paulojreis

Overleaf builds modern collaborative authoring tools for scientists --- like Google Docs for Science. We have over six million registered users from around the world. Our primary product is an online, real-time collaborative editor for papers, theses, technical reports and other documents written in the LaTeX markup language.

We are looking to hire an enthusiastic Product Manager to join one of our new multidisciplinary teams. You will take ownership of researching, understanding and developing a part of our customer journey, shaping up its roadmap and defining how to measure success. You will also lead on projects related to your area of expertise from start to finish.

Some reasons you'd enjoy working with us:

- We’re very much user-centric. We use mixed-methods research to inform our product decisions, assess our solutions and, in general, to keep in touch with our user base

- You will have autonomy whilst being part of a cross-functional team of designers and developers, with whom you will work closely to help our users create their best work on Overleaf.

- Working hours can be flexible to your needs. Our core hours are 2pm--5pm UK time. Applicants in the US, Canada and UK/EU are preferred.

- Remote is a first class citizen; even before the pandemic, all founders and employees worked remotely. When we can do so again, we'll get everyone together in London a few times a year for valuable face to face time.

Apply here: https://apply.workable.com/overleaf/j/F8E83AAD79/

A very entertaining read, IMO.

Anyway, the project is really great and impressive! :)

Yes, but I'd argue it's not a very helpful rule. As it has been said before, it's pretty much like saying that the golden rule to get rich is "money in vs. money out". Correct, but not very helpful.

The good part is that it's not that bad to fit within the company infrastructure, particularly if it's a BigCorp kind of thing. It's interesting because it allows you to play well with CI processes and quality rules - I'm thinking about tests here. With this kind of setup, you can make the front-end build fail if e.g. code coverage drops below a given threshold, using the same setup you use for other components.

The boring part is that it's yet another place to put config info. A particularly ugly one which reeks of over-engineering IMHO. Also it's XML; XML isn't quite the song of the front-end people, at least config-wise. :)

In Portugal, it seems to be coming from the rental market. In the sense that there's been an increase in tourism and the increased demand for short-term accommodation is being fulfilled with properties which were previously for longer rentals.

Probably people will end up using JS for this, and that's OK, but I really think this approach actually fits the way standards "define" HTML and CSS.

My point being: labor laws are fundamental, but they don't trump a) on one hand, a bad economical situation; and b) on the other hand, a die-hard culture of constantly finding ways around the law.

Really, it's just too deliberately traumatic.

Anyway, the most present case for me is really Angular, where DOM elements are usually added because they are needed (and actually beneficial, if you like a component-based architecture and DRYness). Angular 1.x deprecated the `replace` option for element directives a few months ago (i.e. your <my-directive> will be in the DOM). Also, AFAIK, it never supported the `replace` behaviour in components (which are always elements). This means that, currently, Angular and Flexbox don't play very well together...

It's possible, but what you get back from HN is also enormous; from jobs to interactions with very smart people. I mean, Alan Kay was involved in discussions here, just yesterday!

This is horrible, IMHO. Flex containers will layout the flex items, which are by definition its direct descendants. If by some reason [1] you get an extra DOM element between the flex container and the item you intend to layout, then you're in for a rewrite of the CSS and maybe some extra classes.

Also, this bug in Webkit is rather inconvenient: https://github.com/philipwalton/flexbugs/issues/115

[1] For instance, if you create an Angular element directive.

My perspective on Castells is biased because it was essentially the backbone of my academic training. I had teachers telling us explicitly that Castells' notion of information society was the framework (in the Kuhnian sense) on which we'd build upon. Having that in mind, I see Castells as a sociologist and his work (sociological) as a view on a society defined by information flows (not exactly computing, although computing and telecommunications are key enablers). Still, he keeps technological determinism at bay by considering the impact of geography, territory, matter - the physical (tangible?) dimension.

What I like quite much about his work is exactly this aspect: he presents a vision of a society dominated by the intangible, while still dedicating rather extensive chapters on the geographical asymmetries of the world. This avoidance of technological determinism, the "information is key but place and physicality still matter a lot, as evidenced by real-world data" notion is why I see Castells as a great reference.

Thinking about it, from a practical perspective, I'd eventually suggest "The Internet Galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, Business, and Society" instead of the trilogy. It should be more readable, definitely smaller, while still addressing most important concepts (for me, it was the spatial configuration in the information society: the space of flows).

Having that audience in mind, wouldn't Manuel Castells' work (mostly, the "The Information Age" trilogy) be a good reference? Probably a little too vast.

Personally, while I consider myself pretty disciplined, I feel deeply frustrated (almost angry at myself) whenever I'm actually trying to focus on something and feel the need to also do/see/check/read something else. Not exactly a facebook feed, but I've come to Hacker News while reading. I don't know what's the most commonly accepted definition of addiction, but this certainly feels like it.

http://www.amazon.com/Shallows-What-Internet-Doing-Brains/dp...

This is eventually the main reason why I mentioned Bateson's work in particular (besides the depth and orthogonality of his ideas).

I've read Watzlawick's work on interaction and pragmatics of communication before I've read Bateson's. I found Watzlawick's ideas easier to grasp (at least, I'm under that illusion), clearly presented with e.g. axioms. Then I read Bateson's work, and got this strange feeling of dwelling around the same underlying concepts, but without a clear understanding of his main argument.

I've read "Steps to an Ecology of Mind" quite a few times (I still re-read some chapters every once in a while) and always felt that a) I'm reading new material; and b) I'm not getting it all. Yet, I always get something new, and this is an extremely interesting insight on how my own perception changes over time.

Of course, this happens with other books and authors. Still, personally, I have a clear feeling that not to the same extent as it happens with Bateson's ideas. It's my own mirror, so to speak.

I hope it goes without saying: thank you very much for your contribution to the world, generally.

Eventually perusing the Eurostat database itself would give a better picture of the evolution.

Besides the kind-of evolutionary argument (which might be downplayed on a globalised world), you'd have to consider the history and culture which languages carry. There are e.g. many recipes in my mother tongue which are named from historical and social context; all this would be somewhat lost in translation.

Obviously you have a point and there would be a lot of advantages on standardising on a language. The great issue is then on weighting pros & cons. Or greatest, even: being able to even begin to consider the cons. Can we really have an objective measure of how much we, mankind, would lose by turning all languages except English in dead languages?

Anyway, it doesn't matter much as the biggest obstacle is obviously political, not cultural.

[1] which was said to be a hoax, but after all not so much: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/there...

Sorry, but no, not at all. I explicitly said "sometimes": "sometimes, low performance is low commitment or carelessness". My message since the beginning has been that, while not a great indicator, previous performance will at least have some correlation with future performance. Again, it's not great, but it's also not a random relationship.

I hope it goest without saying, you can and should try to have a deeper look at the context.

As I said in other comments, I agree with the general premise of what you say. I also do, on the other hand, have some experience of the common workplace to know that sometimes, low performance is low commitment or carelessness. And both will very possibly transfer to other position. Again, previous performance is not a great indicator; I understand, however, that people might have to resort to it sometimes.

Bottom line is: I'd totally understand a manager not accepting a guy that failed elsewhere in the same company; he would possibly be wrong in doing so, but - really - what would you do? I'd eventually try to interview the guy but, in the end, if I got two "final" candidates and one of them already failed in the company, I'd go for the other.