No. It's just the mouse I've been using for a long time now. It's small, I'm used to how it tracks and accelerates, it fits my hand, and you can disengage the click mechanism on the scroll wheel to spin it freely.
My big complaint is that the buttons eventually start to fail. Single clicks will sometimes register as double clicks and click-drag operations start to drop early.
> To what extent are companies using whiteboards to test who is serious about getting the job? And who is willing to put in extra time and occasionally do unpleasant extra work?
But it doesn't say anything about who's serious about getting that specific job, if every tech company does the same kind of whiteboard interviews.
> Whilst this comment might sound facetious, it isn't intended to be.
Yep, it's dizzying how fast the JS ecosystem is changing; hell, even just the React ecosystem on its own. I went back to a React-based side project I had been working on at the beginning of this year to try to get it up to date with current best practices and tooling, and SO much has changed (Babel/ES6, Webpack, the maturation of the Flux pattern, the React/React DOM split, etc) that I've decided to rewrite it more or less from scratch.
I don't even need a lot of the stuff this particular boilerplate kit has, as my app is designed to run as a static site on Github pages, but having one place to go just to find out what libraries and practices are currently considered the state of the art (or flavor of the month, depending on your level of cynicism) would be wonderful.
Rewriting a side project app with the latest boilerplate generator and toolkit, IMHO, is an obsession that is just a great way to avoid doing work.
There comes a point in a side project where it gets too big for the usual sole developer to deal with and they think, "If I just upgrade to the next magic stack I'll be able to manage this complexity."
What's usually happened is that the QA load for adding new features has gotten too high and the usually sole developer can't add new features to anything without breaking stuff and at least going through a long test cycle. With a larger team, QA can help patch up the holes. However, if a project has solid TDD, this doesn't become a problem because, if the tests all pass, everything works.
Just my two cents, but that was my experience before I got really into TDD.
> calibrated to the phonetic system of its language
The funny thing about that, though, is that English "huh" has a phonetic feature that's almost nonexistent in the language otherwise: a nasal vowel not followed by a nasal consonant.
To be fair, the dosages most of these doctors are administering are well under a usual recreational dose, as the article mentions. IIRC you also build tolerance to ketamine pretty quickly, so I'd imagine the amount of K those people are doing that's causing bladder damage is a couple orders of magnitude larger than any of these patients.
LSD is as close to as harmless a drug, physiologically, as you can get--no one has ever died of an overdose on it, and there isn't permanent physiological damage that happens even with regular heavy use.
Agreed, not physically damaging. But it can destroy you mentally if used often and in heavy doses.
>but I've never heard of LSD destroying a persons bladder.
That was the quote I was referring to. Bladder in tact, but a shell of a person left with severe paranoia and mental problems.
Not to hate on LSD, but no drug is safe is abused daily.
This is a pretty neat approach to building a static site, and it reminds me that a couple months ago I was experimenting with building a static site generator in Clojure. Which makes me think – is there any reason something like this couldn't be done with Clojurescript and Reagent? I've been itching to try out both of those but haven't come up with a good project for it.
The hard part might be routing, since there doesn't seem to be a robust solution for doing that in Reagent yet. I found https://github.com/ghedamat/reagent-react-router but it hasn't been updated in months and the author calls it "very very alpha."
I've been using reagent with re-frame[1]. Routing just uses goog.events and goog.history to listen for navigation events, secretary[1] to define routes, which update the state rendered by your components. The code is here: https://github.com/Day8/re-frame-template/blob/master/src/le...
Personal anecdote time: About a year ago a band I like (which also happens to be a side project of members of my favorite band) was playing in my city and I was trying to find friends to come with me, but none could or wanted to. I spent a few hours beforehand agonizing over whether or not to go alone but I finally decided "screw it, I'm going." Got to the club, band came on, played a kick-ass show, and after I went to buy a record at the merch table I spotted the singer (also one of the core members of said favorite band) hanging out by the bar just talking to people. So I went over and said hi, shook his hand, told him how awesome the show was and was generally a starstruck idiot the whole damn time.
None of that would have happened had I decided not to go alone, and it seemed silly in retrospect that I spent so long agonizing over the decision, but I was definitely grappling with a degree of social anxiety. But now it's something I do all the time. The key was convincing myself that no one actually cares if you're at a concert by yourself.
I think that's true of a lot of other social situations, but sometimes it's a hard mentality to internalize. Kind of weird how much we care about strangers' perceptions of us.
`isNaN` as it currently exists isn't terribly useful, because anything that can be type-coerced to NaN will return true. If you want to check if something actually is NaN in JS, the common idiom is to test x !== x, since NaN is the only value in JS that is defined as not being equal to itself (don't blame Eich, blame the IEEE floating-point standard). NaN, despite the name, is a "number" that's a result of floating-point calculations with undefined behavior. Sometimes that's a useful thing to test for.
Adding a new, proper isNaN function under a new namespace (Number) lets them do that without breaking the old functionality.
I think caveat emptor absolutely applies with bootcamps, but there are also ones that are certainly worth the money. I'm a recent App Academy grad (full disclosure) and almost all of my cohort are now at high-paying jobs at companies they love, including Google, Groupon and Tumblr. (I'm still looking for work right now, but only because of extenuating personal circumstances.)
Having talked with my friends who are working now, there are definitely things a/A doesn't teach you much about (e.g. deployment/devops, advanced Git) but on the whole we all feel like we learned more than enough to prepare ourselves for working in software development. I've heard very good things about Hack Reactor as well, though they expect you to come in with some coding experience already.
So yes, there are good/great ones out there, but I'd agree that your bullshit detector should be set very high if you're looking into bootcamps.
While it's maybe a bit of an exaggeration, good bootcamps have an emphasis on (ahem) marketable skills that a lot of CS programs don't. You'd be right that you don't learn a ton of theory like you would in CS, but App Academy at least (and I'd assume Hack Reactor as well) makes sure you have enough grounding in programming fundamentals that learning new languages/frameworks/stacks isn't hard.
That said, one weird thing I've heard about Hack Reactor is that they purposely will hold back students they feel aren't 100% where they want them to be and keep them from graduating. Whether that's out of genuine concern for students or it's just to inflate their job placement numbers (or both), I couldn't tell you.
> That said, one weird thing I've heard about Hack Reactor is that they purposely will hold back students they feel aren't 100% where they want them to be and keep them from graduating.
2013 Hack Reactor grad here. I had actually heard this about Dev Bootcamp before applying to HR, so I asked the HR founders during my interviews if they did this and they emphatically said no. Their genuine emphasis on supporting students -- including intensive interventions when they detect students might be falling behind -- was the main reason I decided to fork over $17k to a couple of strangers and move across the country to San Francisco.
And they didn't disappoint me. Our cohort of 26 had two drop-outs: one guy on the second day (he was from Atlanta, felt a little out of place and wanted to go home, so he became the first person to take HR up on their "full refund if for any reason you want to quit during the first week" offer) and a girl almost midway through the course (she got intensive support, we were all really rallying for her, but she didn't want to keep going). Everyone else pulled together, worked long hours, built some incredible projects, and landed jobs at lots of Companies You've Heard Of. But don't take my word for it... check out the [Hack Reactor alumni page](http://www.hackreactor.com/students/) and see for yourself.
I don't know a single student who has been held back, although I graduated nearly two years ago and my experience may be outdated.
> 2013 Hack Reactor grad here. I had actually heard this about Dev Bootcamp before applying to HR, so I asked the HR founders during my interviews if they did this and they emphatically said no.
Huh, interesting. I knew DBC does that too but they seemed much more upfront about it in their ad copy (and in fact it was touted as a selling point). FWIW, a/A sounds similar to HR by how you describe it; they want everyone to succeed and will give you plenty of support but if you still aren't pulling your weight you'll get booted. There was a guy in our cohort who dropped right before final projects and they let him come back at the same point in the next cycle but they made an exception for him because he had personal reasons for dropping.
But yeah, besides that, great learning environment, everyone wants everyone else to do well, build cool shit and get good jobs. I'd recommend a/A in a heartbeat to anyone, with the caveat that you've done enough programming to know it's something you enjoy doing. (But the amount of Ruby you have to learn to get through the admission process successfully is a pretty decent litmus test.)
Someone was just complaining to me that a/A requires a $14k deposit up front, even though the marketing says it's "no cost until you find a job". (In which case it's more like "full refund if you don't find a job" not "no cost until you find a job".) Is there any truth to that?
$14k? Not unless they changed it since I enrolled. I did have to pay a deposit but it was "only" $5k. I admit I was annoyed because they had just bumped that number from $3750 IIRC. So you do have to front some cash but nothing approaching the full eventual cost of the program. (Again, unless they changed it, which would make me a bit sad if they did. I like that lowered-risk, alignment-of-incentives model and it would be a shame if they had to abandon it.)
I went through Hack Reactor. It's not a CS degree, but I work next to people having one. I don't think they're necessarily better at their job.
"The CS degree for the 21st century" can mean anything. It's just marketing bullshit. That being said, judging startups (and IMO Hack Reactor is essentially a startup) based on their marketing would mean that 90% of startups are - what you call - "dishonest".
I enjoyed HR, I'm valuable for the company I'm working for, I maintain a couple of successful Open Source projects (~ 500 stars each) in Go, JavaScript and Haskell.
Without being too arrogant, most CS graduates can barely code. And realistically that's what most of us either do or should do all day long.
