Now I understood none of that, but it sounds like a hack to work around something they tried to fix, or is an ugly way of gluing "old" libraries into "new" libraries which should be handled by the compiler. This is just one example of many complexities I worry are going to bog down any developers who take on ASP.NET Core. Remember we only have to face one compiler error caused by this issue before having to do a deep dive and learn all the inner details to fix it.
I am also concerned about the quality of the tooling. DNX can't handle long paths so I have to develop out of C: drive. This reminds me of Node's almost incompatibility with Windows and makes me worry that the tools haven't been thoroughly tested. DNX is going to be replaced yet again in the near future with a newer, probably less tested set of tools.
On top of that the tooling doesn't work well in enterprise because they have poor proxy support. I'm also worried about "everything is a collection of hundreds of tiny packages", the NPM dramas have shown us that micropackages lead to insanity. ASP.NET was a place to hide away from those kinds of things. Now it feels like it's "C#, as developed by the node community". I think they've tried to make things simple but haven't seen the forest for the trees. The fact that they're bundling dead tools like Bower into the project templates is also worrying. They should have had the forethought not to include any JS libraries that have a high churn rate.
One final thing bothering me is the number of choices of the target framework. Why have there been so many meaningless names like "dnx451", "netstandard", "netcore10"? I sit down to make a web app, and I have no clue what I actually need to target. In the old days we'd pick a .NET framework version and choose either the compact or complete framework. When did this become rocket science?
This was a good article about the stresses of entering a programming career.
The strained sexism tie-ins were unnecessary because most of the challenges she faced are universal, I remember hearing the same gloating conversations and feeling the same way when I was young.
As for the back massages and tshirts with men's names on them, that is a bit weird and should probably be taken up with their supervisor if it continues. It's most likely to be caused by poorly calibrated social cues than straight up sexism. There's nothing sexist about awkwardly showing interest in someone, it's only a problem if they don't take no for an answer.
Except that men disproportionately "awkwardly show interest" in random colleagues, strangers, passer-by.
All the women you know have experienced it, several times. Most of the men you know never experienced it.
So there is something sexist here, because women experience a flow of continual "akward interests" from random men that they have to manage. It's all on the women to manage men's akward interests, and from what my female friends tell me it is really stressing and wearing them down.
(I did an art-documentarish piece a few years ago, going and interviewing my friends about public space harassment and how they built techniques to manage mens. There's an excerpt in french there: https://www.facebook.com/Le-sac-%C3%A0-main-269196498659/ )
The premise is the same as all the other ridesharing services, There’s a driver app and a client app, except that what makes us unique is our safe driving feature that other apps forgot to do. We ensure every driver in our entourage is a male.
It's a crazy world we live in where someone would post such a candid article about their own under-performance. This article is embarrassing to the individual, and more importantly, to the company that fired him. I think people need to think more carefully about what they post online especially when using real names. This is permanent now. Any potential employer who searches this man on the internet will see this and I don't think that's a good thing. While some might not be turned off by this person's honesty, I certainly would not hire him having read this article. If anything it shows a lack of a diplomatic filter, not only a lack of discipline.
I wrote this article - thanks, your comment means a lot to me. I thought exactly the same. Everyone who writes online is portraying only the best parts, the highlights, without admitting that sometimes, things suck. It's about time we were honest about things.
I'm curious: what issues do you see with being honest about the ways that you failed, and how you're addressing them? I don't think it shows a lack of a filter, I think it shows an honesty and an awareness of my issues, and what I need to do to fix them.
I'm not particularly embarrassed by this article -- although it was hard to write -- and neither is the company that fired me (as they helped me write it). Although I do understand if you don't want to hire me after reading this.
I wrote at the bottom that they helped me write it. I literally showed early drafts of this to the guy that hired and fired me, and he urged me to be even more candid than I was originally. But then again, he has no problem admitting his own shortcomings either. For example:
I think the guy's shed any ... people who would think his lack of candor is a defect. You would not believe the amount of time this will save you in the long run.
Look, if you enjoy dysfunction have at it. But my experience is that you have to defend yourself from it, and the best defense is simply identifying it rather loudly.
There are many, many, MANY more people for whom you do not want to work than that you do want to work for.
I hope you're right -- that's one of the reasons I wrote this. Since when is self-awareness a bad thing?
I mean, generally speaking the type of people who think this post is a bad idea are the type of people who, when asked in an interview what their biggest weakness is, will say things like "I'm a perfectionist" or "I work too hard".
Those are ridiculous platitudes that anyone can see past. I'm much more impressed by the person who admits a real issue, how they identified it, and what they're doing to mitigate it.
I do have an idea. I first got involved in AI in the early 1980s, and worked on it on-and-off (mostly on) well into the 1990s. Some of the non-AI stuff I did back then is now, for reasons I can't quote fathom, classified as AI.
A certain amount of common-sense, and basic political knowledge, should have been included in the Tay. I don't think there's any way of avoiding it. I'm skeptical of general application of the recent "free lunch" approach to AI, and for higher-level AI prefer Doug Lenat's approach with Cyc.
Alternatively, if they wanted to avoid the effort of doing that, they could have just put up a souped-up Eliza variant. That wouldn't have impressed many people, but neither did Tay, and it wouldn't have offended anyone.
If you really are experienced as you say you are in AI, you wouldn't talk about these things as if they were easy to implement. I won't assume things but I can say I'm probably not so less experienced than yourself, and I know basically everything in this field belongs to "easier said than done" category. Most researchers just run experiments in closed environments just like you said and that's what makes them useless and out of touch with reality. For this reason I actually applaud MS guys for having the guts to do this in public. It's much better than them coming out with some lame, controlled environment "AI" which does exactly what its creators intended. It's not a "failure". It's a learning process. It's not like this chatbot went and killed anyone. Everyone knew it was a robot when they were engaging with it, which is not so different from watching a standup comedian making a racist joke on stage.
I never implied it was easy to implement. I also said I was skeptical of the recent "free lunch" approach to AI.
It was a failure. It didn't understand the remarks it was making, unlike a real Holocaust denier, a 4chan user, or a stand-up comic whose joke just fell flat.
Kids pick up words from adults. They too don't completely understand the words they use when they first start picking up and using new vocabulary but the usage tend to get calibrated based on social feedback.
Is it possible to create and verify a PayPal account against one of these cards? This would allow users to have pseudonymous PayPal accounts. It always bothers me when I go to make a donation that I have to give my real name.
Before deleting your account you should edit out and overwrite as much information as possible. Things like your name, e-mail, and any other fields should be falsified before deleting. You have no way of knowing if their "delete" mechanism just flips a deleted bit or if it actually erases your data.
The problem, in this case, is that the company might notify your employer that you're making those changes. Not sure what I'd do in this case. It might be worth creating some dummy accounts to see what actions actually trigger notifications.
It flips a delete bit. But here's the bigger problem: your pages return a 404 error page with status code 200, so Google takes a long time to clear them from their cache (real 404s clear semi-instantly).
I was banging my head against this earlier last week. It was such a jarring change to visit GitHub and not be able to navigate. It gives me pause to see how suddenly an easily-navigable site can become almost impenetrable with the removal of a single search bar. What are they thinking? The "Explore" menu is worse than useless, too.
It is an interesting case study in UX - the difference between a great experience and an awful one can come down to a single, well placed search box.
What is GitHub's rationale behind this jarringly awful, blatantly bad decision?
For me search if one of GitHub's key features. It's nice to take a look other people's code, explore other coding styles, find examples of library usage which is great for under documented code.
Unfortunately it does let you escape common characters that are common in code, doesn't give you the option of maintaining white space/line breaks in your query, doesn't let you search in other branches.
How are people able to develop on chromebook-like devices with 2GB RAM? I'm seeing a lot of such devices in this thread and don't understand it. Once I spin up a couple of database servers, a few Visual Studio solutions for the various products I work on, and a handful of testing tools I'm easily pushing 12GB ram or more.
Are these low-end machines being used as hobbyist or frontend-only web development? I can't think of any other explanation.
To answer the original question: Thinkpad X220. i7. Maxed out RAM. It's no portable workstation but I can push it just as hard without worrying about it overheating or failing.
Many people have their dev environments sitting on remote hardware and ssh in. Terminal sessions or an IDE aren't that resource-intensive, and that's all you need.
Yes. My laptop is not on the lowest end of the scale, but over the past week my IDE has alternated between vi and emacs on my VPS as I edit Python scripts. I don't need a lot of local power to do that - years ago I was doing that type of thing from VT100 terminals.
You don't even have to offload the processing to a server unless you're working with a compiled language. Python/ruby/node/any other interpreted language plus PostgreSQL, plus a text editor like atom, plus a couple browser tabs should all run together just fine on a chomebook. I was comfortable running a setup like that 5 years ago a single core 1.6ghz atom netbook. Nowadays my cell phone probably has enough raw horsepower to run all that, compatibility issues aside.
One man's "saving money" is another man's "robbery".
Set up a scheduled transfer from your checking account to your own savings account if you can't manage your own money. Don't encourage these kind of rip-off merchants.
I am also concerned about the quality of the tooling. DNX can't handle long paths so I have to develop out of C: drive. This reminds me of Node's almost incompatibility with Windows and makes me worry that the tools haven't been thoroughly tested. DNX is going to be replaced yet again in the near future with a newer, probably less tested set of tools.
On top of that the tooling doesn't work well in enterprise because they have poor proxy support. I'm also worried about "everything is a collection of hundreds of tiny packages", the NPM dramas have shown us that micropackages lead to insanity. ASP.NET was a place to hide away from those kinds of things. Now it feels like it's "C#, as developed by the node community". I think they've tried to make things simple but haven't seen the forest for the trees. The fact that they're bundling dead tools like Bower into the project templates is also worrying. They should have had the forethought not to include any JS libraries that have a high churn rate.
One final thing bothering me is the number of choices of the target framework. Why have there been so many meaningless names like "dnx451", "netstandard", "netcore10"? I sit down to make a web app, and I have no clue what I actually need to target. In the old days we'd pick a .NET framework version and choose either the compact or complete framework. When did this become rocket science?