If I remember correctly, Massachusetts has a law that says that potential employers are not permitted to ask candidates what their previous salary was. The intent of this law is to ensure that people who have been discriminated against in the past will not continue to be discriminated against by new employers who "copy" the treatment of previous employers.
(a) Can anyone confirm that I'm remembering this correctly?
(b) Is this behavior by Equifax not a violation of the Massachusetts law (at least as far as it concerns citizens of Massachusetts, and in the spirit if not in the letter of the law)?
I've listened to only 2/3 of it, but: he promotes Crystal+Lucky (crystal is compiled) as good replacements for Ruby and Rails. The second part of his talk is about promoting a new variant of open license called PostOpen, which will require commercial users of Post Open software to pay 1% for using, 1.5% for using without sharing modifications. There is a 10% fee for worse offense. All percentages are percentages of revenue. This is partly aimed at large companies that host open source software with few modifications as a service and charge for it. Money goes to PostOpen and possibly conventional Open Source developers.
I think I obtain a lot of the benefits of focus without quite being this extreme. I use a lot of virtual desktops. One virtual desktop per logical activity. For example as a student it would be one desktop per course I'm studying. As a software engineer, each git-repo that I touch gets its own virtual desktop (especially when one application involves many git repos). Each virtual desktop has its own editor process, terminal, and browser window for documentation and tabs related to that activity only. This means I can change my focus just by switching to another virtual desktop. And the tabs and editors and such on other desktops are not visible (they are not even in the panel) while I'm not working on them. So unlike you, I have lots of bystander applications, and each one is exactly where I left it. They just aren't visible until I switch to that activity. So I would argue that they don't distract me at all.
I also have things set up so that there is a keystroke that raises the editor on the current desktop to the top. Another for the browser and another for the terminal. When I switch to another desktop, the same keystroke raises a different editor process for that desktop, etc. So within a desktop, I switch between these apps using the same keystrokes regardless of which desktop I am on. And there is only one way to switch desktop. I can't switch to another desktop via choosing another application on another desktop, because the other applications that are not on the current desktop are completely invisible.
When I'm working on something with a Scala backend, an Elm frontend, and C/C++ embedded device, and when I need to go back and forth often between these sub-applications making related changes, I can't afford to close and reopen each one when I change the language/repo. I can change desktops very often this way. eg. Add a new field to the frontend. Immediately add it to the backend and the embedded also. But they are in different repos. etc. etc.
If I have one editor opening all three projects it is a nightmare to navigate between files. But one editor for each language and repo is the sweet spot for me. And it means my documentation for Elm is all in a separate browser window from my documentation for Scala (which is on another desktop) etc etc.
Sorry this was so long, but I think all the details add up to making it an efficient system.
Here is a book I happen to own (and I recommend highly), on the general topic of how to practice piano effectively.
"The Practice Revolution: Getting great results from the six days between lessons", by Philip Johnston. It contains a lot of advice including some overlap with some of the comments in this thread.
The article mentions that there is a 500 gallon tank of some toxic material buried at a unknown location in the property. 500 gallons is very small -- 66 cubic feet, which is about 4 ft by 4 ft by 4 ft.
In my opinion, that makes it completely plausible that a problem relating to that tank could be so localized that it will only affect one tenant.
I'm not saying her problem was due to the 500 gallon tank. All I'm saying is that if it is, then it is not unbelievable that it affected only one (or a small number) of tenants.
Nice idea and execution! Just one small suggestion. Could you consider increasing the height of the map? Even if it means putting the top white-background banner as a vertical
column on the left edge. I was trying to find a location which required navigating due north, and one has to make very many short swipes because of the limited height of the map. Compared to when you're navigating East-west, in which case you can make wide sweeping swipes. Also it would allow you to see more context for any given location. Thanks. Nice work!
(a) Can anyone confirm that I'm remembering this correctly?
(b) Is this behavior by Equifax not a violation of the Massachusetts law (at least as far as it concerns citizens of Massachusetts, and in the spirit if not in the letter of the law)?