- mooc (like edx)
- reading
- start a web project
- learn a new language
- learn docker (or any sys competences)- lockpicking videos (lockpicking lawyer on youtube)
- If you have no breathe/heart chronic problems, and you are under 40 y/o, your death chance, IN CASE YOU DO HAVE the coronavirus, is below 1%.
- There will not be a strong economic impact that will stop globalisation. Maybe there will be economics short term changes. Maybe there will be important. But what is said here is apocaliptic. You should read about the SRAS (15 times more deadly, less infectious), or about ebola (40-80 times more deadly, less infectious).
ebola, SRASS, H1N1, H1Z1, mad cow, all of thoses deases have killed a lot of peoples. Not in EU nor US. only poor non-white people have died.
Everybody is really afraid by this one only because rich countries will have to do something, not just watch poor black people die on TV. ebola killed 11k peoples during 2014-2016.
The only really special thing is that you've between 2 and 14 days, if you caught coronavirus, during which you are infectious. the dease have strong contagious capabilities because of that. But that's clearly not the most dangerous thing humanity faced, far from that. I would be more concerned about risks of economic crisis or civil war than this end-of-the-world-special-flu...
There is some truth in it : The US (or most of the european) healthcare is not able to handle the number of cases there will be. There will be a lot of deads.
The truth stops there, the rest is "science" fiction. It would be true if the lethality was over 5%, which is just not possible (lethality is not yet known exactly, but will probably be between 0.6% and 3%, probably around 1%.
There is no need to be afraid, however this is still a really dangerous virus and thousands of peoples will die in each countries.
Github exists only by it's community. It's a kind of social network for the opensource. bitbucket or gitlab are equally valid for private projects.
If github gets merged into Azure DevOps, a few peoples will leave by principle. If the mass do follow, everyone will leave it. if the mass does not follow, everyone will stay on it. That's what happened when github was acquired by Microsoft, and that's probably what will happen again.
So yes, i would like to migrate from Github if it gets merged into azure, but reallity is I will stay on it if there's no global migration of opensource projects
This kind of laws exist mostly to make people think UE is taking care of privacy and force foreign websites to comply to specific UE laws.
It is the same with IA and public surveillance. Despites UE says it's against facial recognition, countries as France for example are using this and are aiming a national level deployment.
UE just want you to think everything is fine with your datas, but has no plan on enforcing the law.
The goal is clearly not to focus on privacy. Creating GDPR experts roles that block foreign countries to push their websites in europe is much more valuable.
Anyway it's impossible to comply with this law. French law forces you to store customers datas for 10 years (invoices can't be destroyed) and ask you to delete EVERYTHING if the customer ask for it.
Even if you wanted to, you cannot comply to this law, which has anyway some huge flaws.
You're still a studient. It is not possible for you to have a good knowledge of software architecture because it is a really complex domain. If you show interest in it, read about it, go to conferences and ask questions, don't worry. Peoples will act cool with you.
Anyway, the only way to progress in dev/software archi/devops/etc is to put your ego aside and accept the fact a lot of peoples knows whay more than you. If you go speak with them and they treat you like garbage, this is their fault, not yours.
If you're really shy/impressed, maybe you can go with some friends and speak about it together. It will help you feel like you understood some things. Architecture is not filled only with youg peoples, and if you're a group of 20+ y/o speaking together, eventually the older ones will come and speak to you. then you can ask them what to read/watch to have deeper understanding
Yes, getting involved not only behind your screen is really important.
They attract good peoples that give you tons of subjects to study, but most important, it makes you feel like you're part of a community and you're not doing all of this for nothing, or in a wrong way.
For that part, I think it's true whatever is the field in which you want to improve
Yeah, that's mostly what i've done to learn english. watch movies, read news, speak english whenever I can.
I suppose my english is good. I know it is compared to the poor french standards, but I cannot judge compared to real english speakers.
Do not worry, I am not obsessed with grammar. It would just give me some tools to judge objectively about my level. I had like 4 hours a week of english for 10 years, that's 1400 hours I think. I just lost those hours for nothing
There's no single way. In fact, beeing a good software architect is all about having many ways in solving a problem, knowing wich solution is the most adapted depending on the context. All is about culture and cleverness
To improve, you can :
- Follow/read the well know architects. For example, I read this blog https://martinfowler.com/ and watch most of the conferencies he gives.
- Learn the design patterns and the architectural ones.
- Read a lot of code, like github repos. It does not care if you're reading repos on a subject close to the one you're interested to. You need to see a lot of architectures to see some clever solutions some peoples have used to solve some specific problems. I don't think there's any shortcut.
- get interested in meta development. Like "why does the languages work the way they work ?", read about how code is produced in real conditions (what are the processes involved), etc.
As an example, for myslef:
- I'm not satisfied with my accent, my english accent is just ok, and sometimes it really goes into french accent without control.
- I miss a lot of specific vocabulary in some areas as politics, human science, medecine
- I'm not able to judge my grammar rightness because I've no idea what the rules are. I would have listen more carefully at school if only I had known...
But I can understand most movies without subtitles exept the american ones in wich everyone speaks at 200mph, so i do not make any efforts in improving.
Anyway, I do not care about speaking as a native. Language is here to understand other people and explains your own views. In most situations I can do that. I've no urge on improving myslef
I think it's impossible to really speak as a native speaker. You'll always have to improve in some ways that you cannot see before reaching a close-to-bilingual level.
You can just improve. The only questions are: what's your current level ? what are the points you're not satified with ? what's your goal by speaking "like a native speaker" ?
Hum, it really seems to me that author does not clearly understand the materialist view that makes free-will 'impossible'.
He speaks about a sort of emergence which is non-materialistic.
I does not mean there is no facial recognition deployed.
I live in Marseille, France, and facial recognition is currently beeing deployey all over the city.
In fact, not only facial recognition, but posture recognition, walk recognition, etc.
Marseille and Nice are two test-towns for global french deployment...
For me it really depends on what I do want to do from my notes.
Usually, if my notes are personal, if i do not want to read it later (ex: taking notes to stay focus), if my notes have to be avaliable anytime or if it's more convinient, i take my notes on paper.
On my computer, I only take notes for "serious" texts I want to write.
There is no easy way to mix text and drawings on computer, it's always longer than going with pen&paper.
I have the exact same problem, i'm pretty curious about what solution will be proposed.
From my experience it is really case dependant. I went throught several "legacy" codebases, and everything depends on the willingness of change in the company. I think my 3 last experiences are revelant of different situations :
1 - Peoples want to change
A few years ago I went to a company with some code from 5+years, with poor quality. It was quite easy to explain peoples we were facing troubles maintaining the codebase in descent state, since it was a small company with people involved in dev process/ selling the product.
2 - Clueless people
After that i moved to a company with terrible codebase. I put everything on git and set a dev environment on my first week. It was in 2017. The legacy was unmaintainable, and by speaking with the ceo/cto, we managed to explain the risks for the company. It took month, but they understood the urge of refactoring, rewriting, etc. They just were not able to find a solution by themselves and our help to rationalise the problem and find effective solution was sufficent to give them understanding of the problem and willingness on moving forward.
3 - Conservative peoples
I moved a few month ago in a really conservative company with totaly insane codebase. For the moment I have no clue on what to do to make people understand at what point the code is in a sinistred state. Tech people understand it but not the rest of the company. Company is economicaly wealthy and it's really hard to make people understand that it does hide terrible technical reality.
I personally think the most important point are :
- Explain to your boss what are the most dangerous problems (unencrypted passwords in DB, that kind of things)
- Explain what is tech debt
- Explain that current techs are solutions to those problems
- Speak about the costs
Everything is easier if you are in a small company, wether ir not peoples around you does have thech background or not.
It's easier too if you can prove what you're saying: with examples of dangerous things understandable by non tech people, and with POC.
For the moment i just does not figure out how to push the need of purging tech debt when company is wealthy. People feel that everything goes well and you're just too much of a geek/perfectionnist
It's really functionnal. I've nothing to complain about. But for people used to go on facebook & co there is a huge gap. I'm pretty sure it does filter a part of trolls.
I'm pretty sure the poor design does not encourage people to come there if they do not expect to find something valuable.
The overall quality of shared news is really good, the comments are not imediately accessible after reading the news, people express different points of view.
A lot of hacker news reader arent english native speakers, and it's hard to troll efficiently with a language you do not master.