This is very interesting and I think it has a great potential for various usages.
I think it opens up the ability to study density in real time, not just based on where people live but where they go during the day and during certain times of the year.
Potential for a lot of start ups to use this data too as it grows. An idea that comes to my head immediately is a vacation finding website.
E.g. Somebody wants to go on vacation to a certain kind of area at a certain time but they'd like to go somewhere that is least busy. With this sort of data, you could find the optimal time and place for them based on their density requirements.
Or maybe if data about the kind of apps being used was also included, where to best try and market a new product.
I think for building things, especially in a small team, a Jack of all trades is preferable.
I think it depends on what you want to do. As you said, you feel confident in implementing something. I think that's the key thing, getting the implementation done or getting the project built.
There is certainly room for the specialists, take security for example, implementing certain types of security take a specific set of knowledge and experience. If that's what you love to do, then that's a fine path. If you'd rather build things or like to experiment, a more general approach is good. You can always team up with other people later on if you need more specialisation in a certain area.
I think as well that Jack of all trades doesn't apply as much to technology as it does to building for example. A builder may specialise in bricklaying for example. That's great, building a modern building on your own is going to take a team anyway. Besides, bricklaying probably isn't going anywhere any time soon.
Technology on the other hand is constantly changing. You could be a specialist in a programming language that five years down the line is mostly irrelevant with weak support.
I think in a way, you're both. You seem to specialise mostly in programming, while generalising within programming. I think that's a good mix to allow you to develop a strong and useful skill set while remaining lean and adaptable.
I think a further issue with rating systems is the difference between individuals.
Some people's 3 star reviews are higher than other people's 4 star reviews so reviewing the ratings can often be misleading.
I think the issue arises from some people viewing 3 as the default, the "everything worked, nothing went wrong" rating, reserving 4 and 5 for people who go above and beyond.
Whereas others see 5 as the default and the "nothing went wrong" rating.
I think 3 should be the default personally, as the article says, if you rate everything a 5, what do you do when something exceeds all of your expectations. I think it would help when looking at the quality of a product.
If anything that "does the job" has a majority of 5 star reviews, how can you tell when something really goes above and beyond?
At the moment it seems review systems have one level of good, and four varying degrees of poor.
I think it's definitely possible and I think employers are increasingly seeing value in places they never used to because of rigorous recruitment requirements such as needing such a degree and aceing an interview.
I think if you can demonstrate your abilities and your skills, then an interview shouldn't be necessary. I think an interview can be good to learn about how people respond in certain situations or their communication skills but I don't think it's the only way, and especially if you're aiming for a role that isn't going to involve a lot of communication with new people on a regular basis, such as a sales role, I don't think an interview is necessary.
As I said, especially with newer companies, I think if you can solidly demonstrate your skills and your unique outlook on problem solving, you'll find a way into the company.
A lot of companies won't work like that, and standing out in an unconventional way probably won't work for them, but I think there are certainly employers out there, that if you get their attention and keep their attention, you'll go far.
My advice would be to be unconventional, stand out, and above all, be persistent.
Mars One intended to broadcast the missions as a reality TV show and hope to fund themselves by selling the rights to said TV show. So maybe SpaceX will look at a similar model?
I think long term ROI is expected from selling and benefiting from the advanced technology developed and possibly the resources obtained from Mars. Possibly commercial flights and space tourism too?
They also have contracts with NASA which wouldn't necessarily dictate the time frame as they seem to be technology development contracts.
I don't think that the Mars colonisation is their main goal, simply something that would advance technology and aid them in their other commercial goals.
Maybe in the case of logging or where the web page is constantly showing new data.
An example I can think is a web based interface for controlling a drone. This could be used on the page to store the timestamped output of various sensors.
It would allow for the data to be displayed while also maintaining a history of the data in the browser. Could add in filters and searches as well as a pause functionality to review the historical data.
Sort of like a dmesg for the web page. I'm thinking practical uses are sensor monitoring and server monitoring.