This took me a bit as well but there is a small bit that is editable, but I agree that it isn't clearly defined, especially when it's only a few characters and not an entire line.
It's referencing Microsoft back tracking on the XBox One being 'always connected' and calling homebase once every 24 hours. The removed that functionality after a huge backlash o the 'Net
That's interesting. I have yet to have any issues with D3 working in IE8 and above. Don't really care about anything below that but so long as it support SVG I would imagine it works.
And I've also found HighCharts extremely limiting. I ended up having to break things in HighCharts to meet some requirements. Granted that's a project problem not a HC problem, but D3 made much more sense for me.
They actually shouldn't, assuming I'm understanding you properly. class should never describe the content but should instead be generic. So rather that class="big_red_text" it should be class="alert_text" or something
Like others have said, if your boss is calling you at 7PM to do a worksheet for a meeting the next day, one he has likely know about for a while, then worrying about your work/life balance is the least of your problems.
As it's not so much the occasional 'Crap, we need X stat!' that is a problem, it's the constant assumption that your boss can call on you any time and _expect_ you will comply.
That's just a shitty boss. Regardless of their title.
Odds are no, I won't do anything to the code. Why? Because for one, it would likely take a bit of time to 'make it decent' and secondly, by the time I've been informed that Project X will be talked about the interviewer has already looked at it.
If I change it at that point then I'm either being disingenuous or taking away the aspect he wanted to talk about.
All that said, if I put my github url on the resume then it's fair game to _talk about_. My point is (same as the articles) using it as a filter is generally a bad idea.
Except in a live coding exercise most people are trying to be efficient or 'to it right' and paying attention to what they are doing and how.
I realize this is anecdotal, but 95% of the public code in my git repo is stuff I did as fun. I didn't care about being right, or care about memory issues or being thread safe or anything other than 'I wonder if...'
In that instance, and I suspect a lot of other people public where they aren't contributing to something using the repo code as a talking point is counter-productive.
Why did I do it that way? Because I wanted to see what would happen.
Except he's doing it because there is (to him) an impression that the original software isn't being maintained. So instead of letting a beloved piece of software disappear he cloned it and released it to the world.
The presumption that he's trying to destroy the original developers livelihood is naive at best.
Exactly. There is a huge difference in the following two statements:
1. "I hear you about X but we are doing Y anyway."
2. "I hear you about X and understand you viewpoint, however we need to go with Y because..."
I'm okay with #2. #1 will drive me away. And it should. It's disrespectful and basically tells the other person that you have no regard for their opinion and that you only ask to satisfy a rule or expectation. If you are aren't going to have a discussion about why Y is the solution and were going to do it regardless of what anyone else said, then why bother even asking?
I suggest you examine why they are complaining. Are they being forced to work that many hours because of your process? Might want to rethink that.
Do you have so much work that it can't be done with your current staff in 40 hours/week? Hire more.
Is your management so inept that your employees are forced to work more to keep up? Training will help.
Many people will willingly work extra when they need to (trying to squash that one last bug or trying to squeeze in that new feature) but rail when it's expected and demanded for no legitimate reason.
Because semantic actually means something, it's not a subjective term.
Calling something Semantic UI and comparing it to another library, that more follows the actually meaning of semantic, is silly. Yes you can change the class name but setting up the name as something meaningful, something semantic, such as 'submitButton' lets you redefine it in the CSS.
If I'm building something that multiple clients will use I don't want each client having buttons with class names specific to the client, but something I can modify easily in the CSS to get the look and feel they want.
The average weight loss is supposedly that. Not everyone falls into that range and so long as you are eating enough to live, are enjoying yourself and not starving to death and are getting exercise it's not dangerous.
That said, he (and anyone doing it) should probably check in with the doc just to make sure something internal isn't getting out of whack.
> It shows they have passion, drive, dedication and an eagerness to learn from others
No, all it shows is that they wrote some code and put it on a website.
The developer that has just a resume might be just as (or more) skilled that the one that uses github but for whatever reason can't post code up like that. To exclude someone simply because they don't have an active github is foolish.
However did you screen, interview, and hire people before github came along?
Hint: Phone functions