I recently moved into a full stack developer role. Not because I am a rock star ninja coder, but because I am the only developer employee in the entire company. The only difference now from some of my more specialist dev roles is that I spend a lot more time researching things on Google/Stackoverflow etc. So when I hear full stack developer I can help but thinking "So you spend a lot of time on Google as well?" :)
No, I don't. It is certainly possible to become competent web developer over whole stack as long as you don't expect to be proficient in every currently popular framework out there.
Pick a set of tools, learn them well and move laterally/dive deeper when you need to.
The real issue is how much a corporation can enforce "correct" opinions among it's employees. This was an internal company forum. He expressed opinions that deviated from company policy (and from the sounds of it a lot of other employees at Google disagreed as well) and a lively debated ensued. OK that what sounds like a healthy thing to have happen and get ideas out there and agreed upon or shot down. However by firing him that sends a very clear message that any deviation from the norm will not be tolerated. That's not diversity, that is an attempt at moral conformity.
"And so if a founder can’t navigate a network into a VC firm, it is unlikely that founder has the skills to navigate the other networks required to succeed in building a company."
At what point does it make more sense to use your networking skills to acquire more customers than use those same networking skills to acquire VC dollars?
A strong network is generally fairly adaptable. The work goes into building the network, not tapping it.
Once you have the network in place, you can just as easily tap it to find a VC as to find customers. (Of course, this is assuming that your customers are generally in overlapping industries/areas, which isn't always true.)
Ask question the opposite way: at what point is getting an investment going to exceed the rate at which you acquire customers and revenue compared to doing it without the investment? Your default plan should be no investment if possible.
As a lazy windows dev, I have seen more things go to web applications than desktop apps. One of my current work projects would be great as a desktop app. The client/ server divide in this website has added no small amount of hours keeping track of object state between the client and server. A desktop app would have made things much simpler in that regard. I am a big fan of desktop apps and have made a career developing them in .Net, but adding more hoops to jump through is not the answer in this regard.
When I had newborns if I had to take work home with me or stay late it would increase the stress on my wife to take care of the kids. So even if I was a little sleep deprived I went into work with a "I have eight hours to get this crap done" attitude that really pushed up my productivity levels.
As far as skilling up there is more to developing skills than just pushing code to GitHub. I found that it's easier to read a Kindle one handed (holding a baby with the other) so I started buying books about some of the more theoretical aspects of computer science that don't always seem to go with my day to day coding job. I have had many "light bulb" moments doing that by either being reminded of things I had learned in school or learning something new about how things work.
This is a very good paper and it's disappointing that it didn't get higher on HN.
That being said I disagree with some of paper's points. I don't believe that cryptographers should take on moral responsibility for how they perceive their work may or may not be used. If a malware writer uses XTS to lock up a hard drive should Dr Rogeway be morally responsible for that since he helped create the constructions for XTS? I would argue "no" because there is a moral separation between idea and implementation. We should not burden cryptographers with moral baggage that should be placed on the people who implement or set policy to implement.
There is a clear distinction between a moral responsibility and a legal liability. The moral duties of scientists versus policy makers have little to do with the moral separation between idea and implementation.
Are you arguing that the scientists who developed the first atomic bomb share no moral responsibility for the (positive or negative) effects of its use?
Dr. Rogeway is morally responsible both for the use of his encryption for cyber ransom and for the use of his encryption to allow private democratic and economic discourse.
If you think the negative effects of publicly available encryption outweigh the positive effects, it would be immoral to be working on making better encryption publicly available.
Obviously, there is a complicated moral calculus behind which effects are foreseeable/likely relative to your other available actions and their foreseeable/likely effects.
That is correct. The hard part of the logistics industry is getting the integration between warehouse, trucking and operations correct. I worked as a programmer in this space and most of the time and money in this space is not going towards apps and websites (most logistics companies have that or have easy ability to get those things up and running) but integration between interested parties.
Something something EDI something something kill me.
I too worked in that space. Super not fun. You're absolutely right that there is tons of money to be made by interconnecting interested parties with incompatible systems. It is a massive industry but yet still there is room for new competition.
I agree with you and above, nobody is going to replace their warehouse system's automatically generated requests with this Uber clone, they want deep integration and this doesn't get them closer to that.
Companies are already competing with this but not by copying Uber but by acting as a data intermediary making it easy to connect logistics companies with their end users. Data compatibility is the "hard problem" not connecting two companies together.
One of the things I enjoy about Aikido is that many of the techniques have "nice" and "not so nice" variations. The ikkyo technique can put an opponent on the ground with a minimal amount of pain. The nikyo technique is similar in some ways but can hurt a heck of a lot more because of the way the wrist is manipulated. I am guessing your friend(s) was illustrating that aikido has some nice ways of inducing compliance and some "not so nice" wrist breaking ways of inducing compliance.
You have not given us one shred of evidence to back up your claims. Just because you include the words "Snowden","NSA backdoor", and "Dual EC" in a paragraph doesn't make any of your conclusions magically true. You have no papers,public comments, or code contributions to prove your point. Just a lot of assumptions.
