I came here to ask about submitting to the App Store. Does this mean that a Mac is, technically, no longer required for the entire process of development -> release of iOS apps?
You'd probably want to performance test your app with a full MacOS compile, but the whole UI implementation, function and experience testing can be done without a Mac. And you need a Mac for deploying to the store.
I think this is humorous, and, in a way, brutal. Keep in mind it's not an official document from Postgres but rather just a guy who is big on Postgres writing a funny, and yes, snarky response to Uber. He makes some decent points, if not about the technologies themselves, about people switching to something more or less equivalent for reasons that could easily be interpreted as more gut reactions than solid business and tech necessities.
To me, Uber acted as though someone bought a Honda and it had some mechanical issues (and no seat heat), so he went apeshit, drove it off a cliff, then bought a Toyota thinking he will never have that problem again.
I don't see many people using Edge. I mostly don't have any problems now that it has extensions for ad block and lastpass. Sometimes opening a new tab just mysteriously doesn't work (it sits with the tab open doing nothing) or the website barely works without Edge freezing up (CarMax.com).
It would be nice if there were a feature built in to phones to facilitate this. Like, on the lock screen, an emergency wipe button that runs a procedure you specify (log you out of everything, obfuscate which services you subscribe to, etc) and this way as you're going through customs, you can gauge your risk and at any point you feel uncomfortable, you discreetly click your button before smoothly handing over your phone and password with a warm smile.
This suggestion comes up in every single thread. Consider that when such an obvious gambit seems to exist you're almost certainly not the first person to have come up with it, and there's a reason it hasn't already taken off.
Other commenters have already explained it to you. Reviewing existing knowledge on popular topics will often save you time and increase the enjoyment of participating.
So clearly you're here just to call me out, so it's funny you should bring up time saving.
Other commenters on my comment have not provided a good reason. Like I said, I walk through customs and passport control with my phone in my hand all the time (20 or so trips per year) and could easily click this button the instant something unusual happens.
The area you are frog marched into is strictly no devices allowed, if they see you with any electronics in your hand you will be pounced upon. This is very obviously because people try to destroy evidence they have on their devices once they discover they are screwed.
Nah, I'm sayin the area leading up to passport control or in the baggage claim area. I realize once you're sure something sketchy is happening, there's no actions left to take anymore. I pretty much have my phone out and in my left hand 100% of the time I'm in airports/planes, so nothing suspicious about right as someone's coming up to you or right as you walk up to a CBP officer you just tap a button.
They claim to be device free, but yet everyone has their phones out texting and doing email as they wait in line. I've never seen a border agent even say anything, much less march someone away.
As long as you aren't taking pictures of the procedures they don't really care.
The waiting line for immigration/customs is not the area I'm talking about, this area is where you go once you fail the initial screening. In some international airports like Sydney you will receive a $300 on the spot fine if you have your phone in your hand, they're serious about it.
Australia does have some outrageous laws, so I suppose they want you not to be destroying the things that are governed by those laws on your phone. But I'd rather take the fine than have them find out, if I had such things.
Why don't they just use kinetic energy from the movement of your arm like mechanical watches have been doing for many decades now? Surely it's easier and more of it.
"We banned any package containing Angular 1.x. We received a security report. One that we were asked not to share with you, one that we didn't even mention, we just went ahead and implemented the ban, didn't tell anybody."
Same here, version 53.0.2785.143 m (64-bit), which is the latest according to Wikipedia. Also my webGL is enabled according to chrome://gpu. Running on Windows 8, no other GFX issues. Firefox works though. :/
> Engineers are hired to create business value, not to program things
So is every employee of every company. They create business value by doing what their role is. This is the point of a company, this is how it's always worked. The role of a programmer is to program things. So a programmer programs things, and that is what they are hired for.
Why do we constantly get blog posts discussing ridiculous semantics like this?
Sure, it might work for some companies, but that's so utterly unimportant. I'm a programmer, I tell people I'm a programmer, I'm paid to program business applications, and I'm happily employed and liked by my superiors and company. Clearly this line of thought also works fine.
So maybe the best advice is to just do what you do, call yourself whatever, and cut it with these self-important blog posts preaching your way to everyone else as though it's some holy advice on cracking the employment puzzle.
Semantics matter. Especially when you're trying to sell something, such as your skill set. Ever had to lobby your idea or project to a non-technical decision maker? You can't whip out the technical jargon and explain in minute detail why your solution is obviously the correct one. The non-technical decision maker is going to gravitate toward the option that is wrapped in the most appealing narrative - hence the semantics.
That's great that your happily employed and are well established in your company. I'm not. And a big junk of the problem is because of what Patrick discusses in that post. I'm an engineer who was hired to work in what is perceived as a cost center. Because of that, many of my solutions to problems are only allowed to be half implemented or they slide lower and lower down the priority list as more urgent tasks come up. The only reason they're more urgent is because someone can directly tie them to making money. Telling someone you "program" things doesn't tell them what value you bring to the table.
I wish I'd read this post 5 years ago when it was published and I might not be in such a sticky situation.
> Ever had to lobby your idea or project to a non-technical decision maker?
This is actually my job; I'm an architect and I interface a programming team with non-technical superiors (I simplified my position previously to make a point).
Part of my spiel in talking to non-technical superiors is being straightforward and bullshit-free. If something's a program, I call it a program, not a solution, business lalaploo, schpleplipagan, or quilbilbalala wrapped in bacon. It's a program, and it's programmed by programmers who are hired to program and spend their time programming. My non-technical superiors cherish this directness and lack of semantically loaded garbage. They "gravitate" towards the most clear and well-put solution, and part of that is not to wrap it in any narrative whatsoever, but to tell them straight up what the situation is. By wrapping something in a narrative, and trying to make it seem more than it is, it starts sounding less like professionalism and more like philosophy, and you instantly set off my bullshit detectors (and those of my superiors too). It starts smelling of indirectness and ulterior motives.
And this goes the other way too--when hiring someone, I'm hiring a programmer. Not an artist or philosopher who can tell me what silly billy value they add to my company. I decide what value they add; if they add any at all, it's the value of the programs they program (don't take that the wrong way--this is a lot of value, and I appreciate it fully, but it's still programming programs--the programs are the vehicle with which they add value).
I'm at a rather large company and management doesn't understand enough about what they're doing to know exactly what provides value and what doesn't, much less who is providing that value. I'm guessing once a company reaches a certain size, a lot of that becomes illegible.
I prefer to be direct and as clear as possible, but that hasn't been what's gotten me results. I watched how others (more senior engineers) were able to influence decisions and found that they were some of the best bullshit artists I've ever seen. So I adapted how I communicated as much as possible without compromising my ethics. I'm leaving my company, hopefully to join a company more like yours.
Yeah, maybe I do lack some perspective having never worked for a truly giant company. My parents both work at massive banks (in technology, in fact, my dad has almost the same job as I do), and a lot of what they talk about is how much politics they have to do on a daily basis that has nothing to do with their job, but rather just appeasing golden retrievers with treats and belly rubs.
But then, this goes even further to show how every situation is different and there's no umbrella of advice that works for employment.
You should of course do what you believe is best for your situation.
Patrick's observations are still useful, though. The semantics aren't ridiculous. They're a very real distinction, and they matter...especially if you're looking to move into contracting/consulting. If you find yourself doing that, it helps if you can position yourself farther up the value chain. In this situation, it helps to be able to describe yourself who understands business, communicates well, and can talk to a customer, understand their problem, and solve it. Having the ability to understand a business's problems and create software to solve those problems can give you a pretty significant advantage.
But this means you're not a programmer. If you understand a business's problems and create software to solve those problems, you've already moved higher up in the ranks than a programmer, so of course, call yourself whatever your title is (architect, engineer, director, whatever).
> Why do we constantly get blog posts discussing ridiculous semantics like this?
Because many people (especially early in their careers) don't understand that. I didn't. I was hired to program, so I'd program, but I had no idea what the connection was between my work and people sending the company money.
That sounds like a bigger issue--being oblivious to what your role is/how companies work. No amount of re-naming/re-titling yourself will fix that. A name is just a name; it's what you do that matters.
I doubt that very much: hippos are extremely aggressive and dangerous. They are the number 2 most deadly animals (by fatalities per year). Number 1 is the mosquito
