mcavoybn

I like using codewars.com for learning new languages. Just pick a language and start running through problems. I think the best part about it is that you can review other solutions after you solve the problem. Usually there are some really clever solutions that show off the features of the language, as well as clearer solutions that are a bit more idiomatic to the language and more in line with what you'd want to commit to production. For learning frameworks I usually just refer to the framework documentation and source code.

Very snarky response. I think the poster you replied to was trying to point out that the reason this happens is because the government prints money and if they don't take the money out of circulation via taxes then inflation becomes an issue.

None of the things in this article are specific to programming, they are all just the potential downsides of being an employee. In some situations you are an inferior, replaceable tool that is a burden on the company, whether you are a programmer or not. But there is a possibility that you prove yourself superior and become harder to replace.

I think the real downside to becoming "a programmer" is the antisocial tendencies that arise from staring at a screen all day, hyper-analyzing esoteric patterns of symbols. This tendency leaks into other aspects of life that don't benefit from an intellectual breakdown. It's plain to see the author is upset about something, but they defer to their analysis of programming as a profession instead of the stark reality of their emotional state.

Probably not, I think there is utility in relating two similar things, especially when someone is likely to be more familiar with one over the other. Someone who knows networks really well could find it useful to model an engineering team as a network. What really matters is whether modeling the engineering team as a network is useful in your case or not.

The takeaway is that the deaf man could be you. Cops and judges are flawed, and you should be wary of them. Also, you aren't being forced to read the news, if you don't find the information valuable then don't click on it.

Many of the replies in this thread talk about empathy, and I get where they are coming from. The problem is, if your priority when hiring was empathy you would just offer the job to everyone you interview. It's true, everyone has the ability to grow and learn on the job, and once you hire someone you should be empathetic and help them grow as best you can. But it's asinine to suggest that watching for the signs and markers described in this article during the hiring process wouldn't be helpful.

Maybe it is normal in your country, but where I am from in the US, parents want their kids to be self-sufficient as soon as possible. The author herself said it was embarrassing. I'm not sure what the economic situation is in your country, but housing is very expensive in the US too. But hey, if it gets expensive enough then parents will start buying their kids houses...

Yeah I was waiting for the point in this article where it became about "outdoorsy types" and not the author but it never happened. I'd be embarrassed too, mismanaging money and relying on my parents support at 34 years old. I guess the author was just so embarrassed that she published this article about it.

Great job with the antagonizing, clickbait title though. I'm guessing "My Tone-deaf Autobiography about How Irresponsible I am" was thrown out.

>We do like drinking and eating together though, so we got that!

Regardless of the details of your argument, or whether my paraphrase of your original comment was accurate, it is an infeasible solution to suggest that everyone needs to go to church in order to address the loneliness, social anxiety, and tribalism. Your comments all have a condescending, passive aggressive tone and you are trying all kinds of dirty tactics to manipulate the debate to your favor. I doubt you have any real interest in more people going to church. Based on your comments, your goal is to argue and put blame on others. I'm not sure if anyone in this thread has really learned from this discussion (flamewar) and I regret engaging in it.

>the secular regular get-together groups for people without any unifying interests or socioeconomic status

Unfortunately, I don't think what you are describing ever existed. Every "get-together-group" I can think of has some kind of common interest, even if its something as simple as drinking coffee or reading books. I think your attachment to the church has a lot more to do with your emotions than thinking rationally. The way I see it, the cat is out of the bag with regards to organized religion. It is well known that there have been many corrupt religious organizations and heinous acts committed in the name of religion. To make the argument "The economy was shut down last year and there is a massive issue in our society with depression and loneliness as a result, but it's what those liberals deserve for leaving the church!" is asinine.

>Church is the only place they're going to be exposed to others that may share absolutely no interests with them

Are the bible, history of the church, the nature of reality, and developing a community not shared interests? Also, was the point of the article to only talk to people without shared interests? Isn't one of the first things you do when you get to know someone is try to find a common interest?

Everyone is attacking the overall theme of this article, and I agree with many of the points made, but nobody seems to be focused on the actual solutions provided in the article which I think are good. The article isn't about software developers believing in you PRODUCT its about software developers believing in your PROJECT. If I was the author, I would probably try to rephrase this as "Software developers are most effective when they feel a sense of ownership and responsibility for the projects they contribute to." The article suggests 4 items:

Don't withhold newly discovered information about the customer's needs

Avoid the temptation of isolating the team in the name of "just getting* it done"

Avoid discouraging technical team members who express interest in the market or business model

Avoid over-statusing your software development initiatives

All four of these items are ways you can signal to your developers that you trust them to do their job and respect their ability to make use of the information given to them (You can't handle the truth!!). I think its worth at least being aware of this methodology in the case that you have a dev team which is showing interest in "the why" of a particular project, or appear to be struggling to build what the business is asking for. Otherwise, you are better off incentivizing devs with bonuses, pay raises, and equity because they might just not care about "the why" or "the why" might just not be useful for them to do their job.

I don't think the point of lowercased's comment was that devs don't underestimate tasks to the same degree that "outside-of-technical-people" might. They are saying that "outside-of-technical-people" don't have the experience to understand how difficult it is to give an accurate estimate or how much pressure is put on devs to agree to a deadline and take responsibility for making something happen by that date. This is compounded by the fact that stakeholders are unwilling to define or commit to a detailed set of features or acceptance criteria. The bigger the project, the more painful and difficult this becomes. Stakeholders say "Make it faster!!!" then engineers say "We agree!!! any ideas on how?".

Just because there isn't a top-down solution that eradicates the source of the issue doesn't mean it shouldn't be observed and discussed. You pointed out that you can't "beef" with the gravitational constant, but if you are aware of it you can avoid its negative affects and potentially use them to your advantage. Gravity will collapse a building, but if you are aware of it you can engineer a building so it doesn't collapse.

"Gravity, at least, will keep grinding until the universe is compressed into a single point. To eliminate gravity completely it would require constant destruction, compression, agitation, and elimination of all physical laws. Instead, just plug your ears and scream "LALALALA" a pretend gravity doesn't exist because you will stick to the surface of the planet regardless."

Ahh yes, arguing about semantics.