Yeah there are plenty of companies that don't do code reviews still to this day. I worked for an ad agency for a bit and we were still using SVN (afaik they are still using SVN for many projects today). Everyone would just push code straight to trunk with no review process.
I created a cool little easer egg where if you clicked in the bottom left corner of the browser window and dragged in a circle, the site would flip upside down. A coworker and I also photoshopped some of the client's imagery that was used on the site and hosted it on another domain. If you typed a variation of the Konami code while on the site, the images would be replaced with our meme-ified versions of their imagery. Even if we had a code review process, none of my coworkers would have even noticed that little bit of extra code in the mess of jQuery spaghetti that was their codebase.
The only difference between the two in my mind is that the output from a transpiler is likely going to have a ton of bloat, require additional transforming, and be a much larger amount of code than the sum of the inputs. Whereas something like the Closure Compiler actually optimizes and eliminates dead code. They are the same thing though from an ideological standpoint though.
The latest MacBook is essentially mobile hardware with desktop peripherals and software. Seems like the right way to go rather than bloating a smartphone with desktop software given that the amount of people who want their smartphone to be their only interface to everything is likely a very small minority.
It's not in the best interest of the wineries or the distributors to advertise that unless legally obligated to do so, which is why it isn't really common knowledge. The whole "natural/organic/non-gmo/no-pesticides-added" labels common in the food and beverage industry would likely cause unwanted contrast to wines labeled as "from concentrate".
2) Don't even try to talk about project management frameworks because you don't understand them
3) Don't ask me if I have experience in something that isn't on my resume
4) I don't want your 3 month .NET contract in Cleveland even if it "may have the opportunity to go full-time"
5) Get both my and the employer's salary requirements up front so I don't call out of work to spend the day interviewing, being told by the company that they absolutely wanted to move forward, and then find out that my salary was way out of their range.
6) If you name drop a renown company and then start talking about how I should instead interview at some startup for helping people put their mom in a nursing home, the conversation is over.
7) APIs isn't a skill
8) Save the corporate kool-aid for the product owner candidates
9) Just because you got my phone number because some job board sold my info to you doesn't mean you can call me
10) My resume, LinkedIn, and any other job board profiles have my location listed. Don't call me at 6am PST!!!
11) Stop hoping that I am well. I'd be much more well if I wasn't woken up at 6am by your ass.
12) Who do you honestly think is going to work for a company that requires .NET, Java, Python, Angular, React, and "bonus points for Rust experience"?
next time you feel like the only sane person in the room/interview/review, you really should consider the possibility that you are correct
I've been amazed by how often this is true, especially in the world of "startup CULTure". When I was naive and fresh out of college, I assumed that people who made it into management or into executive leadership did so because they knew what they were doing. That couldn't be farther from the case.
There are so many companies run by people who are borderline insane, and so many people who will just blindly follow them through their nightmare.
In contrast, there are great people and companies to work for if you put in the effort to find them. I will say that the whole tech recruitment industry has made that harder though as you have people who are financially incentivized to get you hired and tell you whatever bullshit you want to hear even if they know you will be miserable in that position and that 90% of that information is false.
I'd say both exist in every person. I'm a software engineer with some design background. I got into programming because after trying to get into design, I found it wasn't my thing, but I've had many employers that wanted me to fill in the gaps the design team left open which I hated doing. It comes down to learning what motivates each employee individually. Companies spend so much money on surveillance and productivity monitoring, but don't spend much if anything on taking inventory of employee skills and strengths.
A company I used to work for once tried to measure the productivity of developers by having a visible dashboard with each developer's amount of lines of code written (or rather lines of code committed to our Git repo). Anyone that knows anything about programming could tell you that quantity of code means nothing in terms of productivity and likely will make the worst programmers look best as a bad programmer will likely reinvent the wheel every chance they get thus having more lines of code that a good programmer.
Also, this company would repeatedly under-scope projects, go over budget and over the deadline in the design process, and then blame it all on developers when the project was behind schedule and over budget.
I've never met anyone that's part of my generation that thinks being chipped is cool. I would argue that older generations are often more likely to "drink the kool-aid" when it comes to corporate policy.
If you assign a task that is estimated at 2 days of work and it actually is going to take 2 weeks, it should be pretty clear way before that 2 weeks has elapsed. At that point you could get a second opinion from another employee in the same role as the assignee. That kind of difference in LOE vs actual development time should be rare. If it isn't, then your team needs to spend more time researching LOEs up front, getting solid requirements, and assigning tasks to someone that has the proper experience to complete the task on time.
I've worked as an engineer for a company that had ridiculous engineering turnover rates because engineers were treated like children, and management would always give these kind of excuses where one guy was a slacker one time so everyone has to abide by ridiculous policies around required office hours. If you want to retain talent and accurately measure employee performance, you need to put effort into measuring outcome rather than working hours.
"It [technology] creates feedback loops that can fundamentally change the nature of how people interact and societies move (in ways that probably none of us predicted)."
1) Marxists have been writing about this for decades...
2) Ev Williams seems to think that moving (back) to a subscription model is the right move. It's not, and it's kind of an archaic model (even though it's still widely used). I'd argue the best business model for authors and content creators at this point in time is the Twitch model. While it shares similarities to a traditional subscription model, it goes above and beyond that. The biggest difference is that a subscription is optional though is incentivized through other means (ie: access to a creator's Discord server, custom emojis, merch giveaways, etc). There is no barrier for access to content. Users get to opt in to financially supporting creators, but are not required to. It combines the best of both an ad-based model and a subscription model by allowing ads on free content and removing them for subscribers.
This is similar to YouTube Red, but I think where YouTube went wrong is that a subscription is for the whole platform, not for specific creators. Many would rather individually support the creators that they enjoy and not support the one they dislike (which is why many creators on YouTube get financial support from consumers through other platforms such as Patreon, tours, MAGs, and merchandise sales).
3) Look at how other companies are changing their business models and the way they publish content and how it affects the way they are perceived. You have networks like Viceland that started out posting a bunch of web series on YouTube and then they decided to try being a cable network and in the process alienated a large number of their viewer base. They are becoming perceived as a network for millennials run by your grandparents. Myself and many others that I know used to watch many of their web series, but now don't because we don't want to pay for a cable subscription just to watch a few shows on a single network. At the same time, you have traditional cable networks posting clips and sometimes full episodes of their shows on YouTube making a cable subscription even less exclusive or valuable. Lastly, you have other services that allow users to illegally stream copyrighted material for free. These services wouldn't exist if there wasn't a barrier to entry from the source of the content they are streaming.