albrtpro

You are right about consensus. But I invite you to investigate how big the cancer industry is in worth/year and historically how it all has been created, and who owns it. Also to study the history of the American food industrialisation. Also to investigate who owns and influences the top media sources in the world. To be clear the point I was trying to make wasn't "GMO is the only cause of cancer" or "Genetical modifications on foods produce cancer". My point is "Current GMO products consumption is one of the contributors to cancer" - I'm not stating how, I'm stating that it has an effect. I know far more about the effects of meat and dairy than I do about GMO. But somewhere to get started would be here: http://nutritionfacts.org/video/are-gmos-safe-the-case-of-ro... (The page has links to all the scientific sources cited)

The sad truth is above 80% of the food you can find in a U.S. supermarket is transgenic or otherwise called GMO. All sorts of carbohydrate sources - which comprise a huge part of the U.S. diet - from cereals, refined sugars and the base of the american diet: corn fructose. Vegetables and meat that's been grown with also GMO feed has been genetically modified and released to the public without enough testing. One of the consequences is cancer. Cancer grows because the quality of your food, the biotechnology embedded in it and american eating habits are incredibly unhealthy and unsuited for its lifestyle. Research the lobbying between FDA and Monsanto, research the correlation between meat consumption and risk of heart disease and cancer, research the recommended daily intake of fibre and compare it to the average american diet, see the correlation with cancer. There lies the answer. This article is a lie. Monopolies ALWAYS create complexity (Zero to One - Peter Thiel). Here are what your typical bullshitting articles say: - Cancer is a living entity, like a virus. - Cancer is way more complex than we thought! - Cancer keeps growing and it's unstoppable - We still don't know how cancer is created

Start here: https://nutritionfacts.org

I lived this on my own skin with my mum getting cancer. This article has been completely lobbied by the pharmaceutical industry. No doubt.

It depends on the amount of things and deepness the developer has actually experienced/seen/solved/set up with that particular framework. I wouldn't assume someone is a senior only based on the years of experience. I've interviewed candidates with 5+ years PHP who are still lacking basic knowledge to be a senior.

Start with: what does senior mean for me and my company?

Based in London, where Lead Dev corresponds to those attitudes/skills. Personally: I'm afraid in a world with current growth of almost-free online programming courses/degrees, high demand, high rates and low competition, we're going to have to accept raising the "Engineer" skills to "Lead Developer / Architect" title.

If you compare with companies with big budget, yes those attitudes are what you find on the average engineer. In the London start-up world where budget is tight and VC's think short term that's normally not the case. It's hard to find solid architectural thinkers with experience who don't call themselves Leads, Architects and so on.

Are these skills and attitudes found in your area as just "engineers"?

Hire a Lead Dev before you hire engineers/programmers. You'll save SO much time and headaches.

I summarize here what I expect from Lead Devs:

- A lead knows how to architect solutions. Not just code them.

- A lead talks higher level than programmers/engineers. You don't want to hear code, you want to hear solutions/implications + pros/cons.

- A lead is interested in the interconnections with other systems, and doesn't overlook them.

- A lead has experienced a range of advanced problems (optimization, weirdest bugs, scale)

- A lead is able to recognise and be interested in the problems he hasn't come across yet, and has the will to tackle them asap if they are a priority for business.

- A lead has a quite deep understanding about the full range of solutions available to solve a problem on his platform. And he spends time on this daily, ideally because he's passionate about it (never seen it other way)

- When you ask a lead how to solve a fairly open engineering problem he'll come up with 1) A good range of approaches 2) Pros/Cons for each of them 3) For each pro/con advise based on his experience.

- A lead has confidence when taking a decision on architecture, he investigates the impacts beforehand. If he's wrong he recognises it.

- Ultimately a lead should be able to come up with a plan to help you refactor any mess with the lowest impact possible in the product. Ideally building the new on new refactored structure, and re-factoring the old by bits when maintenance is needed on those sections (low-budget approach..)

A lead will help you spot other good devs, including other platforms leads. From there, hire engineers who follow the Lead!