iandev

I'm confused about a difference in the NMOS and PMOS. The scenario I'm confused about is when the source is VDD and the drain is connected to GND and output.

For the PMOS, the output toggles between 1 and 0 (opposite the gate) as expected. However, for the NMOS, the output is always 0.

I don't understand why GND pulls VDD down to 0 for the NMOS, but not the PMOS.

Should have clarified that it's not an issue that they're profiting. It is sometimes implied that they _have_ to charge 30% to run the app store. My point is that the app store could exist without the 30% charge.

I honestly have sympathy for the case he makes. I don't take issue with the way that Apple has restricted the ability to get apps on an iPhone. The problem is the 30% cut that they take in the app store. I think the system can largely stay the same, but they're clearly profiting from the cut they take. It's not simply recovering operating costs.

edit: I'm not saying that they're not allowed to profit. I just wanted to point out that the 30% isn't strictly necessary to run the app store.

Is it possible that programming is both hard and easy? I somewhat feel that this post lacks the nuance that it complains of the other side lacking.

I'm of the opinion that anyone that thinks you must be of some special intelligence to become a software engineer is wrong because frankly it's no harder than many other careers. However, I do side with the author that we shouldn't be dismissive and pretend it's extra easy either.

I want some nuance. As with all things, programming is easy to get into, hard to be great at. Doing it doesn't make you particularly special. Working hard and getting better at _something_ is what matters.

This sounds very interesting to me as my team has had some real struggles figuring out how to deal with things like authentication in Next.js. In one case, we've rolled our own oauth with a completely separate express api. In another, we still haven't quite decided. I've been on the lookout for a sort of Node equivalent of Rails.

I can't say that I agree with everything in the article, but "The Way Out" is certainly something I can get behind. There is great value in understanding where "best practices" come from and what problems they solve. I think it's easy to see there is an issue with mindless pattern following.

A PhD would imply first hand experience of academia. I don't think they're using it to signal any particular level of intelligence.

I don't mean to be inflammatory, but is there no ethical concern with charging money for the site and then giving none of it to the people that actually do the work? I'd ask you to reconsider the project, and to really think about whether it's acceptable to profit off of a bunch of free workers. I am of the firm opinion that it's not.

> While the above pattern has become standardized, it feels somewhat unnatural as we read most of the spoken languages from left to right.

Is this true (the 'unnatural' part)? Reading left to right, `age = 42` can be read as "age is 42" which feels perfectly natural in English. `42 => age` would be read as "assign 42 to age"? This feels more awkward to me. I'm not sure I understand why anyone would want Rightward assignment.

> "The university's cyber insurance policy paid part of the ransom, and the university covered the remainder. No tuition, grant, donation, state or taxpayer funds were used to pay the ransom"

I was looking to dunk on them but it seems that what they did wasn’t entirely unreasonable. The article further states that they paid to protect student data.

It’s possible to have zero tolerance and not fire anyone here. My understanding is that no employee misused their credentials or tools. The attackers misused them. I suppose you could argue that accidentally exposing credentials is misusing them, but I don’t think that’s what Twitter means there.

I think the article makes some good points, but I'm not sure that the gatekeeping step (step 6) is necessary. I think if you look at all the other steps, it fundamentally comes down to one thing:

Care enough about making things better such that others view you as valuable.