The title seems a bit misleading. I thought they were talking about LSD or psilocybin. But this is referring to an MDMA-based therapy which I feel is more of a stimulant, or at least is used as one more often than it's used as a psychedelic and it's an amphetamine.
It's astonishing. I had a hard time wrapping my head around this...he is quite literally being REWARDED for failure. I knew the world wasn't fair, but wow.
Interesting, but I'm not a huge fan of this article. The best I was able to surmise was that the SEC may do something in some cases where cryptocurrencies are treated like securities but I wasn't able to garner any information on what the deal with Dogecoin is right now nor what has been done or may be done against Musk in particular in relation to Dogecoin.
This is so based. Now I don't know anything anymore is the author Derek Sivers from California who now lives in New Zealand even real. Is anything on his about page even true? How are we supposed to trust it? Then again, it doesn't matter.
But I think that's what truly makes it "engineering." Programming and solving problems are fun in a vacuum but tech is just a lot more than that. Being able to produce a solution to a problem today doesn't mean that the same solution will work tomorrow. That's why we have to _engineer_ a solution, not just produce one.
I'd argue this is true of any engineering discipline. For example consider this analogy: we build bridges to solve the problem of being unable to cross to the other side. But we could also solve this with, say, a boat, to paddle ourselves across the body of water instead; in fact, that's a much more immediate solution that solves the exact same problem. But is it sustainable? Is it scalable? Can it handle traffic? To address these concerns, we _engineer_ a bridge.
Software that's meant to service a lot of people can't just be written to solve a particular problem today -- it must be _engineered_ so that it's future-proof, which is to say, easy to scale, easy to read, easy to refactor, etc. So often the simplest programming challenges become particularly difficult and often interesting engineering challenges.
Finally, to actually answer your question, it entirely depends on the company, the size of the team, and the commitment to code quality and engineering that that team has. Working at Google on the search team, for example, wouldn't be a great fit for you because every line of code you write has to be engineered! But working at a startup might.
But this comes with tradeoffs. Often times, the solution you write will have to be rewritten if you want your product to succeed. Refactoring and re-architecting things are a necessary evil as technology, hardware, and languages + frameworks change over time. I've worked at places where I've found myself repeatedly having to work on the same things over and over again because of how poorly engineered they are! If you enjoy programming and solving new problems and you want to have a career doing that where presumably you're building some sort of product, you have to engineer at least somewhat reasonable solutions today so that you can work on something new, exciting, and cool tomorrow.
I'm from an Asian country and I'm an only child so my relationship with my parents is similar to my relationship with some of my close friends.
Granted my parents have changed over time and their values and beliefs now aren't what they were when we first immigrated to America. I count myself very lucky that they were able to adapt and leave some of their antiquated views behind.
This isn't always true of Asian families; I have a friend in the same boat as me but I also have one who has an extremely strained relationship with her parents due to their conservative and unchanging views on things.
Hello so the first thing you want to do is see a mental health professional and/or therapy. The second thing is, SSRIs tend to be pretty benign. I'm on Lexapro and the side effects are pretty tolerable and the benefits far outweigh the side effects. I wish you luck on this journey.
I feel like this might be a better and more feasible solution. Is there a reason that JS can collect as much data as it does about our hardware? I feel like I always hear the mantra, "The browser is a sandbox," but reading articles like this make me really unconfident that that is true. I don't really have too much of an idea of how WebGL works, but I wonder if there's a way to create some sort of additional abstraction layer between a website and the hardware? So JS just has access to "hardware interfaces" like a CPU and a GPU but can only interact with via this interface. That way, even if a site wanted to, the best it could do is determine that your computer has a GPU or a CPU but not how many cores or what type of GPU?
This would however have the downside of incurring an additional latency with an additional abstraction, but if there was a way you turn this off with trusted websites and only leave it on when you're using a site you don't trust it could be more usable? It just seems better than disabling JS entirely since a lot of websites just completely break without JS.
It just seems like with the amount of information that JS can collect, even if you're using TOR or a VPN, if you crunch all the information about a particular user, like the kind of OS they're running, the version of the browser, the screen ratio, mouse click movements, time of access, number of CPU cores, type of GPU, whether or not it's a VM, etc., it just feels like you might be able to devise a pretty reasonable heuristic for where this person is and the kind of computer they're using. I can't really say I know the extent of browser and JS capabilities, but these things already seem alarming enough where I wouldn't really feel super confident that I can't be tracked even with TOR or a VPN.
Huh, this is pretty interesting. I'm not really familiar with Smash.gg, but if what people in this thread are saying is true, that it's a fairly straightforward platform that could be easily reproduced by Microsoft, then it seems like this acquisition was almost altruistically motivated. It feels like it's easy for a lot of big companies to make better competing products and drive the little guy into extinction, but this acqusition move feels like the company encourages startups and isn't entirely motivated by greed. But I may be biased; I already do like Microsoft, Nadella, and what the company does and how far it has come since the Ballmer days.
I'm not sure I'm understanding the point of this article. Every language and language paradigm is awkward if it's used for purposes it's not meant for. Writing a game is something that is really heavily dependent on mainting some sort of state and functional programming in principle is supposed to be stateless. So, unsurprisingly, it's awkward to use FP for game development.