ohfunkyeah

Some days I think I'm smart, then I read stuff like this. I wish there was an EILI5 Plugin for chrome that I could use to tag any paragraph and someone would come along and break it down for me. I'd do it for your comment!

Ah! you've hit the nail on the head why the pro gun people are so adamant about not giving an inch to any sort of increased regulations. Most on the pro gun regulation left do not seem to be able to even fathom why closing the gun show loophole is a non-starter or how there can be push-back against banning guns for people on the terrorist watch list. It's because either are effectively turning the burner on very very low.

I don't have any issue with this process beyond the use of 'majority'...Maybe I'm just skeptical, but I don't see how the majority of any interview could be non-interactive... Now maybe you think it can be anonymous and interactive but that's rarely true in the way you would want it to be. If it's chat we might over-focus on whether their writing is English as a second language, same for voice. Anything less than that is non-interactive, anything more than that is not anonymous in any way.

It's not entirely clear to me what you mean here:

You don't see how meeting a person would remove some of their anonymity?

Or when you say anonymous do you just mean we can't know who the person is by name? But we can meet them, talk to them, etc...

I think this supports the statement you are responding too. The million factors impart a diversity of perspective regardless of whether there is diversity of racial heritage. Does focusing on diversity of racial heritage optimize diversity of perspective?

I think you give up way more with anonymous hiring than you would ever get in return. How do you gauge verbal and non-verbal communication skills? Do they mesh well with the team. Once you drop the in-person interaction you lose more than just the ability to discriminate.

This seems to be an argument more for interacting with your target market than for diversity. Or are you thinking more like: "Team we just got a new client from Mexico, obviously we are going to assign Alberto to work on their stuff."

Think of a professional vehicle driving. Be it race cars, trucks, etc... Sure, maybe in the early days those cars and trucks looked and worked way different from each other but over time the available ones largely overlap, work similarly, and work well in almost all situations. If every time a new car came out you had to spend several days/weeks trying to figure out how to drive it that would be incredibly annoying. Now just think if you needed to purchase a vehicle and stake your business on it. You look at the options and some come without wheels, some without seats, some had designers that said brakes aren't neccessary, oh and there is an upcoming one that is getting a lot of attention the can also fly... some take gas, others run off vegetable oil. Experimentation is good but there are way too many options parading around as serious contenders.

The API and internal code is still expected to change. He very recently finished a large breaking refactor, so it is not mature. Having said that it is a nice editor with a lot of promise.

Which is why the interesting part of the comparison would focus on where they differ.

But I think reasons that are directly related to the job are the only things that belong in this list. If your "shields down" moment is caused by some factor that is external to the job it's really outside of your manager's control.

His job as a manager doesn't really include making sure your children don't get sick, or convincing you that California weather isn't that nice, or that you don't really want to have the life goal of starting your own company. I'd saying restricting the list to questions that a manager could have an impact on is more valuable than a more generic list that encapsulates everything.

Accounting for it doesn't really add anything. If you have that drive your shields were never really up so trying to prevent the "shields down" moment is simply not possible.

I disagree because this list is meant to be intrinsic to evaluating your current job vs. some other semi-comparable job.

Conditions leading to a shields down moment for someone switching to job that might be preventable by management is pretty well contained by this list. It doesn't account for life goals or circumstances that drive you in a truly different career path.

In fairness, your answer to: Is this project I’m working on fulfilling? should have been no it is not fulfilling enough. It does not fulfill your desire to own your own company.

My 2 cents: Fix the major issues on this article sooner than later. It is a great little post and if all goes well it will have a long tail of visitors or will get picked up again for a nice exposure spike. I think that makes it worth your time. Of course that is just my opinion.

Fund Prosemirror if you have ever been frustrated by a WYSIWYG editor. Not because Prosemirror will be frustration free but because more effort in this area is necessary to get there. -> insert link to any Contenteditable WYSIWYG editor

Fund Prosemirror because you think collaborative rich text editing should not be a technology reserved only for web giants to have and acquire. Firebase/Firepad(acquired), Hackpad(acquired), Appjet/Etherpad(acquired), Wikidocs(acquired)...

Fund Prosemirror because Marijn Haverbeke has a good track record with Code Mirror. https://codemirror.net/

Fund it because open source shouldn't only be about free as in beer. http://coderanger.net/funding-foss/

Fund it because it is an impressive piece of work in its own right and current state. http://prosemirror.net/demo_collab.html#edit-Example

Fund it because in Marijn's altruistic intentions -- its already on github https://github.com/ProseMirror/prosemirror to look at, he's asking for only a very small amount of compensation for a ton of work, and he's written incredible blog posts educating everyone. http://marijnhaverbeke.nl/blog/collaborative-editing.html

Fund it if only because you have faith in humanity.

Yeah, exactly my point. That statement is laughable to anyone who as been to a University. I'm not even sure if being pushed and/or challenged to become better educated is even a primary focus of Universities.

One can say that all university credits are relevant to any job but only in the most general sense. Certainly you wouldn't advocate 8 years of general education before getting into degree specific education so the amount is at the very least arbitrary.

Yeah you are probably right about ambition as a general filter too. But the point remains that universities take advantage of this. They know full-well that plenty of students are there to get a job and they can and do milk this.

Issuing degrees is not part of Universities being "about education". Degrees are an arbitrary milestone, that can be received after completing a nearly arbitrary set of classes, that in-turn have taught an arbitrary set of lessons. The fact that Universities have coalesced around issuing degrees of the same type without ensuring their curriculums match further makes the degrees aribitrary.

I'd argue that most employers don't really care. They want to use degree, university, and sometimes grades as a first-round filter for screening applicants. Do they actually care if you took the challenging Philosophy course from the good professor, or the easy-A from the Roman History professor? Hell no. So if the primary thing you want is a job, why would you ever take the challenging class? If a professor is significantly and knowingly more challenging than their peers and they don't adequately convey that up front why shouldn't they deserve a bad review. Part of the job is conveying expectations, and in my experience it seems like plenty of professors who will challenge and push know they are like this beforehand but really don't do anything they convey this until after a student is committed.

Degrees and grades are a big part of the problem because they are treated as currency to get a job. Degrees are like the Microsoft points system. I want a job in field XYZ. Well to get that you have to buy 256 credits. But, but, it looks like the job really only requires 120 credits. Too bad you have to buy 256. Ok, fine... WTF, part of the 120 credits have absolutely no relevance to the thing I want to do. Yeah, well you still need to take them.

It doesn't do shit for you as a patient. A certainly not any more than trading that 4 yr lib arts degree for 4 more years of medical training. Universities as gatekeepers to actual jobs without is something that definitely needs to be addressed but you'll probably never see them bring this up. Imagine how bad for business it would be if all Universities offered was a chance to learn.

But why wouldn't they want to be pushed and challenged? The only thing universities offer is the chance to learn more and be pushed or challenged. AFAIK they could not possibly be there for any other reason than to learn deeply.

I think it would be interesting to know if professors who push and challenge within a non-dgree open online course would face the similar wrath? I'd bet not.

I disagree completely. You are confusing students rating professors with the how good the survey is and how the university may or may not react to the results. In an of itself rating professors is not good or bad.

1. Part of raising the bar should be making sure students understand that you are doing it and are into it. Also by saying "raising the bar" you are implying that they are going above what the rest of the university is doing. Which is an indictment of the university not of the students. 2. Why aren't they interested in them? Could it be because they are not good? 3. So professors should be able to assign any amount of work that they deem fit? If its a 2-credit course with the workload of a 4-credit course then the professor is bad. If its a 4-credit class and other 4-credit classes have significantly less work, then the university is screwing up. If the its a 4-credit course with a lot more work than other 4-credit courses then that should probably be clearly conveyed up front or have some mechanism for conveying that.

Researchers who are forced to teach, and are bad teachers because of this, SHOULD be fired from teaching. If the university doesn't value their research alone enough to justify their employment they probably should also be fired altogether.

It's easy to take this and the quote above and leap to the assessment that students like professors that give good grades. But why is this? I think it comes from a fundamental disconnect between what a lot of students really want and what universities are complicit in pretending to offer. A lot of students want the degree so they can get a job in field XYZ. Universities are more than happy to take that desire to get a job and conflate it with a desire to get a higher-level education. They are the gate-keepers to getting a job in many different fields but in many ways act as if they have almost zero responsibility for that responsibility.

Just imagine if universities decided to no longer offer degrees and only offered the opportunity for deep understanding and learning. Get rid of grades too, just offer P/F for readiness for the next level of teaching. Do you think student evaluations would still have this bias?

I see a lot of talk and comparison to React but nothing about Meteor's Blaze engine and its HTMLJS virtual DOM diffing approach which seems even more comparable

I see a lot of talk and comparison to React but nothing about Meteor's Blaze engine and HTMLJS which seems even more comparable

Anyone know of a good update to the discussion that happened here? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3874324 I'm curious how the concept of light table has stacked up against reality in the past year.

Very cool! Love the meteorhacks blog, loving Kadira, and at first glance this looks like it will be really helpful as well. IMO Arunoda and people like him are big reasons why the Meteor community seems to get a lot of positive attention.

It seems like you are a short jump away from making it a WYSIWYG editing experience. Any reason you went the sort of hybrid markdown approach instead and/or any plans in the future to have direct WYSIWYG editing?