mcavoybn

I like using codewars.com for learning new languages. Just pick a language and start running through problems. I think the best part about it is that you can review other solutions after you solve the problem. Usually there are some really clever solutions that show off the features of the language, as well as clearer solutions that are a bit more idiomatic to the language and more in line with what you'd want to commit to production. For learning frameworks I usually just refer to the framework documentation and source code.

Very snarky response. I think the poster you replied to was trying to point out that the reason this happens is because the government prints money and if they don't take the money out of circulation via taxes then inflation becomes an issue.

None of the things in this article are specific to programming, they are all just the potential downsides of being an employee. In some situations you are an inferior, replaceable tool that is a burden on the company, whether you are a programmer or not. But there is a possibility that you prove yourself superior and become harder to replace.

I think the real downside to becoming "a programmer" is the antisocial tendencies that arise from staring at a screen all day, hyper-analyzing esoteric patterns of symbols. This tendency leaks into other aspects of life that don't benefit from an intellectual breakdown. It's plain to see the author is upset about something, but they defer to their analysis of programming as a profession instead of the stark reality of their emotional state.

Probably not, I think there is utility in relating two similar things, especially when someone is likely to be more familiar with one over the other. Someone who knows networks really well could find it useful to model an engineering team as a network. What really matters is whether modeling the engineering team as a network is useful in your case or not.

The takeaway is that the deaf man could be you. Cops and judges are flawed, and you should be wary of them. Also, you aren't being forced to read the news, if you don't find the information valuable then don't click on it.

Many of the replies in this thread talk about empathy, and I get where they are coming from. The problem is, if your priority when hiring was empathy you would just offer the job to everyone you interview. It's true, everyone has the ability to grow and learn on the job, and once you hire someone you should be empathetic and help them grow as best you can. But it's asinine to suggest that watching for the signs and markers described in this article during the hiring process wouldn't be helpful.

Maybe it is normal in your country, but where I am from in the US, parents want their kids to be self-sufficient as soon as possible. The author herself said it was embarrassing. I'm not sure what the economic situation is in your country, but housing is very expensive in the US too. But hey, if it gets expensive enough then parents will start buying their kids houses...

Yeah I was waiting for the point in this article where it became about "outdoorsy types" and not the author but it never happened. I'd be embarrassed too, mismanaging money and relying on my parents support at 34 years old. I guess the author was just so embarrassed that she published this article about it.

Great job with the antagonizing, clickbait title though. I'm guessing "My Tone-deaf Autobiography about How Irresponsible I am" was thrown out.

>We do like drinking and eating together though, so we got that!

Regardless of the details of your argument, or whether my paraphrase of your original comment was accurate, it is an infeasible solution to suggest that everyone needs to go to church in order to address the loneliness, social anxiety, and tribalism. Your comments all have a condescending, passive aggressive tone and you are trying all kinds of dirty tactics to manipulate the debate to your favor. I doubt you have any real interest in more people going to church. Based on your comments, your goal is to argue and put blame on others. I'm not sure if anyone in this thread has really learned from this discussion (flamewar) and I regret engaging in it.

>the secular regular get-together groups for people without any unifying interests or socioeconomic status

Unfortunately, I don't think what you are describing ever existed. Every "get-together-group" I can think of has some kind of common interest, even if its something as simple as drinking coffee or reading books. I think your attachment to the church has a lot more to do with your emotions than thinking rationally. The way I see it, the cat is out of the bag with regards to organized religion. It is well known that there have been many corrupt religious organizations and heinous acts committed in the name of religion. To make the argument "The economy was shut down last year and there is a massive issue in our society with depression and loneliness as a result, but it's what those liberals deserve for leaving the church!" is asinine.

>Church is the only place they're going to be exposed to others that may share absolutely no interests with them

Are the bible, history of the church, the nature of reality, and developing a community not shared interests? Also, was the point of the article to only talk to people without shared interests? Isn't one of the first things you do when you get to know someone is try to find a common interest?

Everyone is attacking the overall theme of this article, and I agree with many of the points made, but nobody seems to be focused on the actual solutions provided in the article which I think are good. The article isn't about software developers believing in you PRODUCT its about software developers believing in your PROJECT. If I was the author, I would probably try to rephrase this as "Software developers are most effective when they feel a sense of ownership and responsibility for the projects they contribute to." The article suggests 4 items:

Don't withhold newly discovered information about the customer's needs

Avoid the temptation of isolating the team in the name of "just getting* it done"

Avoid discouraging technical team members who express interest in the market or business model

Avoid over-statusing your software development initiatives

All four of these items are ways you can signal to your developers that you trust them to do their job and respect their ability to make use of the information given to them (You can't handle the truth!!). I think its worth at least being aware of this methodology in the case that you have a dev team which is showing interest in "the why" of a particular project, or appear to be struggling to build what the business is asking for. Otherwise, you are better off incentivizing devs with bonuses, pay raises, and equity because they might just not care about "the why" or "the why" might just not be useful for them to do their job.

I don't think the point of lowercased's comment was that devs don't underestimate tasks to the same degree that "outside-of-technical-people" might. They are saying that "outside-of-technical-people" don't have the experience to understand how difficult it is to give an accurate estimate or how much pressure is put on devs to agree to a deadline and take responsibility for making something happen by that date. This is compounded by the fact that stakeholders are unwilling to define or commit to a detailed set of features or acceptance criteria. The bigger the project, the more painful and difficult this becomes. Stakeholders say "Make it faster!!!" then engineers say "We agree!!! any ideas on how?".

Just because there isn't a top-down solution that eradicates the source of the issue doesn't mean it shouldn't be observed and discussed. You pointed out that you can't "beef" with the gravitational constant, but if you are aware of it you can avoid its negative affects and potentially use them to your advantage. Gravity will collapse a building, but if you are aware of it you can engineer a building so it doesn't collapse.

"Gravity, at least, will keep grinding until the universe is compressed into a single point. To eliminate gravity completely it would require constant destruction, compression, agitation, and elimination of all physical laws. Instead, just plug your ears and scream "LALALALA" a pretend gravity doesn't exist because you will stick to the surface of the planet regardless."

Ahh yes, arguing about semantics.

It's up to the reader to decide what is worthwhile for them.

Also, whether that quote is relevant or not is not what is being argued. The original dispute (on a surface level) was about a "rhetorical technique". Now you say it is manipulative and dishonest, which is a completely different thing and obviously false.

Given the degree of your outrage, I think something other than "rhetorical technique" has triggered you here. Then again, maybe you are just really really opinionated about "rhetorical techniques" and following strict definitions of words? In that case, you must despise the vast majority of stories and literature because of their metaphors, parables, and subtly different meanings...

Great point. Another subtle aspect to this kind of rhetoric is that it's about an issue so pervasive that it's disingenuous to present this as new information. Even as a boy you have to be careful what you say to girls, and vice versa. The rules are slightly different, but there are still gender lines and it's going to be really (really really) hard to change that! Men and women are all aware of this, so presenting this as new information is a bit divisive, despite the best intentions of the author.

I had the exact same thought. I skimmed through the rest of the article. The author's frustrations seem to center around the fact that she is a diversity hire, which is made even more evident by the discussion in the comments. The excuse is that they are "raising awareness" but this is something we are all painfully aware of so it comes across as "my personal anecdote about {buzzword}".

Some of the best and worst co-workers I've had in my relatively short career have been women. In my experience, women are much more sociable than men and bring a certain positive energy to a team, but are less competitive with the other men on the team. Men will always compete AGAINST other men FOR women. They want to be the alpha, which fundamentally means that they get the most women.

This means that women won't bother to compete with men and vice versa. Hiring a woman to work on a team of all men is probably exactly like hiring a man on a team of all women. It will bring undue, subversive, and potentially aggressive behavior between team members of the opposite sex because of the fundamentally sexual, subconscious forces we are subject to as human beings.

The part about "doing everything" for someone hit home at first, but it took a turn when you mentioned leaving that position. Sometimes I've had managers come in and just take over a project because a client/investor wanted it yesterday, which I think is a bad approach. Sometimes it's necessary, but it should be mitigated by proper project management practices.

So it seems like a really strange assumption on your part that the new manager or the person "on track to be a senior dev" would behave in the way you expected. What exactly should a manager do different in that scenario? Close their "poop umbrella" and potentially let the person you're mentoring fail?

Furthermore, is shielding an employee with a "poop umbrella" tantamount to "doing everything" for them? I feel like putting your employees on track to a promotion and shielding them from organizational concerns that might distract them is a fundamental aspect of being a manager, if the next manager comes in and doesn't do that, then that's on them...

edit: fixed typo

>having kids and the threat of potentially having kids undermines female income on a regular basis

The only reason you see it this way is because of your previous point regarding women and children being a "package deal". There are societal expectations of men who have children.

>women tend to support their husband's career at the expense of their own career development

This is like saying "men tend to support their wives children at the expense of their own children". It's specialization and symbiosis. Women can benefit from "supporting" their husband's career. Ideally people support EACHOTHER in a relationship, and that includes tradeoffs in many areas of life, financial/career/societal/emotional/children.

>cis women can potentially get pregnant and cis men cannot

What a revelation. You're right, if only men could wrap their mind around this one then they might be able to fix all the issues that they maliciously create. /sarcasm

>You might have missed it

I did miss that. Would love a citation.

>You are disingenuous

It doesn't make sense to say that I might have missed something then accuse me of being disingenuous. If what Apple is doing is really groundbreaking, then I really did miss something, and I'm not being disingenuous by thinking this article is BS. My response should serve as further proof of my GENUINITY.

Your second paragraph was hard to follow. I understand there is a wide variety of applications for Apple's 'watch' and that its 'cutting edge technology'. My issue has to do with the funny connection between a product that Apple markets to consumers and faux medical research articles created for the sole purpose of a citation in a marketing article. Seems kind of DISINGENUOUS of apple and this 'news' site.

>ResearchKit (an app in the apple store)

>It's easy to enroll

>publicized every year

>partnerships with various hospitals

Marketing

Enrollment has 2 Ls by the way.

>You're uncharitably assuming this

Why should I be charitable towards apple?

>Apple's custom silicon

Sounds like more marketing for Apple.

I'm sorry but when the solution to your research paper is consumer technology sold by the company you work for, you are just advertising not innovating. Nothing about the apple watch itself is particularly useful for this, its just the fact that it goes on your wrist and has an accelerometer plugged into a computer with networking capabilities. (Wow, an accelerometer attached to your wrist can tell if you have tremors! Who knew?!?) The other 90% of the functionality of the watch is totally unnecessary. If apple actually cared they would create a new device for this particular use case.

>While Wells, Huxley and Orwell invented flawed worlds, the Soviet writer was living in one.

Forgive me if I am reading too much into this, but the tagline for this article feels weird to me. It feels weird because it implies that the "worlds" of Wells, Huxley, and Orwell were without flaw. Was western civilization in the early 20th century really without flaw? Isn't every great dystopian work essentially a thought experiment where the author analytically deducts the endgame of the most pathological tendencies of the society they belong to? I get where they are coming from, but I think this idea that America was perfect in the earth 20th century really needs to be fought against. Don't get me wrong, there were many great things that happened during that period of time, but implying that it was without flaw makes the dystopian conversation about nationality rather than the universality of human imperfection and how that is reflected in the greater society, often insidiously.

Anyways, I'm definitely going to pick up a copy of 'We' after reading this. I love dystopian novels and had no idea 'We' was the originator. I think the idea of dystopia is closely related to science fiction, both could be considered a subset of stories that project what the future or some alternate timeline might be like. I think the really cool thing about dystopian stories is that they can act as a sort of crystal ball where humanity can glimpse a gestalt of its potential future and make decisions based on that. For example, in Lord of the Rings, Frodo is shown visions of the Shire should he fail his mission. These visions provide a deep sense of motivation for Frodo's grueling mission to Mount Doom, and without the memory of his love for the Shire (which was reinforced by Samwise towards the end) it's likely that Frodo would have succumbed to the power of the ring and failed to destroy it. I think that 1984, Brave New World, War of the Worlds, We, and novels like this perform a similar function for the collective conscious of humanity. The only difference is that we are all collectively Frodo's and Sam's, the one ring is our own self-destructive pathology, and the Shire is the purity of conscious creation from which we originally emerged.

>Absent tooling to detect dead ode I'm not sure if this is a pun that is over my head or a typo.

Thanks for the article. I think the most difficult issue to solve is the meetings one, especially now that so much work is being done remotely. It's easy to have inconclusive meetings in engineering because you can just handwave your way through a project that drags on for too long and any non-technical stakeholders will have no choice but to put up with it. Also, engineering is complex and it's easy to over-commit and end up with really tough problems to solve.

One thing I'd like to add is that a "meeting" should minimize the number of active participants. If a "meeting" has more than 4 people it should be considered a presentation. It's a waste of to be in a meeting and trying to follow a conversation that you aren't involved in. If there is information in that conversation that others need to hear, it should be documented in some way.

Is not the 'free market' when google/facebook have been propped up by US institutions like the CIA, NSA, and Stanford. Google and Facebook are as established as institutions as the US Army or Dept of Homeland Security and should be scrutinized as such.

"Free market" is theory, not reality. There are no 100% free markets, nor are there 100% controlled markets. The free market is an ideal that you strive towards in a capitalistic society.

Also, the question of "why are they allowed to be upset?" is pretty wild. Who are you to disallow someone getting upset about something?

I was upvoted for this comment at first, then harshly downvoted.

Let me expand on what I meant:

Leveraging consumer data (and marketing that process in a blog post) is an insidious affair. This article is just a rebranded, simplified version of a research paper. There are many other articles like it, and they intend to simplify and sensationalize (to the degree that they can argue plausible deniability) something outrageous.

This entire article; the webpage, the work of the author, the words the article is composed of, could easily be reduced to a simple statement: "People who are more willing to take a risk on an unusual product are more willing to take a risk in multiple categories." This such an obvious conclusion that the publisher of this article should be tried for conspiracy and fraud. A child could come to this realization.

This is clickbait, plain and simple. Furthermore, its insulting. I look forward to the day that those who publish these article lose their incentive to do so.

no

I don't think that this issue is specific to the food service sector. I think the reason healthy food is hard to find in America is the same reason that the only way to have a healthy social ecosystem online is to painstakingly develop it at a grassroots level: corporate interests have taken over. The second that a corporate entity takes hold, growth is made the only priority and the system will naturally develop insidious patterns which abuse our most pathological tendencies. Let's refactor your comment using social media:

> Isn’t it strange how the only way to have a meaningful discussion on the internet is to spend hours researching and filtering through a sea of clickbait/porn/fakenews/gossip?

> Every social media website is unhealthy. Most well-known forums are unhealthy.

I think the unfortunate reality is that we will continue to slip into these patterns until we stop responding to them. It's a self-perpetuating cycle. We all need to strive to find out what healthy means and crawl towards that. Unfortunately things will continue to spiral out of control to the degree they need to for us to change, and sadly some people will be lost along the way.

Other possibilities: * Food is now abundant. The whole idea of healthy food is relatively new. Only the very rich used to be overweight, but now even the poorest can afford enough food to become obese * American food is heavy and fatty as a matter of tradition. Burgers, fries, fast food are all cultural artifacts most commonly associated with the US. * Multiple generations of Americans have been raised in front of the television and have deep seeded emotional imprinting from fast food marketing (happy meals!)

1. American education isn't 'amazing' by default just because other countries do things differently 2. The article is about the interrelationship between high-level education and the economy. There is cause and effect at play here, you can't just say 'at some point this happened, move on and don't ask why' 3. Just because something worked in the past does not imply it will continue that way