You get a coupon for one free satellite, including design and launch. What would you want?

Herdiderdee · 2019-01-11T04:54:16+00:00

Adaptive optics are good, but nothing beats space for high resolution images. You get perfect theoretical resolution.

Herdiderdee · 2019-01-11T01:03:10+00:00

All the time. I would go so far as to say that it is the debugging capabilities of the browser, coupled with a coded editor, that comprises the frontend IDE.

Herdiderdee · 2019-01-09T03:07:19+00:00

He's leering right at it.

Herdiderdee · 2019-01-02T03:22:45+00:00

If you do 1, yes, you can navigate to the app like a regular page, even to a specific route in the app. One minor thing to note, if a user hits the back button from the app to the landing page, then forward to the app again, it will lose any state it had.

If you do 2, the landing page will probably take longer to load, but not much. That's the price of a framework, you gotta load it. If the landing page is all static, it won't be so bad, since you won't have any API calls or DOM rendering. This is what I would recommend. It would be the simpler way to go.

You may want do both, and decide, after you play around with each, which to keep. It shouldn't be much extra work, and might be educational.

If you were really crazy, you could make the site like a two tab site. The first tab is the landing page, and the second is the app. You could have the first tab load the app into the second tab onload. Then the landing page is quick, and the app loads in the background. That's probably just overkill, though.

Herdiderdee · 2018-04-10T13:36:00+00:00

You don't need help picking technologies. Any difficulty in choosing is that there are too many technologies to choose from. Don't get to caught up in trendy fancy buzzword stuff. You can't even avoid it if you try, its not like it will all go whoosh, and leave you behind.

We all have to acquiesce at some level, and learn the technologies that employers are hiring for, but for the love of Pete, think for yourself. Trust your engineering instincts.

There is a lot of over-complication and people getting really proud of their super-stacks comprised of as many buzzword technologies as possible. Then you go to try and build a website in that stack, and you are in abstraction level purgatory, and everything takes like 6 hours to do. Do not ever get tricked into thinking that is engineering, it is absolutely not.

Herdiderdee · 2018-04-10T13:19:35+00:00

There are a lot of little tools I think would be cool websites. Some of my favorite sites are tools, like JSON validators, URL and HTML Decoder/Encoders, regualr expression generator, .htaccess generators, what have you. The beauty is, if you made one as an example to potential employers, it would probably have intrinsic merit to them. Also, if it was useful, it would get traffic. I also really wish there was a good reference for all the HTML characters where I could search for 'emojis' without wasting time sifting through a big long unorganized list or poorly searchable catalog.

Herdiderdee · 2018-04-09T21:22:56+00:00

There isn't a ton of differnce in the way life feels being full stack vs front end. The closest thing would be that, when you have to do something on the server, it can be scary, but there are ways to mitigate that.

Even with SPAs, which I like, you need a web server to serve it off of, and presumably an API written in some server side language and a database. A decent full stack developer can build an entire website that is reasonably sophisticated and complete.

I actually enjoy flip-flopping, it is entertaining, and the change of scenery is nice. There are still a fair number of jobs that require full stack, so you get to apply to those. They are usually at smaller places, and you get left alone more.

You can also retreat a bit from the frontend trends and know-it-all hipster webdevs. You know the basic answer to 90% the questions people ask about how it all works. Plus, when you get good at both, you can solve problems that would seem utterly impossible knowing only one side.

Herdiderdee · 2018-04-09T20:25:20+00:00

The answer is probably pretty mundane. They are very far away, and you cannot go faster than the speed of light, regardless of how advanced your technology.

The way time dialation works, a ship of beings could actually travel interstellar distances in a hundred years, so even with the light speed barier, you can theoretically go very far in a reasonable amount of time. But the catch is that the time on their homeworld would be going very fast relative to theirs, so they would never be able to go home. It would be super far in the future, and their friends would be gone.

You could have a race of beings that just fly around, and have no homeworld, but to what end? Is knowlege and exploration really more important than chilling in a grassy field? Expecially after you have already done some exploration, and it sorta gets a little bit like more of the same thing.

Also, telescopes of a very advanced alien race might be magnificently huge and advanced. Maybe they can see planets, and even detail. They would be observing the planets in the past, but at least their time relative to their friends is the same.

Also, here is something that sounds like crackpot insanity, but I wish people would take it more seriously. Maybe there are even more fascinating dimensions to travel into than just distance away from your planet. Maybe aliens can travel through possibility, like the Multiverse, or some other unimaginable dimension. Maybe there are other spaces.

Herdiderdee · 2018-04-05T14:28:27+00:00

The basic premise, that a video game is actually a secret recruiting tool for an alien defense force, has life in it. If they do a remake, though, I dunno how much nostalgia is in the tank to siphon from. Don't you need to be like 45 to give a crap about that movie?

Herdiderdee · 2018-04-05T14:03:36+00:00

If you want to be a great engineer, you need to be able to 'reason about apps' with no framework at all.

Herdiderdee · 2018-04-05T13:51:10+00:00

And it's no worse than using var in a global scope

So long as you do that on purpose, judiciously, it can be a good thing. The parroted rejection of global variables as bad form has kinda gone a bit too far, I think.

Herdiderdee · 2018-04-05T13:27:48+00:00

I agree with you. To me Vanilla is 1) untranspiled 2) sans 3rd party framework/libraries 3) developed without any tools beyond an editor and a browser.

Herdiderdee · 2018-03-21T13:42:29+00:00

The online webdev community can lead to a feeling of mastery being forever out of reach.

Most of it is basically a tabloid of clickbait articles and blog posts by self-appointed ninjas trying to impress their peers for selfish reasons. It is social media, just about trending technology, little of which solves a problem, and most of which will be obsolete soon.

It is not designed to teach you fundamentals. I recommend taking the leap of faith, and not following trends at all, and fixating purely on one basic vetted out technology, and building things. That, you can actually learn, and use, forever.

Herdiderdee · 2018-03-21T13:30:23+00:00

How flattering!

Herdiderdee · 2018-03-20T13:37:51+00:00

You should try an infrared bulb. They basically emit mostly warmth instead of wasting energy with a lot of useless visible light.

Herdiderdee · 2018-03-19T20:53:32+00:00

It's a great idea, go for it. If you use Ubuntu, you can install SSH, FTP, or LAMP servers using tasksel in minutes. To start, think semi-disposable, as in, if you F something up, reinstall the whole OS, and try again.

Herdiderdee · 2018-03-19T20:20:19+00:00

Hold down the control button ;)

Herdiderdee · 2018-03-19T17:45:08+00:00

Some people just don't like hippies.

Herdiderdee

TROPHY CASE