Being an intern is a huge bonus here. My wife got a decent equity grant under the terrible 5/15/../.. plan, but also a 20k cash bonus for each of the first two years for being a returning intern.
This makes it very attractive to quit after two years, imo
No it was a serious question. I read his very short manifesto and didn't see any mention of 8chan or obvious online sources of his extremism. I'll read more into it...
By this logic, everything is brilliant until it's not. That's not a good way to define "brilliant". Actions that eventually net undesirable consequences are stupid, not brilliant.
E.g. Being a petty armed bank robber isn't brilliant until you get caught.
> Actions that eventually net undesirable consequences are stupid, not brilliant.
I think it depends on how predictable the consequences are (it may be brilliant, or at least smart, to act in a way that offers a small possibility of an undesireable consequence in return for a large possibility of a highly desireable one), and on how long the time horizon is (it may be brilliant, or at least smart, to act in a way that offers certain undesireable consequences much later in return for certain desireable consequences for a long time before that). To overstate the objection, all actions eventually result in death, which is presumably undesireable.
Accessible design tends to be easier to read in general, helping everyone. Non-blind people may like to use a screen reader so they can do stuff by ear. I suspect a lot of HN readers like to navigate web sites by keyboard, something a lot of sites fail at and something accessibility design ensures. Lots of people who would never describe themselves as "disabled" require corrective lenses and accessibility can help them when their glasses are in the next room. And everyone will reach that point eventually, unless they die young. So my post was not 100% correct. There are some people who do not benefit from accessibility at all: those who are in excellent health and will die a sudden death before they age too much.
More discussion about how both digital and physical accessibility helps everyone:
> Accessible design tends to be easier to read in general, helping everyone.
This is not necessarily so.
I develop mobile apps for a large corp. Our designers are often told by the accessibility team to change their design in ways that make the more accessible, but reduce the usability for normal users.
I'm talking about simple controls that most people take for granted, like date/time pickers, carousels etc.
Glad to be of service. It's not obvious if you don't already know about it, but once you do, you start to see how "accessibility" is so much more than "accommodate a few disabled people."
What about your older customers? I have it on good authority old people also enjoy pizza.
And how do you know you're not going to need that accessibility when you least expect it? You don't wake up expecting a retinal detachment or an accident, but sometimes shit happens.
And, though I'm a designer and not a developer, accessibility has had a strong correlation with technical debt. Semantic class names, well structured HTML, not rendering your headline fonts as a bitmap so you can have your on-brand typeface…accessible code tends to go along with resilient code.
1336X768 laptop and desktop screens which are unreadable in natural light are still sold in India. Our designer made a UI with white on wine-red and and it was a pixelated mess bleeding into the background on our developers' machines.
It doesn't, but even that person might need accessibility tomorrow — like literally tomorrow. I suspect that most anyone who breaks their leg quickly becomes a fan of the ADA.
