Look at your analytics and see which browsers your users are using. Sometimes, I’ve worked on apps without a big userbase but we had to support IE because a big percentage used it.
You’ll probably find out that you don’t have too many browsers that actually matter.
Can’t believe they didn’t include “intimate partner violence”. OK, I can believe it but it’s the dumbest, least understood term I’ve ever come across.
For nstance, IPV usually doesn’t involve “violence” or at least what normal people consider violence (ie Punchin, kicking, slapping, etc…). IPV is more often financial or mental abuse.
As someone who started off in Ember and then began developing in React: I've never liked React Router. IMO, the url is best treated as data because it doesn't work well as part of the presentation layer.
The interesting part (for me) is that I'm pretty locked into React because of Shopify's Polaris project.
I know one insider at Meta that I could ask about this. I suspect they can't really retain talent like they used to.
The only other anecdote I have is an acquaintance who was early (i.e. the first web-dev) at YouTube. He _hated_ working for Google and left as soon as his shares vested. That was my first experience with someone simply rejecting a fat paycheck because _Google_ was to buttoned down for them.
People are strange (and software engineers are a whole different level of people).
> He _hated_ working for Google and left as soon as his shares vested. That was my first experience with someone simply rejecting a fat paycheck because _Google_ was to buttoned down for them.
It's easier to reject a fat paycheck after your shares vest, I imagine.
What valuation? Per the article, it's being delisted and taken private. Which, may attract talent who wants to build something for the long term rather than being pinned to quarterly reports.
My money would be on software developers with certain personality quirks being drawn to Musk's leadership while those who have been building Twitter's compliance and moderation infrastructure would be repulsed. But, I don't think we'll really ever know because - as a private company - I expect Twitter to not disclose that information in the future.
Maybe - they better make sure to negotiate a killer employee contract given they won't be getting stock which is fungible. BTW - all software developers have certain personality quirks:)
I have zero information on how X (i.e. Musk's holding company for Twitter) is structured but it's possible to issue stock in a private company. The difference is that you cannot sell that stock on the public markets and need to find a buyer through a secondary market. Your requirements for selling are also typically more restricted.
I think this is a huge part of his success. That clarity makes buying simpler for customers. You get the color that your device is supposed to be. Period.
The techspec page for the product is buried on the Apple Store app. Personalities such as MKBHD on YT is who I rely on to figure out what the product is targetted at.
You ain't kidding. Jobs gave people the choice of good, better, or best. That was it. 3 options and you probably already knew which one you were walking out with.
My first impression of OP’s post was that it’s not going to be supported by corporate culture. Optimizing for quarterly profit isn’t going to align with an employee optimizing for personal excellence.
Seems to me that the most important step will be to find a vocation where your goals a few allignrd with the bottom line.
I really doubt it[0]. Not your point but the fact that having employees sharp and excited about mastery is probably gonna push everything up to 11 (granted people are mature enough not to go rockstar). When you rise above a certain skill level on a topic, things become playful, creative, quality gets regularly high. What's not to like for a short termist corp ?
[0] I only pushed high perf in small jobs, not in programming so I can't speak with a lot of confidence. But in some clerk duties, what took 3 weeks became 3 days and a half (2 days the next time because it took me 1 day to converge on high speed layouts).
This reminds me of a job I had while starting my first business after college. I was a bar-tender for a catering company. We did a lot of fancy parties so a big part of my job was pouring Champaign and putting it on a tray for the servers to pass around. After a few months, I could pop a bottle and pour six flutes that were all exactly the same height without leaving a drop in the bottle.
Thanks both for the interesting discussion! I think this cuts both ways - yes, I believe it is possible to strive for improvement in any job, and most jobs would welcome this. That being said, alignment with the impact you want to have and what the company cares about is also very important. You can be the best children's tobacco salesman (?) in the world, but I imagine you'll always feel like you're missing something.
> Seems to me that the most important step will be to find a vocation where your goals a few allignrd with the bottom line.
I agree with this, I actually spent a lot of time making this happen and am happy with how it turned out :)
I only watch the pbs news hour and remember Fauchi talking about masks at this time. He never claimed they didn’t work and always pointed out it was about preserving the supply.
I suspect other news outlets didn’t give their viewers the full story. But, I’ll never know because I can’t stand most of the news.
From a quick search of news at the time, it does seem like it was a bit more nuanced than I remembered, but probably still confusing enough for the average person that they wouldn't really know what was best. I found this PBS article from the end of March 2020 (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/should-you-wear-mask-in-...), which showed a spectrum of recommendations:
> “Seriously people – STOP BUYING MASKS!” Surgeon General Jerome Adams wrote in a February 29 tweet. “They are not effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk.”
> Earlier in the day, Dr. Anthony Fauci, infectious disease chief at the U.S. National Institutes of Health, had told CNN that once there are enough masks, there might be “some very serious consideration” about broadening the mask recommendations.
> For now, the advice posted on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s website: “If you are NOT sick: You do not need to wear a face mask unless you are caring for someone who is sick (and they are not able to wear a face mask).”
The first quote makes it clear that the concern is about the supply for healthcare, but saying "they are not effective in preventing the general public from catching coronavirus" probably did not make it easier to convince people to wear masks a couple months later; regardless of the technical meaning behind it, I think most people would read that and boil it down to just remembering "masks don't help" without the context behind it. On the other hand, while the final quote doesn't go as far as saying they don't help, it doesn't give the context about the priority in conserving masks for healthcare facilities, so it seems likely some people would find it confusing later when the recommendation changed without context for why. Ideally, people would be getting information from a variety of sources, see some form of all three quotes above and understand the whole picture, but it seems like a losing strategy to rely on this; it seems like having more cohesive messaging around this would have been more effective, but that's hard to do even in a vaccuum, let alone in a high pressure situation with a bunch of people who probably never had had to collaborate this heavily before.
> “In fact, there’s some evidence to suggest the opposite,” he added, noting risks from an improperly fitted mask or touching the face while taking it off or putting it on.
it's hard to remember what our state of mind was back then. Hillary Clinton wrote a book in 2015 as she was preparing to run for president. She dedicated a chapter to PPE and was very interested in funding research into helping doctors get PPE on and off more safely. Those were the learnings taken from the Ebola outbreak where taking off your PPE improperly could get you infected.
We know know that Covid isn't really transmitted by touching your face so much as from the arousals that we breath. But, back then, people were still in the Ebola mindset of "don't touch your face."
You’ll probably find out that you don’t have too many browsers that actually matter.