Or... Non-obese people average better mental health than obese people.
That article is all just correlation. Which cause is more likely?
2,158 karma · joined June 15, 2022
That article is all just correlation. Which cause is more likely?
Every big tech employee I know gets refresher stocks every year. Except for the first 2 years at some companies (looking at you Amazon), every year you are vesting significant stock, and whenever you leave, you're walking away from at least 3 years unvested. 4 years is like 5 which is like 6
If your site is in any way dynamic, you won't be able to cache much anyway
you always have the option with react on the server of returning a minimal skeleton and client rendering the rest. the point is you can make those decisions case-by-case
Those discussions need to happen earlier
youtube is always in the top 5 for most time spent and visits. "representative" of the typical web user certainly includes youtube
Surely they'll settle for that, and never push their borders again.
I've not seen any indication an AI legitimately replacing software engineering, rather enhancing it perhaps resulting in the need for fewer engineers for the same work. Even as an engineer that's a huge win.
The role is less coding, more engineering. I suppose if the "craft" is the coding part, you're right it may need defending, but to me that's not the craft
How is this react related? You could always write crappy css. A team creating non responsive react apps would not create responsive non-react apps
I don't want non software engineers touching production code. It's too hard, and the depth of skillset for a product/UX designer is already huge.
If you find css and js faster for prototyping and mockups, then sure. I'm doubtful and still yet to see that work in the wild.
the writer of the article could have just as easily predicted an epic slowdown as infinite growth. that's how much evidence and reasoning they provided. it's the monkey throwing darts
says who?
if i were born and living in the 1500s, how could i predict the economy would soon grow 10%/year for over a century?
you're just stating things like facts which have never been predictable. nothing about our current growth was inevitable, neither is a gigantic slowdown.
i think these kinds of predictions are:
1. far more difficult than we realise
2. so difficult that there is almost no value in making them.
> if the economy were 3*1070 times as big as today's, and could only make use of 1070 (or fewer) atoms, we'd need to be sustaining multiple economies as big as today's entire world economy per atom
What kind of argument is that? Sounds like someone had an idea and went looking for evidence to support it.
> mathematically we can prove that it must happen eventually
Please explain, and not using a reasoning comparing dollars to atoms
We can read english quite well.
comprehensive test coverage meets the same goal, and TDD looks a lot like "type-driven design", only easier to read and maintain.
but you're doing a disservice with completely bogus claims like "incomes for lower and middle-class families have fallen since the 80s". it only makes it harder to talk about the real issues and facts, because why would the other side stick to them now? the trust between sides gets further eroded and the gap widens
there's enough real data that we don't have to start making stuff up. the author could have easily pointed to housing instead like you. i think it's actually extremely important to get these facts right. enough to argue about on an internet forum on a sunday evening
to me, you are doing the nitpicking. picking 2001 was generous, the growth is far greater if you look back to the 80s.