sbank

> I'm basically set for life; there's simply a comfortable lower bound on how bad things can get.

You are only set for life if the political climate in your country remains the same, and your country can afford the current model in the future, and so on. That is a lot to bet on, in my opinion.

Pro tip: Love is hard to find, so fuck the haters if you find it at the workplace. There is more to life than keeping your job.

According the the story we have so far, he should have actually kept his wife in line but failed to do so. You only cringe because you read too much into what he said.

You do nothing. It is frankly none of your business.

> For all I know he wasn't even looking at jobs for himself...

Or he could just be looking at what is out there. Keeping updated in case he wants to move on in the future. Smart move, if so.

> But she won't say that it's with rubber slugs or that the protesters are throwing molotovs and shooting fireworks (which can deal nasty damage). Rocks are implied, I think.

Well, the protesters can't exactly afford highly sophisticated weapons made to inflict pain but not (too much) damage. They don't have the luxury of spending tax money on expensive equipment. The only reason there are rubber bullets is because they probably don't find it in their self-interest to use something more heavy at the current time. The government can slaughter its own people in a matter of hours if they want to, and face no resistance from some pathetic molotov cocktails.

Maybe the video is one-sided (I haven't seen it yet), but comparing the two sides in the way you do does not make any sense to me.

> If they want to make your life hell, they can and will.

Not only that, but a great portion of the so-called good cops will look the other way and do nothing about it.

Well, I actually used the word for people who are being or could be actively forced to stop volunteering, so I think the word was entirely appropriate in that context. I understand that people perhaps feel trapped or exploited in a very limited number of industries because the competition for the jobs are so fierce. But like I said in reply to someone else, someone can make the case that open source contributors are being exploited since they are essentially working for free, and there are companies making use of their work without contributing back. Professional programmers, one could argue, is therefore making less money or loosing out on a lot of business. But you know what? It was the open source contributor's choice under which terms he or she would release the software. I like treating other people like adults, and not thinking that I know what is best for them. As long as no one is being coerced I don't see why the government of all people (who operate from the barrel of a gun, or at the very least the very real promise of violence if you don't comply) should intervene.

If everyone picked up their friends and family from the airport, there would be no more business for those who make a living transporting people to and from the airport. Even if it came to that, should we enact laws to protect the businesses? I would argue no. Why? Because it is no one's business but mine and those I pick up.

How are we to define exploitation anyway? Because to involve government is a pretty big deal. Government operates with violence or the promise of violence if you don't comply, and that is a very big deal in my opinion. Of course, if someone is being tricked or coerced, the government should absolutely step in. But when we are talking about informed consent between adults? I don't think so. I'm sure there are people out there who think writing open source is exploitation, and that people who write open source are being exploited (since they are working for free most of the time) by companies who don't contribute back. But should we enact laws to "protect" people in open source? I don't think so.

Because after all, open source gives us software for "free". Much of this software would otherwise have to be written commercially, so one can make the case that people who write software for a living deserve to be protected from this open source nonsense.

It's tough, I know. But it's no different from other artsy endeavours. People bust their ass for free playing music, and very few of them actually make a living. It may sound harsh, but it's not a human right to make a living doing music, painting, or anything really.

Are you sure that robbing is the word you are looking for? Talk about entitlement. I guess I'm robbing the taxi businesses by picking up my wife from the airport too.

So we should rob these people of one of the ways in which they can gain actual experience and make themselves salaried employees? The government should IMNSHO only concern themselves with one thing: is it consensual or not? If it is, they should back off and leave people alone.

From the top of my head, from someone who currently seeks work as a full stack (Rails) developer:

I would ask if you by "method" mean function defined on an object. If so, this refers to the method's object. If not, this can take on 5 values. In the global scope it is the global object; in a constructor it is the newly created object; in a function (not defined on an object - and also goes for functions defined within methods defined on objects) it is the global object; in a method (defined on object) it is the object, and finally it can be set explicitly with functions like call and apply.

How did I do? (Serious question. I think my answer is good, but I also struggle with a serious form of imposter syndrome.)

Commandment one, two, six, as well as number ten (when translated to the current context) is also solid advice.

I would never take funding from friends or family. Hard rule. More aspiring entrepreneurs should listen to Ten Crack Commandments by Notorious B.I.G. at least once.

Yes I am. It is a private company, and they can do whatever they damn well please. This is just standard TOS language.

> Minors can't enter contracts, either, so your parents entered you on your behalf when you were born. You maintain it by staying here.

Or it is null and void when I turn 18.

> You're welcome to leave whenever you like.

And so are you. So there. It is pointless to counter criticism of society with "move to Somalia if you don't like it" and similar absurd platitudes. It doesn't address the question at hand, and it also doesn't address the fact that people who disagree with the (faux) social contract does not have any less of a right to live in the same country as you do.

Imagine that you go to a party, and to your horror you discover that a mass rape is in progress. You try to intervene and say that this is just not right, but are quickly told that if you don't like it you can go down the street to that other party where there are no raping going on.

Hah.

> the EULA for which you agreed

I never agreed to anything. Born into a social contract, you say? Well, only slaves are born into contracts, I will retort.

I know you are probably only speaking for yourself, but smokeyj is dead-on as far as I am concerned.

Look up vitamin K2 as well. There's a growing body of evidence suggesting that K is crucial, and especially when supplementing with D, and that most of us don't get enough in our daily diet. I currently take MK-7 alongside my daily 5000 IU of D.

Perhaps they should have to solemnly swear to read it as well.

As someone who might move there, I would appreciate to hear about your experiences. The cost of living in SF already worries me.

Actually, last laugh goes to them as they make more money and enjoy more success than you ever will. They also have the balls to discontinue a product that they for whatever reason find out is not worth their time. Go home, troll.

Honestly, the two are very often synonymous.

I'm curious, which ADHD medication and generic did you use? I'm on Ritalin myself.

Thank you for an informative response! I'm gonna keep this in mind when I start applying for jobs. Currently I spend evenings and weekends programming and learning on my own.

I'm curious about GitHub and the code you review. Like many, I can hate my own code and sometimes feel that it will be used against me in a hiring process. So I guess what I'm asking is how much does it count against a potential hire that they have bad code and/or bad ideas on GitHub?

> More published code is better than less published code irrespective of quality

This is the path I try to walk. I'd rather put something out there than nothing at all.

I am among those who want to work as a Rails developer eventually, and I would be very much interested in hearing your thoughts about what you are looking for in hires. Things like what applicants lack the most, what you look for the most, and so on. I work my ass off towards my goal nights and weekends (as I have a day job doing something else), but I haven't started applying for jobs yet.

Bitter much?

Enjoying your crusade?