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.
Might you also argue that empathy is putting people into roles they would flourish in? That hiring just anyone might be placing people into situations they would ultimately be unhappy with? That you may need to remove or even fire people when that role changes and this person isn't able to change with it? That putting the wrong person in the role is an opportunity cost for a better fit being happier with that position?
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.
Why are people critical of being supported by your parents in your 30's? Because that's not "normal" or "proper" or unfair on those who don't have that support? Or for a real reason that's bad according to some fundamental moral standard? We're all supported by our parents to some extent. Why is it so wrong for late-support outliers to exist? That sounds like being a teenager when everyone is trying to make it look like they're independent but really their mum still does their washing and cooks their dinner because it's shameful to be supported by your parents.
In my country, due to high house prices, adult professionals often buy their first house with money from their parents because they can't otherwise afford it. It's call "The bank of mum and dad". Is that irresponsible? Is it OK only after it's become common but was wrong for the first few people who did it?
At least in the US, it’s seen as not being able to be individualistic and make it on your own. There’s a very high value to being able to not be reliant on anyone - literally anyone or anything. Government handouts to family support to even the help of friends - there’s a strong desire to be able to do everything by yourself.
If your parents helped you get your house, it’s not only a sign of likely coming from a privileged background (not many households in the US can just give their kids a downpayment on a house…) but it’s also a sign that you couldn’t even do what others have managed on their own. As many people do it without the bank of mom and dad and do it without having come from a background of privilege - it doesn’t look good.
Some will rationalize it and talk about keeping money in the family or what not - but most Americans see it from a mile away as somewhat shameful or regrettable. Keeping money in the family is also somewhat shameful in itself as it is something typically very privileged people do and it is seen as keeping the money out of the rest of us. (Creating royal families and a class of nobility essentially)
I think you might be missing cultural differences here.
I can't speak for the UK but here in Germany people usually don't just "buy a house" in their 20s, because of the debt involved (guess we are very opposed to debt). In my experience that would happen only at least 10 years later, when you have saved up a sizable down payment. Also selling a house again is a really big deal, kinda rare. There's not a lot of switching, like I hear from some US friends.
So yes, this has nothing to do with support from your parents or general income/wealth bracket. If you are standing on your own feet, you move out to a cheap apartment, often for the first time with your partner. Also please remember that we have a lot less campus universities, people usually live in a small apartment in the city they are studying in (same with vocational training) and not on campus.
(Please correct me if you don't think that a sizable portion of people in the US buy a house before they are 30, no matter if they are "filthy rich" or just working a normal job)
And now for a completely made up theory: If you're going into debt for your degree maybe you don't care as much to get into more debt if you move into a house when starting a job, because you're already in debt. But if you got through uni without getting into debt, either you don't want to do that, or (more likely) you wouldn't even get a loan from the bank here, if you never worked before.
Housing loans here are low interest relatively. Paying as little as you can to get into a house is generally the go to advice. Multiple reasons: rents here can be quite high and buying a house can be near the same cost (not true in all markets). Appreciation on real estate is constantly happening in the US. (Meaning you will make money if you sell and move to a lower cost region) Investing your overly large down payment into the market is generally preferred instead of putting it into the house. It allows you to have better leverage and get better returns. If I can put my money into a market that returns 6-8% YOY instead of a loan that is 3%, gonna do that… It’s simple maths about which one will likely turn out better.
I’m not sure how much people put down for a payment in Germany but in US, it’s 3.5% to 20% as the norm. 20% being what was traditionally done but more and more people are finding ways to put down less and it is financially more optimal a lot of times as real estate is appreciating quickly and the market is booming too.
There are also some tax incentives for house ownership that aren’t available to renters. The US is setup for homeowners, not renters.
But I don’t think all of this is the main reason why they try to not rely on the bank of mom and dad… the individualism thing is more to do with that.
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, half my coworkers have been super outdoorsy types, all of them are doing fine financially. I don't think there's any statistical evidence that outdoorsy types are less financially responsible.
In fact it may be the opposite correlation, as those that can partake in outdoorsy activities frequently are probably better off than average.
>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?
> Io 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.
What? I never made that argument. You're putting words in my mouth and calling me asinine. Please actually respond to what I wrote.
> Are the bible, history of the church, the nature of reality, and developing a community not shared interests?
Nature of reality is more than an interest in my view. If you can't agree on reality, then no amount of shared interests can cover that gap.
As for the bible, history of the church, and community development... I guess those could be shared interests. But if you've ever met many Catholics, few are interested in the bible, even fewer in church history. We do like drinking and eating together though, so we got that! But other than super uppity social clubs, I've never really seen a dinner group achieve the success of the church, so i'm forced to conclude the religious aspect has something to do with it.
>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.
This is a more apt description of your own comments, not least because you misattributed a completely fictitious "argument" to the GP. Perhaps your anger is clouding your ability to understand the GP's comments, which have been very respectful.
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?".
That's fair - my intention was to say that non-engineers aren't any worse than engineers. I've seen the same puzzled look and demands from development teams that are requesting changes from other development teams.
Open source projects are rife with developers demanding the near-impossible from contributors/maintainers, etc. (but plenty of examples people not being dicks as well)
Additionally, they can often be worse (toxic) about it precisely because they are developers themselves, and so think they have that understanding and start acting the alpha.
