This idea of gathering deep domain knowledge isn't very realistic in my opinion. Not in slow moving, poorly managed companies at least, when compared to being a solo dev or working at a fast paced, well-organized startup.
I built a full stack app in about 6 months, at one point, 5 years ago. (frontend js framework, backend js framework, SQL framework)
I now work for a company whose applications aren't much more complex than what I built, in terms of systems and complexity. Though the apps are definitely much more polished and with many more complete UX & usage options. It makes millions of dollars.
At least at most large companies which are lumbering, slow moving, where 60% of people contribute and 40% of people barely hang on by pretending to work
(largely because A. they don't know what's going on due to poor documentation and poor requirements gathering, and B. they aren't qualified in the skills needed for currently under development work).
As a solo developer, I move much faster and learn much more on my own, than I do at my current job. Why? Because I direct my own work, on my own projects. I don't have someone who has never built an application, who has a project/product manager title, trying to gather requirements for something they've never done before.
Not to mention that they've never founded an organization and led it to success.
So, they don't understand how Apps are built, and the don't understand how Organizations are built and guided efficiently...
Combine this with a company that has a bunch of legacy applications and is now moving into somewhat over-hyped frameworks...
Yeah... Don't get me wrong-- I like the people I work with. I see a lot of under-qualified people in management who are slowing down the system because they can't efficiently organize people to do what they don't understand-- they have too many unknown unknowns in their ability to parse out upcoming work. Unfortunately, most of them were hired for currently-fashionable political reasons.
> I now work for a company whose applications aren't much more complex than what I built, in terms of systems and complexity. Though the apps are definitely much more polished and with many more complete UX & usage options. It makes millions of dollars.
This is exactly what I’ve found. Most of my work is technically easier than my personal projects.
There are definitely parts that are far more complex, but the vast majority of the company isn’t working in those areas.
From what I’ve seen, if you want domain knowledge you have to dig for it.
Posts like these remind me to stay away from Google for Business.
Google doesn't seem to care about their users-- This is a common problem with Google: There's no way to get in contact with a human-- unless you create a viral twitter post about the problem.
I liked classes to-- their lifecycle methods were so clear to work with.
That said, learning how useEffect replaces lifecycle methods is pretty quick to pickup. As is useState.
The lesser known hooks are what are difficult for me to understand. useRef is pretty clear. useMemo? I'm not quite sure what it's for, but I imagine it's not too tough to figure out if I spend a bit of time learning & experimenting with it.
So, although I liked the simplicity of class components, functional ones aren't too bad. They bring in some additional complications, but with a bit of effort it seems to all be learnable to me.
Big parties late at night in residential areas, vendors shooting while passing by, then dogs barking at them, delivery men in noisy motorcycles, then dogs barking at them again. I guess that’s why gated communities are trending in many Mexican cities now days.
> I guess that’s why gated communities are trending in many Mexican cities now days.
No, I'm sure the biggest value of a gated community is the added safety. You'd still get the noises you mentioned, except perhaps the street vendors if the gated area is remote or big enough. It's still a residential area with parties, dogs, and delivery motorcycles, after all.
a course on a topic does not dictate what policies in a society should or should not subscribe to.
Given that scientific discourse and outcomes fluctuate, we can assume the same is true social science.
Furthermore, social science is much more dependent on current fashionable political trends. This can be seen in the example of the American Psychological Association accepting recent political topics such as "toxic masculinity" [1] as new definitions in psychological phenomena.
Check out this PhD's work to show how usage of bombastic identity politics terminology increased in mainstream journalism in a non-organic way. It seems driven by top-down institution-based entryism. [2] & [3]
[2] "Many trends develop over decades but I’ve never seen change so rapid as the breathtaking success of what one might call social justice concerns. Beginning around 2010-2014 there appears to have been a inflection point. Here from Zach Goldberg on twitter are various words drawn from Lexis-Nexis."
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2019/06/th...
[3] "1/n Spent some time on LexisNexis over the weekend. Depending on your political orientation, what follows will either disturb or encourage you. But regardless of political orientation, I'm sure we can all say 'holy f*** s**'"
Are you allowing for the possibility that you may be incorrect, as in, these ideas are not new, are based on empirically-derived data, and their application results in positive outcomes?
From [1]:
> "Thirteen years in the making, they draw on more than 40 years of research showing that traditional masculinity is psychologically harmful and that socializing boys to suppress their emotions causes damage that echoes both inwardly and outwardly."
I'm afraid I can't give any credence to a politically divisive & politically-fashionable concept as "toxic masculinity". Especially if "toxic femininity" isn't commonly referenced in the same context-- because without it, a concept targeting only masculinity is biased in my view.
Masculinity kept humanity alive in the face of various dangerous precipices facing a group of social animals seeking to survive during the course of their evolution.
Just because it has become recently politically fashionable to discount it, does not mean it is harmful.
Nor do I believe any absolute-ist interpretation that boys suppress emotions, or that society forces them to suppress emotions. It varies across time & space-- relative to culture, which fluctuates.
To make a blanket statement on the concept is just plain silly, in my view. Human emotions, cultures, and societies are not static.
Therefore any sort of claim by any institution that their <some number> of years of study results in <some outcome> which speaks for <some absolute phenomena> in my opinion, again, is just plain silly.
And it attempts to gatekeep healthy masculinity-- again, pure silliness which demonstrates the nanny mentality of those who attempt such gatekeeping.
> Especially if "toxic femininity" isn't commonly referenced in the same context- because without it, a concept targeting only masculinity is biased in my view.
Why is that? To me, it seems like you're saying masculinity diametrically opposes femininity.
> Just because it has become recently politically fashionable to discount it, does not mean it is harmful.
I agree that masculinity in itself is not harmful. I believe you are conflating the specific term "toxic masculinity" with masculinity in general, though. I also believe that there are toxic aspects to masculinity that absolutely cause harm in many facets of life; for example, educational barriers, suicide rate, mental illness, and incarceration are all much higher in the male population. I don't think that these are aspects of masculinity that one must accept hand-in-hand with the benefits (earnings potential, proportion of leadership positions, etc). I would call these aspects of masculinity toxic.
> To make a blanket statement on the concept is just plain silly, in my view. Human emotions, cultures, and societies are not static.
To the extreme, this means nothing concrete can be said about human emotions, culture, and societies. I know you don't believe that.
But you raise an interesting possibility; did the modern notion of masculinity always exist? If, say, a past society (or modern, non-Western culture) achieved lower suicide rates in teenage boys, would it not be worth studying how those societies treated masculinity?
> Therefore any sort of claim by any institution that their <some number> of years of study results in <some outcome> which speaks for <some absolute phenomena> in my opinion, again, is just plain silly.
Would it help to point out that these studies have scientific methodologies; for example, they measure different treatment outcomes among a large and diverse enough population such that a statistical conclusion can be made?
> And it attempts to gatekeep healthy masculinity- again, pure silliness which demonstrates the nanny mentality of those who attempt such gatekeeping.
That's certainly a take I didn't get from reading the publication. The APA doesn't seem to be under the delusion that they can control how masculinity is viewed in society, anyway. To me, they have identified evidentiary harms caused to society as a whole through the negative conditioning of boys, given that conditioning a name that you disagree with, and have measured successful results by directly addressing that conditioning in psychological assessments. I am struggling to see a downside here.
> Would it help to point out that these studies have scientific methodologies; for example, they measure different treatment outcomes among a large and diverse enough population such that a statistical conclusion can be made?
What statistical conclusion is being made here? How does one quantify what is “toxic masculinity” and what isn’t?
" The APA doesn't seem to be under the delusion that they can control how masculinity is viewed in society, anyway."
The APA-- the professional org. which represents the field of psychology in the USA--[1] literally instituted a definition of "toxic masculinity".
If that isn't an attempt to control masculinity in society, I don't know what is.
[1] "APA is the leading scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States, with more than 133,000 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants, and students as its members." https://www.apa.org/about
I purchased the "Carson MicroBrite Plus 60x-120x Power LED Lighted Pocket Microscope"[1] for $15 on Amazon.
I love it for its portability and durability-- I can pop it in my pocket or backpack and check out stuff on nature trails.
...Checking out its amazon page I also see this related, more powerful product for $20: "Carson MicroFlip 100x-250x LED and UV Lighted Pocket Microscope with Flip Down Slide Base and Smartphone Digiscoping Clip" [2]
And a search for 1000x microscope yields this $60 one "LCD Digital Microscope,4.3 Inch 1080P 10 Megapixels,1-1000X Magnification Zoom Wireless USB Stereo Microscope Camera,10MP Camera Video Recorder with HD Screen" [3]
I'm more concerned about plastic fibers getting into the air via laundering (or simply regular activity of wearing them and little bits of plastic occasionally coming loose) than I am about the use of oil in the clothing.
I believe there should be more restrictions on the use of plastic in society, seeing as "Plastic Fibers Are Found in 83% of the World's Tap Water, a New Study Reveals"[1]
I agree. I think as long as you have an acceptable degree of financial security, that it is very healthy to face new challenges.
As someone who has taken a few sabbaticals--including leaving an apartment to live in a tent for months at a time in order to reduce expenses while traveling-- the fear, I think, of a sabbatical, is a fear of two things:
1. leaving comfort
2. facing the unknown
Both of these are growth experiences. You'll learn what you can live without, and you'll learn various new things through new experiences with the people you meet, new ideas you develop, and beautiful new places & experience you have.
When the criticism boils down to "you aren't doing what we tell you to do," or "I don't approve what you do with your body," then, oh, no, when directed towards women by men this is nothing less than misogyny, and denying it doesn't cut the mustard. Leave women alone, and then we'll know you're not a misogynist. Otherwise, the descriptor fits.
Saying something is real, does not make that thing real.
You are not the gatekeeper of what is and is not "misogyny".
Leave women alone? Are women somehow ordained with a shield against any criticism? No one can ever criticize a woman-- following that logic... women are always correct?
That sounds authoritarian to me.
Definition of authoritarian
1 : of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority 2 : of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people an authoritarian regime.
__________
The logic in: criticism != hatred is quite sound.
a definition of criticism: the expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes.
a definition of critique: a detailed analysis and assessment of something
a definition of hatred: intense dislike or ill will
The issue is no one has any place scrutinizing or judging another because it is hypocritical. That is the wisdom behind Matthew's 7th chapter. If you are perfect and make no mistakes, only then you can judge without hypocrisy. People do what they want, and they live with and are responsible for their decisions. Scrutiny from the peanut gallery doesn't enter into it. Mind yourself, and no one else, but if your compulsion and distaste gets the better of you regarding any behavior whatsoever of pregnant women, be prepared to be labelled, justly or not.
CRUD is just one of an application's layers. It allows adding/removing/updating data. This is simply a data-foundation for an application.
Of course it feels the same across apps and industries-- it's a concrete slab upon which you build things.
Add layers on top of that, such as:
- Data visualizations. You have data from your CRUD, so do something creative with it. If you're familiar with ReactJS, check out open source, free libraries such as: https://nivo.rocks/ and https://charts.ant.design/
- Data integrations. Depending on the business you're in, experiment with integrating your CRUD app with external data sources via REST API or GraphQL. For example, a CRM like Salesforce or Marketo. Or a REST API in a particular business domain. Or a Google product which a customer might use, such as google drive.
I built a full stack app in about 6 months, at one point, 5 years ago. (frontend js framework, backend js framework, SQL framework)
I now work for a company whose applications aren't much more complex than what I built, in terms of systems and complexity. Though the apps are definitely much more polished and with many more complete UX & usage options. It makes millions of dollars.
At least at most large companies which are lumbering, slow moving, where 60% of people contribute and 40% of people barely hang on by pretending to work
(largely because A. they don't know what's going on due to poor documentation and poor requirements gathering, and B. they aren't qualified in the skills needed for currently under development work).
As a solo developer, I move much faster and learn much more on my own, than I do at my current job. Why? Because I direct my own work, on my own projects. I don't have someone who has never built an application, who has a project/product manager title, trying to gather requirements for something they've never done before.
Not to mention that they've never founded an organization and led it to success. So, they don't understand how Apps are built, and the don't understand how Organizations are built and guided efficiently...
Combine this with a company that has a bunch of legacy applications and is now moving into somewhat over-hyped frameworks...
Yeah... Don't get me wrong-- I like the people I work with. I see a lot of under-qualified people in management who are slowing down the system because they can't efficiently organize people to do what they don't understand-- they have too many unknown unknowns in their ability to parse out upcoming work. Unfortunately, most of them were hired for currently-fashionable political reasons.