spiffyman

> when you struggle on a freaking leetcode problem

I'm all for the message of "get help if you need it," and it sounds like OP needs the help of a professional, so I upvoted your comment. But minimizing the triggering event is not helpful; the things you see as trivial or unimportant might be insurmountable or critical to someone else.

Some friendly feedback: I clicked through to your article about the two pointer technique and, AFAICT, there's nothing for me to do or read here. It says "In this guide, we'll cover..." but it's not clear how to actually view the guide. I'm guessing - without having clicked around at all - that my next step would be to create an account and visit the page again, but that's not at all clear to me as an unauthenticated user.

I do see a small "Login" on the bottom right of the page, as well as "Sign in" and a highlighted "Upgrade" at the top. But there is no CTA telling me what my next step should be. Maybe users of your site who land on this page will know what that step should be, but you might want to add some direction for people who randomly land on it via SEO/SEM or links on forums.

Cheers!

ETA: in a search for some action, I clicked all over the graphic and on a couple phrases in the intro to see if they would take me somewhere. If you're tracking clicks, it might be worth looking at whether other users are doing similar things.

I'm friends with several philosophers since I took it fairly seriously in undergrad and befriended several grad students. From my perspective, the "trolling" is generally just pointing out interesting entailments of another philosopher's arguments. For example, in a recent thread philosopher X outlined philosopher Y's argument just to point out that he hopes it shows the "weird consequences" of the basis of Y's argument. Y showed up to point out that X had missed a key wrinkle. A bunch of others showed up to wrangle about the meaning of certain words.

... So basically the same thing philosophers do in their papers, just with fewer citations.

(That's not me throwing shade -- just pointing out how the field seems to work. I loved and still love philosophy.)

Really good point. By the same token, someone should let Dan Patrick know that it's already illegal to surveil and harass people in bathrooms.

First, this is a good thing for the community. The ecosystem has been pretty well prepared for 3.x adoption for a while, but we just haven't done it. Still, when Django switched its default docs to use 3.x instead of 2.x, it noticeably increased adoption of 3.x. (Source: Kenneth Reitz on "Talk Python to Me" episode #6.) By pushing on with 3.x, Django is doing its part to drag the rest of us forward with it.

Second, this is necessary. Support for Python 2.x is supposed to end in 2020, per Guido's keynote at PyCon 2016, so Django is going to have to get in line in ~3 years one way or the other. A major version increment is a great time to introduce such a breaking change.

So ... "what this means" is that Django is doing what it has to do, which happens to coincide with the interests of the community at large. shrug I'm glad it's happening, but there shouldn't be a whole lot of drama or hand-wringing here.

Seriously? Was this a professional program or something? Maybe I was a particularly poor undergrad, but I can't imagine being able to afford a separate computer, even a shitty one, with a month's morning. Nor could I justify the expense -- "oh that's just my test-taking computer."

I'm uncomfortable with how willing I am (and others are) to just make/accept claims about how terrible the JS community is without evidence. In this thread there are tons of people saying JS devs don't understand CS fundamentals, write low quality code, and take their bearings from hype; that the "vast majority" of inexperienced people choose JS; etc. And I haven't seen any statistics on this or even a single example of such things.

I'm a Python guy who's working in Java at the moment. I don't particularly care for JS or frontend work, and I make no bones about it. But if someone were saying all this about the Python or Java communities, I'd be asking for evidence. And, frankly, I'd be pissed. So I think we should hold ourselves to similar standards -- don't just shit on a community because that's how you feel. Provide cases. And possibly even advice on how to improve!

I have a question. Our first child is due this week, and we also got a box from babyboxco. What did/do you use as sheets for the box's pad? We noticed this week that the sheet that came with it is just a non-fitted one that fits a regular-sized crib.

It's important to note that you can often "go prove it to yourself and get a developer to believe in your potential company" without coding a thing. For example, a non-technical friend that I'd worked with a few times came to me last year with an idea. I wasn't looking to jump ship from my current gig, but I was happy to advise him as he ramped up. We took his idea and boiled it down to some minimal questions that needed to be answered.

From there, he manually simulated the product: he manually gathered data from publicly available sources, manually dumped them into the tech he intended to use for some analysis, manually evaluated the results, etc. The result? In less than two weeks' time, we figured out that he actually had a decent idea going. Over beers, I sketched for him a general outline of how I'd automate the process -- nothing too detailed, nothing getting into the weeds, but I was able to give him an outline and say "here is where you've got some risk" or "this part's easy."

He shopped that around to a few folks, some of whom I was able to recommend to him, and ended up finding a technical cofounder. That guy threw everything I'd suggested away and went with another stack, but that's not the important part. What matters is that my buddy a) had proof that the thing could work, and b) had clearly done some due diligence in figuring out the initial development needs. That made him more attractive to technical people and led to his landing that technical cofounder.

So I'd advise you to:

1. Think hard about how much what you're doing needs any code at all.

2. Anything you can do manually, you should go ahead and do just to prove things out to yourself and, later, to potential cofounders.

3. Find a friend or a friendly face at a local meetup who'd be willing to advise -- don't ask for anything more.

4. Use the outputs of these processes to either a) decide not to go forward with it, because that's what you may learn, or b) pitch technical people.

Good luck!