems a bit narrowminded to assume it's dead because you haven't personally seen any art in a while.

Steampunk is alive, but more niche. See https://www.brassscrew.org/ for instance.

> Google and Randstad didn’t immediately reply to requests for comment.

The content of the article is interesting enough, but this line at the end caught my attention.

Is it reasonable to expect someone to "immediately reply" before you publish the article? Because that doesn't sound like ethical journalism to me, unless I'm misunderstanding the meaning of "immediately" in this context.

Thanks for the feedback! I can see how that phrase might seem alarming because it just explains what not to do, not what you should do.

I try to tell my candidates something like: "During this interview, my main goal is to understand what it's like to work with you as a coworker. We're not looking for specific right or wrong answers, but more to work together as allies to find the best design." (Background: My interviews usually take the form of pair programming or design discussion).

I'd be curious if you have any recommendations for how I could improve that. I definitely don't want to alarm anybody, if anything my goal is that you can relax and try to treat me like a coworker (to the greatest degree possible in an otherwise stressful setting).

edit: Random tip, although you probably know this already: If the interviewer asks "tabs or spaces?" the correct answer is usually "Whatever the existing code/linter uses." That's one of those questions that there is definitely a right and wrong answer for, because it's basically a culture question not a technical question, so it's one of those questions I always avoid asking :)

Personally, I do believe that there are no right or wrong answers, just right or wrong reasons. At least for the tech parts of the interview.

I like that you called out that culture fit questions often have right answers. I failed to mention that but it's definitely true. Ironically, the more "cultural" a question is, the more likely it has right and wrong answers.

(As a little background, I'm usually involved in the tech-eval stages of the interview. The "culture fit" is evaluated by other people at our company. So, I don't have a lot of experience with that, unfortunately.)

Not the OP, but I just wanted to chime in from an interviewer's perspective and describe how candidates should approach these types of questions.

Disclaimer: This is just my personal experience.

For starters, if you're asked a question that is directly relevant to your future work (e.g. "What's your take on accessibility on the web" for a Web developer), you're best served to state your honest opinion.

Do not try to "figure out the right answer." The right answer is the one you believe and you can defend. If that means your answer is "I don't know, I've never had to deal with it, but I know its important," say that and it helps improve the overall signal of the interview.

You might think of this as wasting time, but the interviewer is asking you the same questions that you'll be asked in your new job, but in a simplified form. Just be honest and try to treat the interviewer like a coworker as much as possible.

As I always tell my candidates, "there are no right or wrong answers in this interview."

(Once again, YMMV depending on who is interviewing you or what type of job you want.)

What follows is my personal opinion. (Disclaimer, I'm a guy and I've not been abused, but I have had to deal with troublesome people and as a confrontation-avoidant person I've worked out some strategies for dealing with that. These strategies are more oriented towards avoiding panhandlers than avoiding abusers, but perhaps they can be useful.)

First, the interesting thing about "being selfish" and "being assertive" is that they actually overlap. If someone tells you that you're being selfish like it's a bad thing, that person is probably trying to manipulate you. They want you to stop being selfish so they can be selfish. This is literally how they try to get their way.

Another way to think about it is that "assertiveness" comes into play when there is a conflict of interest. You want X, the other party wants Y. In this situation there's no way to satisfy both X and Y. At this point you can fight for what you think is right, or you can fold. The other people want you to fold, and if they're abusive, they're going to try and insult you or make you feel stupid until you do.

Which brings me to some concrete recommendations for being "assertive:"

1. When walking, look like you have somewhere important to go. You're not meandering casually, you're walking with purpose. You're in charge. People are much less likely to approach you if it looks like you're going to turn them down immediately.

2. In conversation, use the "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me" approach. Operate in good faith until you feel that good faith is being abused, then retract it. Don't be angry, but don't let it happen again. "Forgive, but don't forget."

3. Don't apologize for things you didn't do. If you are afraid and feel like you have to apologize, then do it verbally but don't believe it. Tell yourself that you're lying to this person about being sorry. You're not sorry. You're tricking them because they refuse to accept the truth.

4. Think about the reasons people say what they do. Words coming out of a mouth are like symptoms of the mental state of the person. Don't just take them at face value but ask yourself: "Why are they saying this?"

5. If possible, find people you trust who can be a sounding board. Especially if you think your own "assertiveness compass" is whack. Err on the rude side. Then literally describe your encounters to the trusted party afterwards and ask whether you were rude, so you can refine your social barometer.

6. Protect yourself! You're a living organism and you should be your number one priority. Nobody else has the right to make your decisions for you.

Hopefully that's helpful to someone. But like I said, I'm coming at it from a bit of a different angle, so I welcome any feedback / questions.

I think you're right. You're not the only person in the thread with this feedback. I read this book and thought I could contribute, but I haven't read anything with more recent context. (Haven't even finished the book yet, still working on it.) So yeah, I appreciate this callout, I apologize, and I'll try to do better next time.

I don't want to detract from your point about sympathy for chronic pain. But you can't mainline oxycodone into everyone who claims to have chronic pain, because that system is easily abused, as we've seen. A more nuanced approach is needed. We need a balance, and IMO we need to improve our ability to objectively measure pain instead of relying on a 1-10 scale.

I am curious about your conclusion that "opiate deaths and suicide deaths due to chronic pain are in the same order of magnitude", though. According to my simple Googling, opioids are the cause of death for 21.7 per 100,000 people in the US, while suicide is only 14 per 100,000. So per your link, chronic pain suicide is about 10% of that, or 1.4 per 100,000. That means opioid deaths are about 10-15x more common, or am I missing something?

edit: I'm realizing my understanding of this debate is significantly out-of-date. So I apologize if anything I've written seems tone-deaf, that wasn't my intention.

Yeah, I was wondering who would call me out on that! I'm not aware of any good studies that compare addiction vs. pseudo-addiction.

It's definitely not obvious, because a lot of doctors were convinced to the contrary.

By the way -- I'm not saying those individuals in the article aren't important, but whitewashed "case studies" that are full of snark and biased language and have no sources or timeframes, are not the best sources of evidence. In particular, the "pain management" space is rapidly evolving in the US and without timeframes, many of those anecdotes have negative utility.

I'm not saying "pseudoaddiction" doesn't exist, obviously, but we need statistical arguments that are more nuanced than "does it exist or not."

edit: I'm realizing that my understanding of this debate is out of date. So I'd like to apologize if my stance seems insensitive to what's going on right now w.r.t. opioid prescriptions. My gut feeling is that addiction is a bigger problem, but that varies depending on how freely opioids are prescribed. If opioids are under-prescribed then pseudoaddiction becomes a larger problem, for sure. Being dumb, I just assumed they were still being over-prescribed...

Yeah, I think the article presents a good point, logically speaking. But I think it's brash to ignore the history of the "pseudoaddiction" term, which is a tool of FUD.

Of course it exists and makes sense, this was marketed to doctors. They're not dumb. Pseudoaddiction is real and important, which is why it's such a good marketing tool.

It's a really tough problem. That's why I think considering both sides is incredibly important. I'm not trying to bash the article, just provide a different perspective on why pseudoaddiction might have been bashed in the press.

edit: Apparently reading a book doesn't make me an expert! I'm realizing that it's actually pseudoaddiction that's getting bashed right now. Which makes sense, given the context of the article. I was still thinking about it from the lens of opioids being over-prescribed but it seems the pendulum has swung in the other direction. Sorry for muddying the discussion.

Ah, my bad. I thought that was meant to be a rhetorical question.

Yep -- OxyContin has a timed-release coating and by preventing the "peaks and valleys" of opiate use, it was supposed to minimize addiction. This was a major selling point for doctors, which turned out be based on falsified data.

The thing is, I don't think any studies have actually validated that concept? If you say "it's basically known", I'm curious what evidence you have for that statement. Are there studies where people have been prescribed more opioids but been less addicted because they finally have "sufficient" medication?