leobelle

My favorite reply so far. I'm 37 and am starting to worry. I haven't run into any issues yet.

I have noticed though that experience become a liability. If you wrote JavaScript for IE 6, a lot of the optimizations and things one did to make sure things worked in IE 6 are no longer necessary. One should be ready to let go of things as soon as they aren't necessary anymore. Always keep learning and know why you do the things you do with code.

I seem to pretty much always get a higher score by button mashing, or going up down left right in rotation than by trying to figure it out. :(

You can also just always click the "link" and reply directly to a reply there.

> take a look at the school her or she attended and stop interviewing people from that school, problem solved.

This is really bad advice, because much about learning programming is about an individual effort. It has little if anything to do with the school.

> If you find a person with an MS who can't pass a simple programming test

You actually need more than a simple programming test that solves a single problem. You need to see enough code to have some architecture, designed by the candidate. Interviews are too short for this so experience whether at some other company or open source, or just if skilled people can vouch for you goes a long way.

A master's degree, assuming no experience, is more like a warning signal for someone who's stayed in academics too long and has no practical skill. It's like you're hiring a really expensive junior developer if they've never built real world software under business constraints that needed to like be bug free, and scalable. It's like the code written in graduate college gave a shit about memory use, file or network i/o performance, a good ui design, or like actually doing the thing it's supposed to. Sorry, ranting due to bad experience in the past.

The thing is, more education will enable a good developer to be even better. It's doesn't seem to help a struggling developer in any shape or form. Unfortunately sometimes I get the impression that people stay in school to address a problem that can't be addressed with more classroom time and end up doubling down on a field that maybe isn't right for them.

At the very least try to intern early on and or successfully help a popular open source project before graduate school.

> anything else Noogle Now related.

I like Noogle so much I might write up a quick chrome extension that turns Google into Noogle everywhere.

This has very little to do with Python developers deciding between version 2.7 and 3.x. If you wrote a library or an app in Python 3.x packagers should require the appropriate version of Python as a dependency. Sam with v2. Developers shouldn't worry about that.

Where mastering hopefully means to just avoid them whenever possible.

The title takes a reasonably interesting boat and ruins it with inane link bait. Sometimes when you try to make something great look bigger than it is you've ruined it.

That's not true at all. If you use secure encryption to store plain text, and proper use of HTTPs to transfer said text, that's secure. It's not as bad as obfuscated text. What you've said is just plain untrue.

One problem with storing passwords is that there is no good reason to. The other security issue is that people reuse passwords. So everyone should be creating hashes instead of encrypting passwords, but encrypting text, and transmitting it securely is still secure. This API didn't do that, it did a lot of things wrong, but these comments are all pretty ignorant as well.

It's just one inane comment after another in this thread.

Twisted is a library you might want to use if you want to write non-blocking code. So you would care a great deal if this wasn't python 3 if you wanted to use python 3.

Mercurial is an application you use to version control your source. I'm not sure I understand why any python developer would care if Mercurial was written in python 2 as long as it worked. Maybe if someone was writing a Mercurial plugin or patching Mercurial they would care.

> Who the hell thinks it's OK to store non-encrypted passwords in this day and age?

The post gave no indication how Cricketer was storing the passwords. They may very well be stored encrypted.

You can send plain text passwords back if you've encrypted them, you just have to decrypt them first. There's no point at all in returning the results of encrypting a password if the clients don't know how to decrypt those results. Given that the API uses plain text HTTP, I doubt that the passwords are encrypted.

What the passwords are not stored as however, are hashes. A hash is not the same as text that was encrypted. A hash is a difficult to reverse unique identifier for bit of text.

Having said all this, it is funny to see your post, and all its replies making fun of security incompetency while also being incompetent in themselves.

I meant you should use a different domain for static content on your marketing page, and I'm not lamenting anything. Just giving you some advice. Ghostery has been installed over 1 million times just in Chrome. Any one has ghostery installed and is going to your site will see a completely broken webpage.