It sure seems like most tech jobs would only need therapy as a means of last resort. Keeping a mindful eye towards burnout and adjusting your response to it based on the type seems like solid advice.
I see it as:
1. The complainer: sit down and negotiate a way that person can make a bigger impact that's measurable
2. The avoider: simply try to get this person to do something they are excited about
3. The worn-out individual: this person probably just needs a bit of regular recognition (and no overtime)
Personally, I find way more people in categories 1 and 2, though category 3 definitely happens in startup land where people work way too much and only see the mountain in front of them is never getting smaller.
Of course I'm being a bit of an armchair manager, but it seems like a fairly decent starting point.
This approach to discussing inheritance treats JavaScript as if you're a Java or C++ programmer, and completely lacks any clarity with how inheritance in JavaScript really works.
Best intro I've read on the topic I'm talking about is from Alex Sexton (just read the last example, it really hits the nail on the head):
So you might want a wee bit of hierarchy, if you're thinking like those "shared options" scenario, but not in the "OO type abstraction tree".
So, you might have something like a "Account.prototype.primeInterestRate" property that you can change in a running program, and then all the other types of account can calculate interest based on that shared property.
However, the more experienced jS developers I've met might take those "Account.prototype.balance" and "Account.prototype.deposit" methods, and push those into a "mixin" type (like "CurrentBalance") where those methods are copied (not inherited) onto the child class prototype, and those methods, might have initializer helpers to set up the "currentBalance" property they use. This mixin approach only gets gnarly if there's any feature envy. (Document your object properties clearly, folks. This is where javaScript's flexibility often becomes a crutch - lots of issues happen if mixin code uses "this.foo" for different things.)
Anyhow, what's interesting here is that Account carries the property that's shared, but CurrentBalance carries "behaviors", and is not shared, and your "child classes" like VisaDebitAccount embed both in different ways. It is a very different way of thinking about object relationships, and often works smoothly.
But if you're using classes in JavaScript like you would Java, well, then, you're not really using JavaScript, right? And, this whole talk about biological-style ontology just becomes the wrong metaphor, because while "humans are a primate" we can't change aspects of primates to add behavior to people!
A few different police departments in California are trying out camera systems. I've only heard about Rialto, but I know they're being tried out in the Bay Area, and I think wider Los Angeles.
This sort of "git pull" slam is really just an aftershock of shooting yourself in the foot.
The UX of git is so different from other tools, but seems so similar. It's a real problem for newbies. It's easy to think you know what's going on, because is vaguely similar to other operations. And, for the impatient, the documentation is really, really obnoxious. And most developers I've met are fairly impatient.
End result: most developers I've met has shot themselves in the foot when they started to use git.
When I bring people onto git now, I start them with a nice visual tool in an existing repo; my current favorite is SourceTree. But that's not a requirement. The simple fact that they can a nice history log with see tags of "origin/master" and "master" usually triggers that "WTF" experience and they start asking the right questions. If I start them with a new repo, and then have them add, and stage, it's all a bunch of things they could figure out, and they get impatient, and then bad things happen when it comes time to play with others.
I wonder if people will be happier or more frustrated with the lottery setup.
And... I wonder if such a lottery system would help take on general ticket scalping. (I could see a lottery mechanism doing some kind of 'real person' verification.)
>> Conversely, not pounding F5 until I get a ticket makes me feel powerless.
Actually, last year they implemented some kind of IP-based persistence for each potential attendee: you could try to get on queue for a ticket on your smartphone or laptop and every time you access the timer did a reset.
I know the year before last the tickets were transferable if you claimed you couldn't attend, but they weren't this past Google IO. Not that people don't register and then just sell the badge or share it anyway.
edit: I could see this being just a good general approach to development. Like a concrete how-to on doing continuous delivery from day one.
I've even started using grunt with a C++ project I'm working on, and if I make sure that from day one I can start up from a new machine:
% grunt init
... my life is better.
It's interesting, grunt is a nice "automation layer", as opposed to a build tool. I'm now using it to automate my build setup. Having that extra thing to bring it all together into one command makes it all so much easier.
Grunt is not a great build tool. It's not terrible, either, but it puts too much emphasis on a giant declarative config object.
But Grunt has a huge library of plugins that cover all your build automation needs, and that's made it the de-facto standard for build automation in the JavaScript world.
I'm working on a universal build format that would allow you bring the convenience of Grunt plugins to other tools as well. (I'm fond of Jake, myself.) PM me or follow my Github [1] for more. The first version's going up next week.
I am wondering the same thing. I would imagine that if your whole stack (especially build system) is built ontop of javascript you could have a level of meta programming via esprima, but the rest is bla
The effect is just reminiscent of a very simple FM synth; you start with a sine wave and add another waveform whose cycle starts below the audible spectrum. Start cranking it up, and you don't hear any "pulse" it just takes on a different timbre.
So, by playing a bunch of notes really fast, you just end up with a different kind of buzz.
I'd rather just use a synth. This is like monkeying with waveforms using a step function. Kind of limited.
I love this idea. I think this is a fantastic opportunity for us plebs to start speculating.
It would be very nice to see if the crowd has a different kind of investment trend from the accredited investors.
Edit: Mostly, I'm curious if there will be enough numbers to see a "wisdom of the crowd" effect or if it will actually just amplify whatever the big money tends to be attracted to.
Right, it's a little disappointing that the blog of a fairly well-known economist just uses some basic anecdotal evidence. I'd hope he'd provide some kind of deeper insight, but I guess that's what passes for quality on the Times these days.
I see it as:
1. The complainer: sit down and negotiate a way that person can make a bigger impact that's measurable
2. The avoider: simply try to get this person to do something they are excited about
3. The worn-out individual: this person probably just needs a bit of regular recognition (and no overtime)
Personally, I find way more people in categories 1 and 2, though category 3 definitely happens in startup land where people work way too much and only see the mountain in front of them is never getting smaller.
Of course I'm being a bit of an armchair manager, but it seems like a fairly decent starting point.