965 karma · joined July 3, 2013
[ my public key: https://keybase.io/izolate; my proof: https://keybase.io/izolate/sigs/D_F__KC4AmV91FVt6wDIwztG5W0sHqAJSV_3k-hz7B0 ]
meet.hn/city/42.8867166,-78.8783922/Buffalo Socials: - izolate.at.hn ---
Except if they're the central authority, in which case they can unilaterally rollback the blockchain, rewrite history and fork? Totally makes sense.
The only problem would be the time difference, assuming you're working for an American company.
I've spent 4 months in Japan as a digital nomad, while working for a company based in Europe. It worked. Now that I live and work in the US, I'm pretty sure the time difference would be too disruptive.
Honestly, this seems like an ill-attempt at garnering views to their startup-in-80-days endeavor with a clickbait article.
Overly simple, hacky, narrowly spec'd code produces the same tech debt as overengineering. Anybody who's worked in a move-fast-break-things type startup will know how much engineering resources are wasted on rewrites/bugfixes due to this.
Ultimately, as with many things in life, you need to find the right balance.
The CTO at this company was the first engineer. He was talented, and more passionate about engineering than management. He eventually stepped down to a similar role as they brought in a suit from the corporate world to replace him. That was around the time that I left.
Funnily enough, I always thought he was the most grounded person on the leadership team.
Pay it outright, if you can. It's usually the best way.
It boils down to this: a 100% remote policy doesn't rob you of what you need, but a 0% remote policy robs those of us who prefer WFH from what we need.
Instead developers take the shortcut of creating middleware that captures the Origin header in the request and mirrors it into the response, effectively creating the same insecure ruleset.
58G 63f,
1. Go down to line 582. Jump to the 63rd comma
3. Edit
Suggestion: have you considered learning to use Vim? I imagine most Vim users are reading your example wondering what the big deal is.
Not to take away from the spirit of your post, though. You have valid questions.
Then why is faang.io using a strict definition of FAANG? I think a loose definition is preferable, but clearly that's not a universally-held opinion.
However, the type guard section seems a bit off to me. Is the suggestion to check each and every property of `Product` in `isProduct`? Seems a bit verbose.
I tend to use Axios, which uses generics to set the payload return type (obviously, some trust in your API responses is needed here):
axios.get<Product[]>(...);