What's sort of peculiar is - as far as I've seen/read - he's never been penitent about his past unethical behavior. No: "Yeah, I used to be a dick. I regret leading my company that way" or anything like that.
I rather legal opinions not fall back on founder-worship for their legal basis...
The founders explicitly didn't include any rights in the constitution. The Bill of Rights was begrudgingly added later as a compromise after the constitution was approved by the states.
Furthermore, the right to privacy is really not on the same level as the other rights (where things are more black and white) and the 14th amendment was passed in the 1860s - well after any "founders"
"When you get back to the "real world" you'll never see it the same again :)"
I've been thinking about taking 9 months off (specifically traveling China, and learning Mandarin).
I'm worried that with all that taste of freedom I'll have an even harder time coming back and sitting in an office 8hrs/day (some weeks it's already like pulling teeth)
I've heard that the whole quantum tunneling stuff is in practical terms bullshit. While it's a real effect (and physicists looove to talk about it), it's virtually irrelevant b/c the overwhelming issues is parasitic capacitances. When you have a 3Ghz clocks, everything acts like a capacitor and you have current leaking all over the place (the smaller the circuit the closer all the elements are).
So transistors in modern processors don't end up switching consistently. There is all sorts of error correction to compensate for that, but it only goes so far.
I think the general priority has been to improve single thread performance and for good reasons.
While there are plenty of problems that are parallelizable, a great majority of problems are sequential. Even if you think of say on the OS level - of running every process on a separate CPU/core/whatever - the single thread performance still comes out being the most important factor
After a first reading I felt that it really resonated.
However, if you think of people that do persue what THEY want from life, they are often quite miserable too. Asking yourself "what would you do if money wasn't a concern and you had all the time in the world" ends up not being particularly meaningful. People born into wealthy families try to figure out what THEY want out of life, and end they are just as depressed and full of self-doubt. Sure you can spend a year surfing in Hawaii, or painting, or gardening, but they end up feeling like ephemeral distractions (unless you go all out and turn into an adrenalin junky - though I don't know honestly how happy they are). Lasting motivation comes from your interactions with the world - and often "doing things that OTHER people wanted" is (if you're honest with yourself) to a degree "what YOU wanted out of life" .
Well that's a lot more reasonable - but it seems like they should just hold off on publishing the thing till they finish editing it. The system seems a bit sloppy
Thanks for the pointer. In truth, I use a GUI (gitExtentions). I like it a lot more than the command line. Hopefully this is implemented somewhere. I'll look into it!
I'd be very hesitant with "commit often". Each commit should represent a finished bit of a bigger feature.. Each commit should compile (...generally. With exceptions). Commits that fix spelling, or change some spacing issues end up cluttering the history and making it hard to see what's being actually done. When someone looks over your code they should see things like:
commit1: he/she added some methods
commit2: refactored some code
commit3: he/she plugged in the methods created into the refactored code
etc.
The branch as a whole should be a finished feature. Keep the features small-ish. Try not to have a branch that living on it's own for a long time. You can merge the master branch into it, however you'll slowly be out of sync with your team b/c they don't really know what you're up to.
The only thing I absolutely detest in Git, is that is no quick method to change history on local changes. Say I add a method and make a commit - then I do a bunch of other work and 10 commits later I realize that the method I had written needed to be const. Instead of be able to edit that commit and add the const labels, I end up having to make another commit that no one cares about and no one really should have to look at. It just makes the history incredibly cluttered and make it a lot harder to find the commits I'm interested in.
The workaround is to make a new branch and cherry pick changes - but it's a huge PITA and easy to mess up
Aside:
Does anyone know what diff tool is best for working in C++? The diffs I commit (using kdiff) can sometimes be mind-boggling hideous b/c the diff program parsed things in some strange way.
I grew up in the area, and I no longer want to go back; and neither do most of the friends I grew up with. It has not only gotten more expensive, but the culture has changed significantly.
The intransigent "family farm" that is ingrained in the American psyche is being eroded by a practical reality - and on some level everyone feels it. The newer generations are increasingly less attached to their place of birth. The Bay Area is rapidly changing, and I'm happy for all the people that now live there and call it their home.
It's no longer my cup of tea, but I'll find my place somewhere else. Please don't feel sorry for me =)
I have a similar issue with the Metro color scheme. It's incredibly overstimulating. Each time I open the start menu, I feel like I just walked in to a kindergarten. I wish there was a way to make it black and white b.c applications icons are generally colored as it is (but get washed out by the tsunami of color coming at you)
Sounds like they need oil-rig hours. 2 weeks on, 1 week off. Or something to that effect. Make people work insane hours, but give them 2-3 months of vacation a year.
Maybe I'm not well read enough about it though