Yes, but if its supposed to be verified by class/module A, which calls class/module B with clean input, then you don't need to test B with bad input, only A.
You built a startup around a protocol that wasn't yet released, that wasn't well documented, that wasn't in your control, and that wasn't heavily adopted (or even lightly adopted)? That isn't startups being fragile, that's you having absolutely 0 business sense.
The mag safe plug is the worst piece of crap I've ever used. Anything placed on the desk touching the cord or knocking it would pull it out of the laptop. It would frequently "plug in" but not power the laptop. I'd never use one again, and would avoid another macbook just because of it. Well, it and the lack of an ethernet port requiring me to use an adaptor.
Its not the government. Its a private entity and thus not bound by the first amendment.
But it does bring up an important point- GitHub is a private entity, a for-profit company. Right now, they provide a useful service if you like git. In the future they may not. Many companies have helped the FOSS community then turned their backs on it. Use them, but don't ever fully trust them.
That happens anyway. I check my mail 3 or 4 times a year when the mailman mentions its overflowing. Its still rare that I get more than 2 pieces of actual mail on those occasions. Everything important is electronic these days.
Everyone's desktops and laptops. Most people don't have attached storage, that ruins the point of a laptop. And gamers would laugh at the idea of putting their games on network storage. The only problem is price, which will come down as time goes on.
I did several years ago. At the time between moving halfway across the continent for my first job, setting up my first apartment, and buying my first car I had more important shit to deal with. The V6 was cheaper anyway.
My point was- yes insurance companies are that stupid. They do make silly decisions based on odd criteria.
LMFTFY Liberalism is the belief that the government can be used to make things better for people
Libertarianism is the idea that "I got mine, fuck all of you".
I'd rather live in world's worst liberal republic than the best case of libertarianism. Of course the best case of libertarianism is pretty damn poor, its failed miserably every time its been tried, then either been replaced by something more liberal or devolved into tyrany.
Not really. When I bought my last car in 01, the V6 mustang I bought was considered by the insurance company (State Farm) a compact. If I wanted the V8 it was a sports car and $50 more a month in insurance. I went with the V6.
THere's plenty of jobs for developers right now. I'm getting an average of two random hits a week from recruiters, and I'm not looking. Perhaps there aren't jobs in Bumfuck, Alabama. But there seem to be a lot of recruiters from SF, Seattle, New York, and pretty much every major city.
Managing burnout is a skill a developer needs to learn as he gets older. I can burn hot for a few days. I did a charity hackathon not too long ago where I coded for 24hrs straight to finish the project in that weekend. But I can't do that every day, or even every weekend. A developer needs to learn when to question or refuse a deadline, and recognize when he needs to take it in a lower gear for a few days. With careful observation burnouts just become small productivity lulls because they're taken care of sooner, and your long term useful life is longer.
Good management will look out for this too, and see when a dev needs to be given easy tasks for a few days, or needs to find other resources to help them out. Open lines of communication and a good relationship between the dev and the direct manager are almost necessary for this to work.
I made the jump to OO just fine. But the objects used in programming with methods, data, and various scopes have very little in common with objects in the real world. They only do at a very abstract level. Children would have difficulty in making that leap. Its a better add on for later once they've learned the basics of programming and begun to think in mathematical abstractions.
That syntax doesn't piggyback on OO at all. Basic had the same syntax- FOR i FROM 1 TO N. There's no benefit for a beginner using objects when first learning- it adds more to the learning curve that can easily be added later. The first rule of teaching is KISS.
As for your snippet being clean- umm I have a 13 years of professional experience, over 20 years if you include hobbyist. I have no clue what that does. My guess is some kind of foreach loop, but the part to the right of the do is completely opaque. For that matter, the each part isn't clear either- it looks like a field or method invocation, but you're passing it no parameters. Its a pure Rubyism that exists nowhere else and isn't an easily understood mathematical concept, that's the opposite of clean.
Which is reason enough to not use Ruby- no other language on the planet has syntax like it, meaning changing to any other language in the future would be more difficult, while Ruby itself is a minor (and declining) language. They're better off learning something where the syntax is closer to standard.
Number 1 is actually a negative. The right paradigm to use for kids is procedural. First off because it matches how they're likely to think- plenty of stuff is broken down into steps 1,2,3 etc just like procedural, but nothing is broken down by objects outside of programming. Secondly, they have to learn procedural and structured code anyway to write functions- why confuse them with extra stuff? Teach them without objects first, then teach them objects- as an added bonus they're more likely to understand *why* they're useful.
Three is an app. It can be written for any language. Its not a good reason to pick one language over another.
There's great communities for every language. There's also horrible ones for every language. You just need to know where to look, which a teacher should. Not an advantage.
Nope. If the layoff is targeted at all older people (or even substantially so) like that calling it a different name doesn't give them any protection at all.
And if he doesn't want to build his own company? Building your own company takes hard work and requires you to spend time doing a lot of things like marketing, sales, accounting, etc that most people don't want to do. If its not a driving goal of yours, attempting to do this will leave you miserable and broke. And guess what- only a tiny percentage of people want to do all that bullshit. If he isn't one of that tiny percentage, telling him to do it is horrible advice. And if he was part of it, well you wouldn't need to tell him would you?
If they did it that obviously its the stupidest move the company ever made- the age discrimination lawsuit will cost them far more than the health insurance ever would.
Markets work, so long as by work you mean "optimize for the cheapest short term answer". That's what markets are designed to do- optimize the hell out of one axis and ignore all other variables. To do more than that you need an organized system, which a market isn't be design.
Depends on the company. At small companies, there is no HR filter. At large companies there usually is, but at the smarter ones the resumes go into a searchable database and the hiring manager searches it for matches, which is at least a bit better than HR.
No, a financial motivation gives them reasons to game the system no matter what's best for your company. See: Elop at Nokia or Fiorina at HP for good examples.
You don't have to. The best people are by definition self-motivated. They achieve high results because to do otherwise isn't in their personality. If you need to financially motivate them to insane amounts as well, you've already failed.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but if its supposed to be verified by class/module A, which calls class/module B with clean input, then you don't need to test B with bad input, only A.
You built a startup around a protocol that wasn't yet released, that wasn't well documented, that wasn't in your control, and that wasn't heavily adopted (or even lightly adopted)? That isn't startups being fragile, that's you having absolutely 0 business sense.
The mag safe plug is the worst piece of crap I've ever used. Anything placed on the desk touching the cord or knocking it would pull it out of the laptop. It would frequently "plug in" but not power the laptop. I'd never use one again, and would avoid another macbook just because of it. Well, it and the lack of an ethernet port requiring me to use an adaptor.
Its not the government. Its a private entity and thus not bound by the first amendment.
But it does bring up an important point- GitHub is a private entity, a for-profit company. Right now, they provide a useful service if you like git. In the future they may not. Many companies have helped the FOSS community then turned their backs on it. Use them, but don't ever fully trust them.
That happens anyway. I check my mail 3 or 4 times a year when the mailman mentions its overflowing. Its still rare that I get more than 2 pieces of actual mail on those occasions. Everything important is electronic these days.
Everyone's desktops and laptops. Most people don't have attached storage, that ruins the point of a laptop. And gamers would laugh at the idea of putting their games on network storage. The only problem is price, which will come down as time goes on.
Well if you've ever tried to sit someone in the back of a mustang, those seats are there only for looks. Normal adultsdon't fit there comfortably.
I did several years ago. At the time between moving halfway across the continent for my first job, setting up my first apartment, and buying my first car I had more important shit to deal with. The V6 was cheaper anyway.
My point was- yes insurance companies are that stupid. They do make silly decisions based on odd criteria.
LMFTFY Liberalism is the belief that the government can be used to make things better for people
Libertarianism is the idea that "I got mine, fuck all of you".
I'd rather live in world's worst liberal republic than the best case of libertarianism. Of course the best case of libertarianism is pretty damn poor, its failed miserably every time its been tried, then either been replaced by something more liberal or devolved into tyrany.
In America that isn't called liberalism, its called libertarianism. Our liberalism is something else entirely.
Not really. When I bought my last car in 01, the V6 mustang I bought was considered by the insurance company (State Farm) a compact. If I wanted the V8 it was a sports car and $50 more a month in insurance. I went with the V6.
I've had recruitment hits from half that list in the past 2-3 months, and I live near none of them (I'm near Baltimore at the moment).
THere's plenty of jobs for developers right now. I'm getting an average of two random hits a week from recruiters, and I'm not looking. Perhaps there aren't jobs in Bumfuck, Alabama. But there seem to be a lot of recruiters from SF, Seattle, New York, and pretty much every major city.
Managing burnout is a skill a developer needs to learn as he gets older. I can burn hot for a few days. I did a charity hackathon not too long ago where I coded for 24hrs straight to finish the project in that weekend. But I can't do that every day, or even every weekend. A developer needs to learn when to question or refuse a deadline, and recognize when he needs to take it in a lower gear for a few days. With careful observation burnouts just become small productivity lulls because they're taken care of sooner, and your long term useful life is longer.
Good management will look out for this too, and see when a dev needs to be given easy tasks for a few days, or needs to find other resources to help them out. Open lines of communication and a good relationship between the dev and the direct manager are almost necessary for this to work.
I made the jump to OO just fine. But the objects used in programming with methods, data, and various scopes have very little in common with objects in the real world. They only do at a very abstract level. Children would have difficulty in making that leap. Its a better add on for later once they've learned the basics of programming and begun to think in mathematical abstractions.
I'm sure both other users of Smalltalk will agree with you.
That syntax doesn't piggyback on OO at all. Basic had the same syntax- FOR i FROM 1 TO N. There's no benefit for a beginner using objects when first learning- it adds more to the learning curve that can easily be added later. The first rule of teaching is KISS.
As for your snippet being clean- umm I have a 13 years of professional experience, over 20 years if you include hobbyist. I have no clue what that does. My guess is some kind of foreach loop, but the part to the right of the do is completely opaque. For that matter, the each part isn't clear either- it looks like a field or method invocation, but you're passing it no parameters. Its a pure Rubyism that exists nowhere else and isn't an easily understood mathematical concept, that's the opposite of clean.
Which is reason enough to not use Ruby- no other language on the planet has syntax like it, meaning changing to any other language in the future would be more difficult, while Ruby itself is a minor (and declining) language. They're better off learning something where the syntax is closer to standard.
Number 1 is actually a negative. The right paradigm to use for kids is procedural. First off because it matches how they're likely to think- plenty of stuff is broken down into steps 1,2,3 etc just like procedural, but nothing is broken down by objects outside of programming. Secondly, they have to learn procedural and structured code anyway to write functions- why confuse them with extra stuff? Teach them without objects first, then teach them objects- as an added bonus they're more likely to understand *why* they're useful.
Three is an app. It can be written for any language. Its not a good reason to pick one language over another.
There's great communities for every language. There's also horrible ones for every language. You just need to know where to look, which a teacher should. Not an advantage.
You have exactly 1 point that stands up.
Nope. If the layoff is targeted at all older people (or even substantially so) like that calling it a different name doesn't give them any protection at all.
And if he doesn't want to build his own company? Building your own company takes hard work and requires you to spend time doing a lot of things like marketing, sales, accounting, etc that most people don't want to do. If its not a driving goal of yours, attempting to do this will leave you miserable and broke. And guess what- only a tiny percentage of people want to do all that bullshit. If he isn't one of that tiny percentage, telling him to do it is horrible advice. And if he was part of it, well you wouldn't need to tell him would you?
If they did it that obviously its the stupidest move the company ever made- the age discrimination lawsuit will cost them far more than the health insurance ever would.
Markets work, so long as by work you mean "optimize for the cheapest short term answer". That's what markets are designed to do- optimize the hell out of one axis and ignore all other variables. To do more than that you need an organized system, which a market isn't be design.
Depends on the company. At small companies, there is no HR filter. At large companies there usually is, but at the smarter ones the resumes go into a searchable database and the hiring manager searches it for matches, which is at least a bit better than HR.
No, a financial motivation gives them reasons to game the system no matter what's best for your company. See: Elop at Nokia or Fiorina at HP for good examples.
You don't have to. The best people are by definition self-motivated. They achieve high results because to do otherwise isn't in their personality. If you need to financially motivate them to insane amounts as well, you've already failed.