https://github.com/donaq/topovica <-- Code is ugly, there's no consistent style and there are no tests. Some bugs also exist, but I was just trying to get from zero to "meh, good enough for me" as fast as I could. Feel free to use it however you see fit.
HQ in Paris killed the Singapore branch because the company was not making money. I was given 1.5 months of notice, which seemed like plenty of time. There wasn't much drama to it that was intrinsic to the situation. I would have really liked a remote job at the time, so I tried a couple of the ones listed on HN's "Who's Hiring" thread, but didn't get any offers. With a week left before I was officially unemployed, I then interviewed with a startup and PayPal. The startup was ready to move forward, so I asked if PayPal was going to give me an offer as well. They said yes, so I rejected the startup's offer because I wanted to work somewhere where there was scale. Unfortunately, PayPal then experienced a management change, followed by a hiring freeze, after which the guys who assured me an offer was forthcoming, to their credit, continued to try to get me that offer. I waited because I trusted them but they were ultimately unsuccessful, which resulted in me being unemployed for about 2 months. I eventually got a job with another startup. I guess the moral of my story is that an offer is not an offer until you get your first paycheck?
Isn't it possible that a significant fraction of mature humpback whales have had bad encounters with killer whales when they were younger and just always mess with them when they can?
Aren't there deterministic interpretations of QM? Or have those been disproven?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but chaotic systems are unpredictable because they are complex and infinitesimally small variations in starting conditions result in hugely different outcomes. They are not, however, non-deterministic. If the universe is merely chaotic and not actually stochastic, then the existence of you and your children are not only not unlikely, it was inevitable.
Location: Singapore
Remote: yes
Willing to relocate: yes
Technologies (used in professional capacity): Python, Gevent, Django, Javascript, JQuery, NodeJS, Java, Clojure, Storm, Redis, HBase, Postgres, MySQL, Bash, Awk, Perl, C++, PHP.
Resume: Email me or https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=77186689
Email: adrianqsk at gmail
"Young women don't magically become technologists at 22. Neither do young men. Hackers are born in childhood..."
Nitpick: I actually only started learning to program in university as an undergraduate (I was ~21). I have a female friend who had a similar start, so you don't necessarily have to start as a child. It's not gymnastics. The thrill of solving puzzles can be experienced at any time in your life, I think.
Otherwise, great article.
It depends on the execution, I think. http://thecodelesscode.com/case/106
Assuming this is not vapourware, it's awesome! It carries 250 pounds, which is ~113Kg. So I'm like 80Kg or so. That leaves about 30kg, which is almost enough for a month's supply of food. If we can build a system of balloons to periodically float up supplies, we can seriously just live in the sky and have wild adventures!
You are super awesome. I have been programming for years and I still don't know how to do some of the stuff you've done for your websites. I'm sure I could easily learn how to, but then it's easy for me because I have the advantage of years of experience. To be able to get to where you are within 3 months is astounding to me and that tells me something about the validity of your approach, so I'm gonna shamelessly rip you off the next time I need to learn a new skill.
Somebody hire this person!
I'm really not sure if PAP would have the support it does if people could freely criticize it.
Hence the new law.
Another interesting related effect has also to do with how Singaporeans see themselves in relation to creativity and spontaneity due to the way things are structured there.
Possible sample bias here, but a lot of the creative types I know plan to leave.
This. Even though I am Singaporean, I do not consider myself pro-Singapore. In fact, I would like to leave at some point. However, I occasionally find myself... not defending Singapore, but opposing its detractors because the criticisms leveled are either inaccurate or unfair. For example, saying that littering in Singapore will get you caned is grossly inaccurate, and comparing it to regimes like North Korea is grossly unfair, kind of like forum moderators accused of being Nazis is unfair.
Regarding the issue in the OP, I would not even attempt to defend it. It sucks and is typical of the sort of stuff the government pulls that makes me want to leave.
I sincerely doubt the sum total of human misery caused by the government in Singapore will ever exceed that caused by that of the North Korean government.
You don't get caned for littering in Singapore.
"The scariest dystopias are not hideous hellscapes where nobody would want to live, as those tend to self-destruct or at best persist in tiny enclaves and never catch on."
This seems to be the sort of opinion only a person who does not live in said hideous hellscape could support. While I (Singaporean) do not agree with everything the government does, I would definitely much rather live here than in North Korea.
Hi, I used to write code like your 21 nested callbacks, so I'm baffled by your friend's assertion that no programmer would be so patient. I've always thought that the patience to grind endlessly at a problem (or bug) without an obvious solution was one of the more laudable shared virtues of our tribe. Patience is, in fact, a vital part of my learning process.
In fact, I think that's probably a part of the reason why some programmers don't have patience for beginners with a lot of questions. It's because beginners actually have Google and StackOverflow these days, so it might seem like laziness to someone who had to learn using books and man pages. It's not that they don't like to share their knowledge, it's that they think the answer is already there if you'd bothered to look. I'm not saying that they're right to have that attitude, by the way. I'm just trying to present things from their perspective.
I don't pay much attention to American politics, but Romney was running for public office. Arguably the most powerful political role in the world, which makes his private opinions very relevant to everyone.
Singapore!
Well, it's a relative thing. At the time it was built, it was probably one of the easiest platforms to create things on, other platforms at the time involving actual physical equipment and work.
"Then it was holding at $42 for whatever reason. $42. $42. $42."
42 is the answer. He's just not asking the right question. Sorry, couldn't resist.
I agree that the first attempt matters a lot. Which is why I am against hiding the difficulty. Perhaps this stems from personal experience, though, because I had a pretty effortless academic life until I hit university, where work was actually required to pass. I floundered and wasted a couple of years before gaining the gumption to just sit at a table for hours trying to understand stuff. Conversely, a friend of mine who consistently did not do well when we were in secondary school even though he studied while I was playing video games breezed through university. I think having things too easy at the start leads to having less backbone when you encounter difficulties later, which is why I think an approach of convincing students right at the start that "this is going to be difficult, but it is going to be so worth it" might be better for them.
Of course, this is just my opinion, formed from a sample size of 2, so take it with a large pinch of salt. :)
I cannot comment on the merits of either as a first language, since I don't know Processing and Python was not my first language (although it was really easy to pick up for me), but I do wonder why people think learning stuff should be easy these days. Almost anything worth doing is going to be difficult.
That's provably wrong. In the first place, both his definitions of "smart" and "stupid" are wrong according to the dictionary. You can't just redefine words so that they suit your argument. If that's an acceptable approach, I can just as easily say all living humans are stupid by defining "stupid" as "not Einstein".
Secondly, even if we allow that his private definitions be used for the purposes of this argument, he's still wrong. People do exhibit consistent behavioral tendencies, after all. Some people consistently think things through, while others consistently jump to conclusions. So I think there is pretty good justification in applying the heuristic of thinking a person is stupid if he consistently jumps to conclusions.
I hate to say this, because I have much respect for Derek Sivers, but this post was pretty stupid.
Thanks!
Git was built using said "outdated theory bound knowledge".
That was a very inspiring story about your mother, raganwald. Thanks for posting it.
Personally, I love Google+. It doesn't replace Facebook for me, but it has definitely replaced Twitter.
Minor nitpick: I think for is a special case of while more than while is a special case of for.
The more you focus on the computers part, the unhappier you are going to be.
Not necessarily true. :)
Good luck.