The point can be made very quickly yes, but the background and context provided is what made this a good read to me. Sometimes we need to marinate in a topic for it to enter into deeper layers of the brain.
This is one of the things about the novels he describes too, and their impact on empathy. Like, you can explain to someone in 3-4 sentences that slavery is cruel but that's not the same as inhabiting a characters circumstances for 500 pages.
It's a natural instinct for engineers, to think you should always convey information in the most efficient way possible, but it's actually not how real understanding tends to occur in the real world. You need a lot of noisy carrier signal and time and context etc.
Lol! He's gordon ramsay of tech, who's frequently contradictory himself. On Round 2 with lex, he said something like no one lost recently due to using digital Maps. Well, check this one - https://youtu.be/z5ElIor-oXk?si=XfcS1UtC2OWReVXr
He's bashing and insulting all engineers and then asking for their contributions and complaining that not many people are committing code in open source repos.
I also repeat the process with people that I'm responsible for onboarding. But it becomes my responsibility to compliment their contributions to the project in those early days so that it quells their nervousness about me tapping the brakes on their Bias Toward Action.
This is action, just not action that can tarnish both of us by shipping bugs to production.
Edit to add: I used to take ex coworkers out for coffee or beers around their last day and ask for a rundown of all the reasons they left. What you generally find if you let them keep talking is that they will run through the problems in reverse chronological order. The last thing they will mention is almost always what a joke the onboarding process was.
Last straws are the most recent thing that set the person off. All the straws before it add up, and if a person is already questioning the maturity of the organization on day 2 on the team, then I believe that multiplies your turnover rate. The longer you can go before a new employee says "what the actual fuck", is a multiplier on how long they will stick around.
Effectively, I think "the first 100 days" rule of thumb goes both ways. You get 100 days to show you're useful as an employee, but everyone already on the team is being held to the same yardstick by new employees. And if you're hiring at a high enough rate, having 20% of the team think the old employees are a waste of oxygen is not good for consensus building.
As far as I understand Acadia gives you Acadia <-> Native class data sync, only just Haskell and Elm at the moment unfortunately.
I'd be willing to rewrite queries in some other language that transpiles to SQL if it allows me to do all the queries I want and gives me full compile time type support for db access in return.
The policies look interesting too by the way, but they don't solve a major IMO.
> I'd be willing to rewrite queries in some other language that transpiles to SQL if it allows me to do all the queries I want and gives me full compile time type support for db access in return.
Full typed coverage for db is what I'm doing in Typegres [1] -- including all dialect built-in functions/operators.
And regarding policy, instead of RLS it's all based on ocap: reachability is permission. So: `api.user.posts()` automatically injects a `where` clause on the `users` table and it's composable wherever a SQL set expression is allowed: `api.user.posts().join(...).groupBy(...)`. Since we're building up a SQL expression tree, we avoid the N+1 problem entirely.
It is not only totally possible to be vegan, but it can be more healthy too. The Acadamy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the largest org for nutritionist and dieticians in the world, have a position paper out saying that a well planned diet is appropriate for all stages of life, including pregnancy. The NHS says the same thing. We even have vegan top athletes nowadays such as Djokovic and Hammilton. You can be vegan, so any justification you bring for violence against animals is for taste pleasure, habbit, culture and just generally not having evolved nor being up to date with the science.
So let each build script define its own level of sandboxing and then users can determine whether they are okay with that level or not, e.g. `cargo build --sandbox-level=...`
Rust, like C, C++, and every other systems programming language, is all about giving users the power to make mistakes. The philosophical difference when it comes to Rust is simply that it tries to force the user to flip off the safety on the gun before letting you shoot yourself in the foot. A Cargo config option letting people opt-out of sandboxing would be fully in line with Rust's philosophy.
Having a dangerous flag as a backwards compatibility flag is okay. I don’t think making users decide between multiple levels of sandboxing is constructive, they will just be trained to ignore it.
This is the kind of decision users likely don’t understand without looking at the source code of a crate and it’s bad UX to push it to be their responsibility.
No, the flag would not exist simply for backwards compatibility, it would exist because build scripts are occasionally necessary and there are plenty of legitimate uses for them, even if they should be opt-in.
Not the OP but chiming in as someone who has worked remote almost exclusively since 2015.
In my opinion that's the crux of this debate: social needs vs social remedies.
If you have high social needs but don't have a strong personal social network, then an office is a great remedy. It solves the problem for you by default.
Remote only seems to work for the inverse. Lower social needs, or a strong social network outside of work, or some mix of the two.
I'm fairly extroverted (as far as engineers go) and I'm grateful to have a social network I've cultivated personally. So remote has fit well for me. I can get my work done to a high standard without the obligation, then turn around and spend purposeful time with friends and family.
It's perfect for me, but not for everybody, and you can see that in the comments here.
What remote really did was expose how many people were relying on office culture to meet their social needs. That's not a bad thing. It just surfaced something that went under-noticed for a long time.
Voting with your wallet is like voting with your vote. It both works, but to an extent that will never be noticeable by you. You vote more often with your money than with your vote though. Don't buy into the nirvana fallacy nor be fatalistic. Be a responsible consumer and inform others on why they should vote wisely too.
The point can be made very quickly yes, but the background and context provided is what made this a good read to me. Sometimes we need to marinate in a topic for it to enter into deeper layers of the brain.