fitpolar

U.S. journalists don’t have the courage to do journalism anymore. They wouldn’t dare go against the grain, let alone be specific on corruption.

Mexican journalists should migrate, and report on both U.S. and Mexican government corruption without the threat of overt assassination.

Roku, and their strange world of SceneGraph and BrightScript!

It's actually quite similar to React meets Ruby or something, but without the nested dependency breakages you get with node in React. Anyway, client wanted so client gets.

So what, is that not everyone loves it. Devs shouldn’t be forced to use a language that they hate using.

Thankfully WASM is a remedy for this, and over the next decade devs will be able to build full stack across web and mobile in Swift or any other language they prefer.

> HTML, CSS, JavaScript, Go or PHP, Redis, MySQL or Postgres, Ubuntu & Nginx.

Listing a stack of dependencies as a starting requirement is arguably not simple.

Simple to you personally because you’re proficient in each of these. But how long did it take for you to become proficient?

I’d love it if there was the equivalent for this, but for politics.

> What was holding me off throughout the years was, I wasn't interested in learning C++ or Java to make them. I wanted to build Desktop apps with Javascript

This isn’t the first time I’ve come across this aversion to learning something new from JS devs. Most other devs I’ve worked with love learning new languages.

Could someone please help me understand why javascript devs seem to have a thing against other languages.

> My Mac got a kernel panic yesterday. My response is not to swear off Apple products forever.

Yet your response is to downvote everything you disagree with?

Not swearing off Apple products forever is your personal choice. Personally I agree with that. But I know plenty of people who DO choose to swear off Apple products when something doesn't work. That's also their choice, and I don't have a problem with that.

I don't know why this would get downvoted. Seems reasonable, whether it's Snopes or anyone.

Similar to Apple claiming "it just works", you better make sure it works. Or Google proclaiming "don't be evil". Etc.

Is that your interpretation? Mine is the opposite: "At this point nothing is trustworthy".

Just saying that humans have an extremely poor track record at compromising information for political gain. Anything would be better at this point, you can't get any worse.

At this point nothing is trustworthy. But I have more faith that AI is going to do a better job in future than humans ever have. We may be 100 years away from that though, or 1000 years. Who knows?

It's a hopeless quest until AI reaches a certain level of objective interpretation.

Regarding humans, most people who are capable of researching truth without any bias, don't have a voice. Human history is riddled with partisan extremists presenting biased information as neutral and factual. Snopes is no exception.

With that mindset nobody should use that word. We should wipe it from the dictionary.

While context is important, I’ve found that the context of who someone is personally is rarely beneficial when being objective. If anything, this approach is anti-ideology, as you are not taking ideological bias into account...and there’s way too much ideological bias in discussions these days. I think that’s what I meant by maturity.

That’s true, and a good point that I should take into account when confronted with this decision in future.

What you describe though are good software practises in general, not exclusive to react. I don’t blame you for thinking this though, because I hear this a lot, it’s not just you.

I’ve been building in react for a year after working in iOS and Android. Something like a tree structure capturing all of the view components is available right out of Xcode. Another example: time saved compiling is mitigated by time spent debugging, trying to find the source of exceptions etc is a mystery box and a huge time suck.

What I think is happening is that most Javascript and react developers have spent time only in one domain. So they make a lot of assumptions that all of these advantages of react are exclusive to the paradigm and platform, when that’s not true at all.

I think you might be right, based on my experience anyway. Especially regarding the last paragraph.

Nothing against bootcampers per se, but I remember my university lecturers telling us this isn’t accounting, you’ll be learning for life. They didn’t tell us to get out of the class if we’re not up for it, they just set the expectation.

Even despite this, 5 years later I got a harsh reminder after other life factors getting in the way, and for about 2 years I stopped doing any extra curricular learning at all. It took me 1-2 years after that to pick up the pieces. Never again until I retire. You just can’t afford to not “want” to continually learn in this industry.

The fact is, only very rarely are you in a team of 2-3 devs and you need to support ALL of these platforms. If that’s the case for a small startup, serious strategic errors and lack of focus is being made by the founders!

Even Instagram didn’t even have an Android app until they were acquired, and then it still took them another couple of years to support web. Their focus was their success.

Do you have any examples of that, and how do you determine which apps are built with RN?

I've noticed a similar thing, but have nothing to go on but my gut instinct. For instance, I'm pretty sure that the food ordering app Ritual is using RN, it just doesn't feel quite native.

Everyone technically has a conflict of interest or premeditated motivation. An argument should stand on its own merit, regardless of who makes it. Analyzing anything other than the argument is immature.

This seems to be the response to every addition to javascript or react without addressing the above concerns.

Nothing wrong with your comment on trying to embrace it per se, but it would be healthier if this sentiment was balanced in the community with more skepticism rather than blind embrace.

It's a PITA, that's for sure. There were no drugs in mine. But I reasoned that it's only 1 night. I chose a time where I didn't have work the next day. No big deal, it's not like you have to do it for a month straight. Do you not get any time off work at your job?

You shouldn’t be hiring if you’re completely oblivious as to why all 8 would fail.

The questions you asked and the reasoning behind asking them was quite good, and I would’ve liked this interview.

The timing though was a little ridiculous. You could, and perhaps SHOULD, easily spend an hour on 10 and an hour on 11.

IME, this is the biggest problem with the current state of the interview process - what I call Hollywood hacker testing. Unrealistic timing expectations based on what’s seen in Hollywood movies.

The take home test is worse for this! At least this wasn’t part of your process...you don’t want have a hiring process where the only person who can put in 60 hours wins.

Be realistic, if you really care about improving the hiring process and not being another dumping ground on Glassdoor for interviewees you’ve angered.

I'd like to share a more balanced approach (sure, give me heat for fence sitting), and while I agree with the above, there's a time to walk away, and there's a time to suck it up.

I would strongly to suggest finding interviews at some stage of our lives with the pure intent to walk away from. If you feel strongly about the process, it's one thing to grumble, but this is the only way change will happen.

If you're desperate for a another job however, and are really feeling like you need to be in a new place within 6 months, then go through a phase of sucking it up, finding a daily challenge on hackerrank, and seeing if "you've still got it" with these silly problems that we all know are exclusive to undergrad studies and nowhere else.

Great analogy with the ball pit and clown nose btw, I'm going to use that.

I agree, especially on your last point. Even when I think of my own career highs and lows, most of the highs has to do with lucking out with being given a chance or opportunity. By contrast, most of the lows has to with being denied a chance or opportunity. Of course you have to take advantage of any opportunity and work hard for it to pay off. But being lucky enough to be in the RPART is, huge!

This has been my experience too, and I’ve thought long and hard about how we’ve gotten to hiring practices that rewards 6 week boot campers more that seasoned pros who do outstanding work. I’ve come to the same conclusion, that it’s got to be because of bloated HR. It’s harder for me to pass interviews today vs 5 years ago, despite being less junior and more than capable of doing an A+ job.

I tend to disagree with this close minded judgement. Only because I’ve seen employees who I’ve written off after a few weeks become the goto brain after 6 months on the job. They exhibit a quality that can turn things around. Maybe you haven’t worked with enough really good programmers.

It's true. I was in close to this situation once. There were 5 developers instead of 3, and 6 managers. They fired 3 of us developers.

Management are like a cult. They've all gotten to where they are because manager A has dirt on manager B, and so on. There should be no non-technical management in tech, and they should be the first to be automated.

A good list. But we have no time to work on social innovation until the bigger problems of tongue detection are solved: https://images.anandtech.com/doci/12870/Screenshot_113.png

Agreed. When I read the above article, it was one OMFG followed by another. How much more complicated do we want to make hiring? How much more complicated does hiring have to get before non-existent “training” or “probation” practices would become a more efficient use of resources?

IMO we’re already there. Everyone’s doubling down on hiring complexity instead of thinking of other solutions to create a great team.