discussDev

I think you should let kids be creative and TRY to make useful things, but the quality of most things I made in school when I was creative and developing things was rather low quality in general because I needed to have all the learning experiences. So I don't think in general kids should be trying to build quality useful things but maybe we can just let them take a shot at everything to see how to do it instead.

I agree, I mean to the kids (And some adults with nothing else to do) the digital items and such are "Getting Rich"

I wish there was always an option to user zero based graphs.

Amen, all the structures in the world are useless if it's not producing something useful.

I think office 365 killed it. Microsoft added enough value to be "why not?".

This is probably a dumb question, but how do you dump the photos from your phone to your computer?

While a small percentage of people will have things that can't be used, my IR camera also connects directly to the phone bottom and you specify what port you want when you buy it as it is flush with the phone. For most people however I doubt it will be an issue.

Ooo, we could use LED's that project an image as it goes around and sell that image space to advertisers. /s

Or we think we do, giving ourselves a much needed boost to ego and letting the cycle continue and keep everyone happy. Always assuming that we have made things "simple" because we know our way and not someone else's etc. That being said there's a lot of progress in the end but we take a lot of steps backwards to get there.

It's the boring solution. It should also only be the default answer if you are not building a super critical system to life and limb. But it certainly gives a much lower total cost of ownership. If you don't have the resources for some big redundant system, I've too often seen the complexity added by the redundant system be the issue then focusing on simplicity. If you need to add a bunch of people to support complexity but both the money and the risk assessment doesn't call for it, simpler is much better. I won't say I haven't seen the issue where eventually it was only a huge project to go forward, but I tend to think sometimes even that is less then the sum of having dealt with complexity to that point, it's dependent on a lot about what you are building.

Half the time it does something, I don't know what I did, and I'm in a rush and so instead of sitting down and having a happy little moment I'm annoyed at having it do some unexpected, unrepeatable thing.

There's a bunch of things I agree or don't agree with in this but I'll put my unpopular opinion that I see as an issue even here... The point of devops is to build a consistent platform across all environments programmatically. If you have engrs using a tarball or setting it up some other way then you are doing it wrong and of course you have issues. Also all of your in house projects should use a similar technology stack that you are 100% experts on, half the time someone wants some node instead of php-fpm or something its because they just don't want to learn the other platform... or they are bored and want to add tech just to try new things, don't let them. Build consistent application stacks, deploy them consistently... way fewer issues, way better knowledge transfer, way more maintainable, way cheaper. Hire devs that even want to use the same IDE, same operating systems, again everyone has the same issues and they can be better resolved.

Edit: This allows the devs to focus on the business problems and solve them within the stack instead of spending time fighting the technology, it works great.

If it wasn't then who built it? Or is it the quotes we should focus on.

There is a time and place but as soon as you have a few teams that build thigns differently or someone wants to upgrade how things are done on a very big project you will wish you used services instead of modules.

Misleading title, funny enough the road outside my house is nothing more then compacted gravel that the intentionally leave the dust in... its called B2 modified I think. so as long as your moon buggies have reasonably wide tire to weight all you need to do is grind it to the right size and compact it. ... but the article itself is about much more then that and it will be interesting if 57M can actually build a solid structure from those materials. As others have said no water or anything so if it can be done without a big supply chain then I bet the "tech" will be to compress what's there into bricks of some sort. So they just reproduce the materials here and see how much they need to be compressed to make something usable.

This is what an architect should be doing. Too often people are made architects that never had to maintain a system more then a few years if that and aligning new tech for every problem until you end up with an unworkable, inconsistant, mess that can't be easily estimated.

I'm not sure this is too unpopular. In our groups not rebasing seems to be winning.

I think there are quite a few different options in the real world too. Through your kids school, through the local bar, etc... each physical location has different social rules that allow people to connect in different ways. In much the same way you can get bored of hanging out one place and go somewhere else. I do think so many people on their phones have been detrimental to some real life interaction. (Edited to not sound like I disagree with parent so much)

I think the point is they almost always have at least one person on site ;-)